The Biblical Adam and Eve were real people

Thank you for responding, Pro. However, I have spotted several flaws in your counter-argument. Let's take a look. "Con cannot rationally say it's impossible scientifically because that which is determine scientific requires observation." Here, Pro makes the common mistake of assuming that science is restricted only to observable, controlled experiments in a laboratory. But the "observations" of science are not limited only to what we can see with the naked eye. Scientists don't need to travel back in time to the Cretaceous period to know that dinosaurs existed, nor do they need to fly to the sun to know what elements it's composed of. We have petrified skeletons and spectrometers for that. In the same manner, we can look at already-existing archaeological and biological evidence, notice that the story of Adam and Eve contradicts this evidence, and conclude that the story is false. I must point out that Google itself is not a source, but a means to find sources. This, I believe, is the source Pro used to refute my point about radiocarbon dating: http://www.actionbioscience.org... And I must admit that I erred in terminology last round. I used the term "radiocarbon" when it should have been "radiometric". Radiocarbon dating is reserved for the later Stone Age fossils. Now that I've corrected myself, my point still stands. Both methods are seen as very accurate by all qualified scientists in the field of geology. [1] The only difference is precision. We know that humans and apes diverged somewhere in the vicinity of 4-5 million years ago based on radiometric dating, and we know the Dead Sea Scrolls are around 2000 years old based on radiocarbon dating. "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." We most certainly can determine what fossils evolved from and what they evolved into. Take a look at this map of fossil findings of several different species all over Africa and Eurasia, supported by findings from the National Geographic Society (check source number 2 for the full-size image if you can't see it): Here we see Australopithecus, with a skeleton that looks about halfway between ape and man, which lived in East Africa around 4 million years ago. Homo habilis lived in roughly the same area, up until 2 million years ago. At 1 million years ago, we see the Homo erectus species migrating all over the place, from North Africa to Europe to Asia to Indonesia. Fast forward to 600,000 years ago, and there are Homo heidelbergensis fossils in roughly the same areas. We find Neanderthal fossils in Europe and Western Asia, and finally Homo sapiens, modern man, originating in Africa, migrating throughout the Eastern Hemisphere, and unlike all the other species, failing to go extinct. [3] Most of the time, these fossils become more humanlike and less apelike as they date more recently in history, and the areas they were found in correspond perfectly to suggest a great migration. I must ask Pro: what does he make of these findings? Are these patterns a huge coincidence, or are the bones simply hoaxes? "As we can clearly see Adam begot other sons and daughters, so the argument that their was only two populating the earth fails." I never made any such argument, and I am well aware that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. But as I mentioned, Cain would have to be taking his own sister as his wife, which God later forbids. Pro cites an article from Bible.org which explains how incest was not prohibited in Edenic times. However, there is not a single verse in Scripture that supports it, and it is simply the conjecture of modern theologians. The idea of Adam and Eve's DNA being too "perfect" to give their children genetic disorders is an interesting one, but it's purely theoretical and not based on any reliable evidence. I will give my fifth point, which I was unable to post during Round 2 since I ran out of characters. 5. Migration Genesis is very explicit about the location of Eden, where Adam and Eve were created. In Genesis 2:10, we get this description: "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah ... The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates." All that matches up perfectly to the region of Mesopotamia, roughly corresponding to modern-day Iraq. While it is true that the first great civilizations arose in Mesopotamia (Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, etc.), mankind really started in Africa. As the map shows, tons of fossils of human ancestors were found in Africa, as well as the modern species of Homo sapiens tens of thousands of years ago. Based on this evidence, the vast majority of scholars believe that humanity originated in Africa, not the Middle East, and migrated outward in a series of waves. [4] My refutation is finished, but I have one more question for Pro. Last round, I asked Pro about his interpretation of dinosaur fossils and whether or not they contradict the Bible, and he declined to answer. I am unaware if he overlooked the question or was simply saving his answer for this round, but I wish to point out the dilemma again as a reminder. That point could be vital to the nature of this debate. All that being said, I will allow Pro to make his counter-argument. SOURCES: 1. http://pubs.usgs.gov...2. http://www.handprint.com...; 3. http://www.infoplease.com... 4. http://archaeology.about.com...