Adam And Eve Story In The Bible Never Happened

BOP Well, if you never said it, that’s not my fault but yours. There is no reason to give me a burden that I never claimed. How would you like it if someone required you to prove something not initially required, say prove to me there is a teapot in the center of the universe. The topic is clear, “Adam and Eve Story in the Bible Never Happened” so pro is required to prove that it never happened, but it does not mean that Con is required to prove that it DID happen. I think you’re trying to even the BOP because you’re no longer confident, that you can’t bear the thought that science might be wrong. For if you were confident that science could disprove the Bible, why require the burden on me? I recognize that it’s possible for me to be wrong in what I believe, but it’s kind of like absolute time and space: Both classical mechanics and special relativity does contradict, which means one is wrong, but they both work well enough which is why scientist believe both. Likewise the Bible works well for me personally, which is why I believe in it. 1 My position is that science is possibly wrong, not that it’s always wrong. Honestly I do believe some theories are true, but I don’t believe all of them, I’m skeptical. E=mc2 may very well be true. My case does not deny the possibility, so my argument is not invalid. Dating is knowingly a fallible science. If you want to get on a technical scale an example of a technique they don’t use anymore is uranium-helium because it’s considered unreliable now (helium atom diffuses easily). On an overall scale the ICR link I brought up mentioned that the dating was officially fallible, it’s telling the truth, their sources are good. And I would be a fool to think I could disprove the science, because the science is infallible to the utter point it’s not falsifiable. For If I brought up one piece of evidence against it, then you would simply say it was contaminated or a scientist made a mistake. Or if I claimed that data could be contaminated, how could I prove that for I’m not as old as the claims, so I don’t know the true age. It’s literally impossible to disprove his evidence in a debate because the science is just enough unreliable to be neither proven nor disproven. It’s unfair for me because I don’t have the capacity to falsify it, no one does. Therefore the evidence should be rejected. 2 If you’re saying we should accept science on the benefits to society, this argument does not apply to all science theory. Evolution and dating does not medicate anyone, it doesn’t improve anything. They can be a negative, such as evolution has rationalized racism to the Nazis and their Aryan race. Dating has wasted so much precious debate time where it would be better for a person to enjoy hours of Skyrim then debating it, because there is no way to know how old the earth is for certain. I know that humans don’t live as old as they use to, it’s written that their age has been modified by God (Gen 6:3) and I don’t know what your meaning by the Adam[f], ribs[g], rib[h]. He took a rib from man and put it into woman. While I thought about refuting all them in detail, I do know there is an explanation to some of the verses (e.g. they classified bats differently than we do today, birds to them probably meant something like winged creatures. Pluto use to be a planet until it was reclassified, now it’s not a planet. Classification is subjective). But I would like to point out the vanity of pro’s philosophy, that “science can be wrong, but you need evidence to prove it wrong.” If we applied this to Bible verses, suppose you did find a few erroneous word, well congratulations for one word, now you got a million more of them to disprove. So you really can’t fully disprove that the Adam and Eve story never happened, even if you could prove a part of the Bible was with errors. So pro labors in vain trying to find a few verses to discredit the Bible because of his philosophy. It is perfectly fair and right to judge Science the same way as the Bible. You keep saying if you have enough evidence. When is enough evidence? If I tried to prove the earth was flat, I could have thousands of evidence from all over the earth to suggest it was flat by looking at the ground. But one evidence from space would smash all the evidence from the earth. Evidence quantity does not matter, the quality thereof does. And the evidence you provided to me is not quality, but not convincingly reliable. I’m sorry you were swept away by the folly of this world. For I do know that the lies are very convincing, but not provable. The Lord loves you and wants you. But if you don’t return, I still say be blessed with wisdom, that you can grow wiser. Philosophy is greater than science; wisdom better then knowledge. 3 Yes I know. But the BOP is not mine, but yours. Could you be right? Yes. Could you be wrong? Yes. The BOP is on YOU. 4 Not so certain about gravity’s existence, I think it’s an illusion. And the idea is starting to become popular in physics. Verlinde has gotten featured on Big Think (featured Bill Nye once), you can watch his 8 minute video that explains it. Know it sounds like madness, but its rational. http://youtu.be... Also, the Bible doesn’t mention gravity directly, so it’s not wrong on that basis. 6 If I’m blind it’s because the evidence is not empirical, I have no way of discerning it from lie or truth with the given evidence. It might be true or it might not be true, I have no reason to believe it over what I already do, so I don’t. One slave wrote on his tomb stone “Slavery was never unkind to me.” Some slaves wanted to be slaves even though they didn’t need to be because the master would offer securities (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) Also keep in made, despite the slave results, they were about abuses not their freedoms. Technically Christians are slaves because they serve a master without pay, and I want to be a Christian still because I like my master. See page 172: http://bit.ly... Also that link is talking mainly about Islamic slavery, which isn’t the best example of slavery (Not all slavery is good, some kinds are better than others). The Bible does state that if a slave runs from his master no one could return him (Deut 23:15-16) If you ran, you were practically free. But the argument is mute on disproving Adam and eve. Just because the bible disagrees with you on morality, does not mean you are right, it means it disagrees with you. So it’s still possible that the story happened. 8 I would like to see those 400,000 year old empirically based documents. How on earth could they possibly know that? Let me get this right, a species that could do art (a visual language) could not speak? I’m a little bit skeptical. 9 I’m kind of skeptical about that babel article, it’s not peer reviewed by any religious group. I was appealing to logic to point out that science can be wrong now. I didn’t want to simply say science has been wrong in the past from wisdom, but wanted to point out it can be wrong now too. You are assuming that science your arguing with is right. --------------------------------Thanks for reading this debate, it was a long one. Please vote for me, I’ll sum the reasons below1) Pro can’t prove science has disproven the Bible, because he can’t prove his evidence to be true, only assume it to be true. Science can be wrong.2) BOP is not on me but on Pro because he didn’t specify when the topic clearly implies that he has the BOP.3) His reasoning is fallacious, for it would be confirming the consequent. In which he didn’t disagree on.4) His evidence is not falsifiable.I would like to make clear. I don’t hate science, some science I do love and entertain. Pro is right in his assentation some science does have uses (medication) I simply don’t accept all of it, some of it's wrong.