The Biblical Adam and Eve were real people

First and Foremost, I want to thank my Lord & Savior Jesus Christ for blessing me with the chance to represent him. I also want to thank Con for his opening argument and sharing his beliefs in this debate. Allow me to open up by showing an error in Con's opening statement, "I will be arguing that it is scientifically, logically, and historically impossible that the Biblical Adam and Eve ever existed in the real world. " Understand that Con cannot rationally say it's impossible scientifically because that which is determine scientific requires observation. The meaning of science is, knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation. . http://www.merriam-webster.com.... Unless Con was actually there observing these events unfold with actual facts learned through experiments he cannot logically conclude that such events are impossible. I also like to make known that Con's sources number 3, 4, & 10 do not open up for me. Con stated,1. Fossils The general consensus is that Adam and Eve were created several millennia ago, around 4000 BC [1]. If they were the first man and woman, then how does one account for the multitudes of fossils found by archaeologists dating long before that, which are very clearly human? Take some of the earlier human fossils dating from the Mesolithic era. According to Google search "The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. " But it also states that, "Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 or as Con states it, "radiocarbon" methods and require radiometric dating. . https://www.google.com... client=opera&q=methods+of+dating+fossils&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 So Con's opening argument concerning the dating of these fossils fails because if these fossils are millions of years old the dating method archaeologist prefer to use cannot be used. So his argument concerning fossils dating from the Mesolithic era fails as well. Also let me emphasize that the fossil record is a unreliable method to determine how we evolved through natural selection because when a fossil is found one cannot determine what the fossil evolved from and what it evolved to. Unless we have observable evidence of these evolutionary changes actually happened in nature these determinations are only assumptions. Allow me to say that for the sake of space and how we are limited to a number of words in each round for me to answer Con's arguments, I would number his argument and offer my rebuttal. 2. Incest A common misconception among Biblical critics is that Adam and Eve were the only two populating the world. They ask this common question, If Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Able, then Cain killed Able and knew his wife, where did his wife come from? There are multiple scriptures that answers this question. Genesis 5:4 King James Version (KJV) 4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: . https://www.biblegateway.com... Also study Luke 3:36-38 it gives us there names . https://www.biblegateway.com... As we can clearly see Adam begot other sons and daughters, so the argument that their was only two populating the earth fails. Now lets move on the problems of incest being morally wrong and interbreeding disorders. In my research I found this interesting article in Bible. org which states, "As to incest, it was not considered a sin and was not prohibited for Adam and early man. If the race was to populate and fulfill the command of Gen. 1:28, there is little doubt that Adam"s sons and daughters had to have married their own sisters and brothers if the race was to populate the earth, but due to the purity of the race as evidenced also by the long length of life, there were no adverse effects as we see happening today. Gradually, as the effects of sin took its toll on the human race, marrying one"s own sister, etc. , began to create hereditary problems. We know that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters in addition to Abel, Cain, and Seth (Gen. 5:4), and if there was only one original family, then the first marriages had to be between brothers and sisters. Such marriages in the beginning were not harmful. Incest is dangerous because inherited mutant genes that produce deformed, sickly, or moronic children are more likely to find expression in children if those genes are carried by both parents. Certainly, Adam and Eve, coming from the creative hand of God, had no such mutant genes. Therefore, marriages between brothers and sisters, or nieces and nephews in the first and second generations following Adam and Eve would not have been dangerous. Therefore when Con states, "God cannot have created a wife for Cain, so we are left with two options: 1. Cain married his sister, or more disturbingly, 2. Cain married Eve herself. Both of these options are vile sins according to the Laws of Moses. For the sake of space, If God is willing, In my next round I will refute more of Con's opening arguments in the next round as more space is permitted for me to do especially 3. Evolution and 4. Aging arguments.