The Biblical Adam and Eve were real people

Con should not win this debate, he have broken the cardinal debate rule, never let your opponent use your own source against you. I will use Con's own source to bring his entire argument to nothing. Con posted 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 [2]. Not only do they date back long before Eden supposedly existed, but they were found in regions all over the world, not just the Fertile Crescent. The modern human species, Homo sapiens, first developed from Homo heidelbergensis from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago [3]. We are, in fact, part of a great evolutionary tree of subhuman species, including Neanderthalis, Erectus, and Habilis. We know this because scientists use fossil records to trace changes in anatomy, diet, brain size, and migratory patterns through these "breeds" of human back to our ape ancestors [4]. The overwhelming majority of scientists support these records as factual, since their age was determined with radiocarbon dating, an extremely reliable method of measuring how long ago an organism was alive [5]. Since they clearly contradict Scripture, Pro must argue that either the records are unreliable, or the scientists are. Con's own source:http://www.infoplease.com... says, Our Common Ancestor Most scientists believe our common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Then two species broke off into separate lineages, one ultimately evolving into gorillas and chimps, the other evolving into early humans called hominids. In the millions of years that followed, at least a dozen different species of humanlike creatures have existed, reflected in the fossil discoveries of paleoanthropologists, although many of these species are close relatives but not actual ancestors of modern humans. In fact, the fossil record does not represent a straight line of ancestry at all; many of these early hominids left no descendents and simply died out. Con stated, "Since they clearly contradict Scripture, Pro must argue that either the records are unreliable, or the scientists are." How about a 3rd option the only thing that's unreliable in the case above is Con's interpretation of the evidence. Clearly Con is misinformed. Con posted 3. Evolution Evolution is a scientific fact. Con's own source:http://www.infoplease.com... says, Only a Theory? Some people dismiss evolution as "just a theory." Evolution is in fact a theory, a scientific theory. Again Con is misinformed of his own source he used. Con stated: 3. Evolution The fossil evidence I mentioned earlier lends great support to evolution, as well as the similarities of the human genome to those of primates, particularly the chimpanzee [10]. As many know, there is only a small percentage of difference in DNA between the human and chimp. This fact, combined with the numerous fossils leading back to Africa, shows that we are very closely related to the great apes, and in fact belong in the primate family. The empirical proof is so overwhelming that evolution cannot be described as a mere theory, but as an undeniable truth. Again Con's own source brings his interpretations to waste, http://www.infoplease.com... says, The Relationship between Apes and Humans Since scientists developed the ability to decode the genome and compare the genetic makeup of species, some people have been stunned to learn that about 98.5% of the genes in people and chimpanzees are identical. This finding means chimps are the closest living biological relatives to humans, but it does not mean that humans evolved from chimps. What it does indicate is that humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes (i.e., gorillas and chimpanzees), making us very, very distant cousins. We are therefore related to these other living primates, but we did not descend from them. Modern humans differ from apes in many significant ways. Human brains are larger and more complex; people have elaborate forms of communication and culture; and people habitually walk upright, can manipulate very small objects, and can speak. Con stated 1. Fossils The modern human species, Homo sapiens, first developed from Homo heidelbergensis from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago [3]. We are, in fact, part of a great evolutionary tree of subhuman species, including Neanderthalis, Erectus, and Habilis. We know this because scientists use fossil records to trace changes in anatomy, diet, brain size, and migratory patterns through these "breeds" of human back to our ape ancestors [4]. The overwhelming majority of scientists support these records as factual, Con's own source:http://www.infoplease.com... says, The name australopithecine means "southern ape," in reference to South Africa where the first known fossils were found. According to Con's own source, not only does he have our first common ancestor wrong, when he stated, "We know this because scientists use fossil records to trace changes in anatomy, diet, brain size, and migratory patterns through these "breeds" of human back to our ape ancestors. He got that wrong as well because his source states:Australopithecines: The very early years of the transition from ape to human, from 6 million to 4 million years ago, is poorly documented in the fossil record. Now Con have gracefully conceded portions of his incest argument when Romans 5:12-14 debunked his interpretation of the scriptures. Now he should gracefully concede this debate as the gross misinterpretation of his own source data consistently brings his entire case to absolutely nothing. Con accused me of borderline plagiarism stating, "He gave a total of six consecutive paragraphs ripped directly from the article. This is unnecessary, irrelevant to the debate, and borders on plagiarism." First of all Con it is not plagiarism if you acknowledge the source. Your accusation would have been valid had I ripped the paragraphs, without acknowledging the source, and pond it off like it was my own. But as we can clearly observe I acknowledged all three sources in my rebuttal. 2. Wikipedia is not an article or a peer review, it is a free encyclopedia that gives definitions and meanings to words. With such overwhelming contradictions from Con's own sources debunking his arguments, consider these three options: 1.Either Con didn't read his own sources altogether! 2.Con did read his sources but manipulated the evidence for the sake of winning a debate! 3. Con underestimated me that I would actually take the time to study his sources and turn it against him. I think its a combination of 2 & 3. Nevertheless nothing Con argued should be trusted in this debate. Conclusion: According to Con's grossly misinterpreted arguments, I find no reason to believe nothing he says, let alone the Biblical Adam and Eve were not real people. The Biblical account of the origins of Adam and Eve is very viable, rather your an Atheist, Evolutionist, or Christian, we all must come to the conclusion that we had to have a beginning, a starting point in human history and that is what Genesis provides, a rational revelation about the beginning of our human history. So tell me logically, who have the most reliable information we should trust? The second-hand information of mankind who uses amazing technology in an attempt to understand the universe. Or the eye-witness information from the one who created it all. Rationally, I choose the eye-witness information. In closing, I want to thank Con for a spirited debate and good sportsmanship, I encourage voters to vote for Pro as the clear winner of this debate. If any of you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Good luck in the voting Con.