Biblical Archaeology - scientific birthdate for Adam.

[Technosoul]

Here is a new article concerning what science has learned about the Biblical Adam as discribed in the Bible. How long ago?

Some you Bible people in debates about evolution might be interested in this information.

The Evidence for a Recent Dating for Adam, 14,000 to 15,000 years ago

Feel free to comment or deate what the article said.

Here is a new discovery that might be related to the one above.

European Roots: Human ancestors go back in time in Spanish cave: Science News Online, March 29, 2008

This report claims that humans lived in Spain for at least 1 million years (ago). Primates that used tools for hunting and for carving meat.

[Zhavric]

Accuracyingenesis.com is a joke. It's just another propaganda site using retarded logic in a desperate attempt to attach unwarranted legitimacy to the nonsense in Genesis.

Genesis says the world is 6000 years old. The article says humans are 14K years old. It would be nice if they could at least get their story straight.

/thread

[Jimmy the Pro]

I've always believed the Creation story was one conveying RELIGIOUS truth, not scientific fact.

If peopole want to try and find scientific fact with it, fine by me, but I still believe its a matter of Religious truth.

And for the atheists, agnostics, or apathetic on here who want to use this thread to show how stupid Theological beliefs are...let me add a disclaimer....

Roman Catholics believe the Bible conveys RELIGIOUS TRUTH and is NOT a historical book. We read it for religious matters, not historical ones.

[HelioPrime]

The million year old fossils do explain one oddity in the creation story. After leaving the garden we only learn about two brothers and one murders the other.

So unless Cain screwed his mom or they had more kids then there had to have been people already outside the garden.

Could make for interesting what if debate. If humans already existed outside then the creation story could have been about the creation of "ideal" man, rather than just the first man. Perhaps man really was ideal, but fell and as a result was forced outside to interbreed with the lesser existing species of humans.

[Jimmy the Pro]

That is...IF we consider the creation story as more than a STORY...

[HelioPrime]

True, but in the view Zhav likes to call "gap theory" the already existing presence of humans fits well, because outsiders would have been needed to continue the human race once Adam and Eve got ejected.

[Tycoon]

This website lines up self-proclaimed experts to state obviously false or baseless information. It's a joke to think anybody could seriously find any truth in studies such as this.

It's like the TV shows that claim to show you the face of Jesus. So called experts model the face of the average Israeli from 2,000 years ago and call it Jesus.

[Jimmy the Pro]

As far as "proving" God and "proving" the Bible, there is not enough information in the world to satiate the demands of those in opposition.

If those who do not believe in God AND at the same time believe there is an ongoing drive to fool the world that He exists will be forced to conclude one of two things. That A) every piece of evidence to challenge atheists who hold such belief is somehow a fake or has been tampered with or B) they are wrong.

So, is all evidence for God's existence completely true and accurate? Of course not. Is a large amount of the evidence for God's existence accurate and true? Even that I do not think is correct.

BUT...Is ALL evidence that is meant to show the existence of God made up and/or tampered with? That I do not believe is true.

Faced with the possiblility of EVERYTHING being wrong, both the knowns and unknowns...versus the possibility of atheists being incorrect...well take your gamble as you see fit.

Disclaimer: After reading the article I don't think it provides any accurate and/ or true proof for the existence of God or the accuarcy of the Book of Genesis. I have and still do believe the Book is a story of religious truth.

[Tycoon]

Jimmy, I have said it once and I will say it again, you only believe in Christianity because you were raised into it at an impressionable age.



As for your argument in favor of evidence of a God, there is not any evidence of a God. What there is is a small lack of scientific evidence against God, and religion uses this to wedge in the posibility of intelligent design.

The Big Bang was what created the universe according to science. Why did this happen? Nobody knows, and likely nobody will, because of the nature of the Big Bang. Science cannot go back before a small point of matter.

Religion looks at it in a different way. Because science does not explain it, that must mean that there is an invisible omnipotent being that designed it to happen. One thing I want to point out is even in that case, that example doesn't support any particular religion or God.

When I ask people why they believe in God, they often say it's because they believe there is something bigger than themselves. That they don't think all of this could have occured simply by coincidence. Well the truth is, maybe it did. Maybe it is our human nature that wants a bigger explanation.

None of this scientific evidence even supports a particular God or religion, yet Christianity in particular tries to use it as undeniable certification of their beliefs.

[Tycoon]

As far as "proving" God and "proving" the Bible, there is not enough information in the world to satiate the demands of those in opposition.

Thank you. That must mean we're right. I see no reason to think otherwise, particularly since the small amount of so called "evidence" you have proves nothing.

