Adam And Eve Story In The Bible Never Happened

Burden of Proof The topic states “Adam And Eve Story In The Bible Never Happened” It is clear that pro is trying to disprove something here. I have not claimed that the events have factually happened, so I don’t have the burden of proof for I never claimed it. However Pro does have the burden of disproof. Just because Pro is skeptic, does not mean the event never happened. Rebuttal 1 "Like, humans have hearts. It's not like we are going to find another organ that does the heart's job." --- Pro A heart is not science, a heart is an object. Science is like numbers, it doesn’t exist. It’s like a meta on objects (or an event like the big bang). In a basic sense its explanation. An example “how a heart works” is the science aspect of a heart, but not the heart itself, for the heart is a heart. Science identifies a heart, but the object is not the property of science. Argument from Simplicity "Science can be wrong, but you need evidence to prove it wrong" --- Pro That’s being unfairly bias to science, for science can be wrong. Why not simply say… “Bible can be wrong, but you need evidence to disprove it.” Yet you use science to disprove it, because you unfairly favor it more. You’re too simple with science. "The source you presented can easily be dismissed. It is biased because it is specifically a bible website." --- Pro I need to know. Do you or do you not acknowledge that radiometric dating has been recalculated? You do know the sources they used weren’t Bible bias. You requested a person who favored religion in round one. When you requested a biased person, why do you bash me for my biasedness? That’s just mean. I have nothing to hide nor fear of my biasedness, I am what I am, religious. I am here because you preferred a religious person. You try to pull out dirt in my eye when you have some as well. For you are biased to science. Do you not agree that science can be wrong? So why automatically assume that science is correct until proven wrong? Skepticism is perfectly valid because the science system is not always reliable. You are unfairly favoring Science over the Bible, and that is biasness. Rebuttal 2 "So, you are calling the science we use to find murder suspects guilty or not guilty possibly un-true?!? This is stupidity!" --- Pro Yes. The reason that why say (e.g. fingerprint matching) is considered workable is because that it’s absurd that your ever find another person that matches another person. But the thing is there is science that is absurd from improbability, e.g. evolution (it’s astronautically unlikely). Like evolution, just because something is absurd doesn’t mean that it isn’t true. Also note that the science that we put murderers in jail is radically different then dating. For this kind is comparison between two empirical evidence (matching one fingerprint\DNA with another) to falsify this science is simple, get two people with matching fingerprints in the same room, and done, entire science disproven. With dating it’s actually nigh impossible to falsify because it’s more theoretical then empirical & unreliable. Example can be seen when a dinosaur bone was found with soft tissue (Mary Schweitzer) A typical atheist will usually argue that the bone is unreliable because it “could have been contaminated” (unlikely, the bone baffles quite a few paleontologist) Or, say the evidence is proof that blood cells can survive millions of years (which goes against science). But don’t you see? If there was evidence, it would still be impossible to falsify dating (you can just say it was contaminated). The only known way to falsify dating is to have a witness see the object when it was younger, & testify of its age to be false (and most of the claims are millions of years old & predate humanity, so it can’t be falsified. Where are you going to find a million year old man?). Showing misdated rocks (say excess argon) is not a problem, scientist periodically make mistakes because they’re human. The thing is, when evidence is presented against it, it’s just theorized out because no one really knows if the earth is 50,000 years old or not, cause no one has lived that long (it’s all theory, not empirical). So there is no possible way to disprove your sources, because dating is not falsifiable. If it’s falsifiable, please tell me how it is. http://bit.ly... Rebuttal 3 Yes, it does favor the Bible. Yes, it tells the truth about radiometric recalculating. Yes their sources are good. & yes, I no longer need the link when you said science can be wrong, because that was my point. However I’m going to write some premises that I think sums up your case. If they aren’t your premises, then please clarify to me if they aren’t & what is. 1) Science is true Fallacy -- Pro has agreed that science can be wrong. Therefore this premise might be incorrect, & it’s not my burden of proof to prove that science is true because I don’t argue from it. 2) Science states that the Bible is wrong. Fallacy - - Science is subjective. Gravity can & cannot exist in science because Erik Verlinde says gravity doesn’t exist where some scientist may disagree with him. Creationist are scientist (some with very legit degrees) & some of them disagree with the dating methods. Conclusion) The Bible is truly wrong. The Adam & Eve story never happened. Fallacy -- Unprovable, because there is bad reasoning in the premises. Rebuttal 5 Sin is an addictive drug. Rebuttal 6 The evidence for evolution is not empirical. No one has observed one life-form evolving into a higher life form. The evidence is not like a heart, where you can just simply yank it out a dead body & point to it. All the evidence for it is theoretical, subjective. Theories only exist in the mind until proven otherwise (then its knowledge, not science). You can present all the evidence you wish, but it cannot be from science, because science can be wrong. All I wish is truth, not something that might be in error. For If I forsake my beliefs for new ones, I want it to be over truth, not lies. Slavery is not immoral. If a man wishes to contract himself out to say indentured servitude there is nothing immoral with that. What makes slavery seem wrong is when you get a cruel wicked master who mistreats the slave. It’s your opinion that slavery is immoral. If anybody wishes to be my slave, I don’t see why I should deny them their desire. Immorality is not a valid argument for saying that something did not happen. What if I told you that there is an insect that exists that will eat her husband after having sex? This immoral sexual cannibalism is practiced by the praying mantis & praying mantis do exist. If immorality is recorded in the Bible, this does not mean that the events did not take place. So the Adam & Eve story might be still true. Rebuttal 7 Then your link is making that up. There is no way to know that your great (x100) grandfather couldn’t speak. Likewise it’s impossible to know that caveman didn’t speak either. Appeal To Science Rhetoric Pro defends the science concept, so from rhetoric I’ll show that there are other concepts that disagree with it. Pro appeals to Science, but I make an appeal to Logic & Wisdom. Logic dictates that science has errors for it contradicts in absolute time & space. Wisdom dictates that historically entire fields of science has been wrong such as alchemy (even theories have been proven wrong), & It dictates that science is subjective, scientist do disagree with each other (obviously creationist scientist do disagree with evolutionist. & they’re both scientist). I also make an appeal to Fallacy. Fallacy says this is confirming the consequent. Doesn’t history books sometimes tell the truth? The Old Testament is a history book of the Jews, of what their forefathers bore record of. Pro can’t prove that it never happened, for he would have to prove all history books to be false. For there does exist a possible world where a book written to be history is true.