[Jack]

So, is all evidence for God's existence...

What evidence? Where is there any objective, irrefutable, verifiable evidence to support the claim that gods exist?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Jimmy the Pro That is...IF we consider the creation story as more than a STORY...

I think there'd be a lot more Christians if God had mentioned these things were stories to the writers of the Bible.

But I guess confusing people is another form of testing faith and sending people to hell?

[Tycoon]

But I guess confusing people is another form of testing faith and sending people to hell?

God seems like a very moral being.

[nerdvincent]

Oh man...another christian pseudo-science website. Always the same: they spit on science, but they are happy to call what they do "scientific evidence". There is 1000s of them. How it works:
1-Start with almost scientific evidence.
2-Forget to mention some details (process known as quote mining). I saw this one once: they said that since the half life of C12 is 6,000 years, you cannot date something older than 60,000 years with C12. Quite true. What they didn't mention was that we use K40 for older fossils.
3-Create some gaps from what you did in step 2: the story of the evolution of the eye is a common one, even if it had been resolved long ago.
4-Fill the gap with some "god did it" and bible quotes.
5-Fuc* all that and join your local Bible study club.
So funny.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Tycoon God seems like a very moral being.

Yes indeed. A God who created the future and who can modify anything still find a way to send people to hell. Sounds like a very moral, non-sadistic puppet game to me.

[Piscean]

Carbon dating is totally innacurate on anything that's been under water so why believe in billions of years etc. Mans way of measuring how old stuff is doesn't work. But hey if you believe u come from monkeys who am I to take that away from you:-)

[Piscean]

Don't let the idiotics of religion make you hate the idea of God. These beliefs are even worse than believing in carbon dating.

[Piscean]

What evidence? Where is there any objective, irrefutable, verifiable evidence to support the claim that gods exist?

Where is there any of that evidence to prove you don't have a creator?

Not that I agree with the rediculous teachings of religion.

[Jimmy the Pro]

Quote by: Tycoon says Jimmy, I have said it once and I will say it again, you only believe in Christianity because you were raised into it at an impressionable age.

You don't know me or how I believe. Don't act like you do. While that is part of my faith, tradition, there are many other aspects of my faith that go deeper than that. Don't tell me what I believe.

Quote by: Tycoon says The Big Bang was what created the universe according to science. Why did this happen? Nobody knows, and likely nobody will, because of the nature of the Big Bang. Science cannot go back before a small point of matter.

Strange, I believe that the Big Bang Theory as a sustainable way to explain our origins. But wait, I'm a Christian...according to you the two can't coexist. But wait, oh now I remember, it's the Big Bang THEORY not the Big Bang COMPLETE EXPLINATION. It's not fully developed nor proven as the bonafide explaination for how the Universe is created. Then couldn't a supernatural being still exist with the Big Bang? Is it POSSIBLE? Yes. Though I'm not completely sure how, I have my faith to make rational conclusions about that. Science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive. :rolleyes:

Quote by: Tycoon said Thank you. That must mean we're right. I see no reason to think otherwise, particularly since the small amount of so called "evidence" you have proves nothing.

Logical fallacy. Just because I can't prove something doesn't mean you are right. Just because I can't provide evidence to prove God's existence doesn't prove your claim that God does not exist. Just because Ray Charles can't see the mountain doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You cannot know, BEYOND ANY DOUBT that God doesn't exist so please share with me how you "win" and how you "beat" me. Because if you have congradulations for "solving" the great debate that has raged for centuries.

Quote by: LC says I think there'd be a lot more Christians if God had mentioned these things were stories to the writers of the Bible.

I'm pretty sure God didn't have to tell them. The stories of the Old Testament were passed down through Oral Tradition and then were later written down as ways of preserving conveyed ideas.

Suppose you are an author trying to convey a rhetorical purpose and you write a story to try and do so...You don't specifically come out and say: "Okay reader...here is my rhetorical purpose...please consider all my rhetorical devices, ironies, ect." No. Instead you allow the writing to reflect your rhetorical purpose and allow the readers to figure it out.

Quote by: LC But I guess confusing people is another form of testing faith and sending people to hell?

Stab at Christianity? We don't believe God sends people to hell or tries to "test" them. Nowhere in Catholic Dogma does it say that. Moreover, we believe in a good God that does not wish to send us to hell.

But thanks for the undue and completely inacurate comment. It helps.

[Tycoon]

To everything Jimmy just said...

I guess I should start assuming there are invisible squirrels everywhere I go because I have no proof there aren't?