18 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PenguinI stated at the outset that in the case of Adam and eve, corroborating evidence was nigh impossible to find, that does not for one moment mean that through the observance of the natural world we cannot draw inferences with regard to our faith, only in this specific instance, and even here when we examine scripture we may indeed draw inferences, For example if i observe justice in humanity and the scriptures state that man was made with a sense of justice am i not allowed to ask, why that should be the case and look for instances in the natural world, if i observe wisdom n the animal creation as highlighted by scripture am i not allowed to try to ascertain, why that should be the case through an observation of the natural world, indeed in each and every case scripture may be supported by a corroborative source, If scripture mentions Pontius Pilate and an inscription is found with his name on it, am i not right to state that archaeology corroborates the bible, yes i am, and you have no reason to state why i cannot, other than a prejudicial point of view.
[b]you will try to explain the case for Adam and eve rationally and without recourse to the scriptures, hey but all we really have is the scriptures, no you cant use them
The reason we said 'without recourse to the scriptures' is because you had originally said that the biblical stories were corroborated by archealogy, history and science. I.e. outsid ...[text shortened]... y history, archeology and science than any many other ancient religious texts?
--- Penguin.[/b]
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by PenguinThere was no rain before Noah and the flood.
[b]in the beginning is the scientific limit of that one. Science says nothing at the moment about how that beginning happened, or even if the 'how' question has any meaning with regard to that event.
God formed Adam from the dust - another scientifically accurate statement, for we are as humans about ninety percent carbon, all the elements which m ...[text shortened]... e the sources it links to will be sufficient for anyone with more time for research.)
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieApologies if my tone was condescending.
i was incensed not by the suggestion, but by the condescension, the irony is my dear friend, that the bible is the most widely translated book and the most widely distributed bookin the entire history of humanity and remains the least understood and the least read, you people talk of reading books when you have not even read this one, does that not strike you as ironic 🙂
Here's a deal for you, i'll read the Bible from cover to cover if you read a book of my choice. I'll even send it to you in the post (as long as you send it back).
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobThat is not an easy task my friend. It starts out extremely dull. I tried it once. Genesis defeated me.
Apologies if my tone was condescending.
Here's a deal for you, i'll read the Bible from cover to cover if you read a book of my choice. I'll even send it to you in the post (as long as you send it back).
I have however read and analyzed most of Daniel.
18 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, the evidence currently points to a common female ancestor, the 6,000 years
Its a whole lot more than dating methods.
I think that if we were from two people, there would be DNA evidence to that effect. The evidence currently points to a common female ancestor a long time before 6,000 years ago, and as far as I am aware does not point to a single pair of ancestors, but rather a fairly small group of humans. I think that if we ...[text shortened]... om a single pair of humans in a very short space of time and that evolution does not take place.
part goes to a timing issue not a Adam and Eve issue. So evidence points to a
single female, okay can we agree on that part before we move forward? That there
is indeed evidence that suggests a common ancestor for the human race that is
both female and human?
The tower of Babel event is where the start of the vast majority of diversity would
have started, where different flavors of the human race began. Since the split of
lanuage occured those of like lanuage would have stuck together which would limit
the diversity according to the gene pool that each group had at the time.
Kelly
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by KellyJayThe evidence doesn't point to a single female. It points to a single genetic line.
Well, the evidence currently points to a common female ancestor, the 6,000 years
part goes to a timing issue not a Adam and Eve issue. So evidence points to a
single female, okay can we agree on that part before we move forward? That there
is indeed evidence that suggests a common ancestor for the human race that is
both female and human?
The tower o ...[text shortened]... ch would limit
the diversity according to the gene pool that each group had at the time.
Kelly
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is what you wrote in a post above -
You think this means what in your opinion?
Kelly
So evidence points to a single female, okay can we agree on that part before we move forward?
I'm telling you that's not what the evidence points to and we can't agree on it.
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobOkay, I gathered that, but what I'm asking you is, what does that means to you?
This is what you wrote in a post above -
So evidence points to a single female, okay can we agree on that part before we move forward?
I'm telling you that's not what the evidence points to and we can't agree on it.
Kelly
18 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI'd say it isn't ruled out either with just that
I'd say it isn't ruled out either with just that, had the evidence point to more than
one line I'd say you could more than likely rule it out.
Kelly
And what do you base this particular conclusion of yours on?
18 Nov 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobFor me prsonally it makes more sense then the big bang.
This little snippet was posted by the illustrious Mr Carrobie in another thread,
the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.
If this is true, could our fun loving Christians, who are fond of the literal interpretation of the Bible, present me (and the forum obviou ...[text shortened]... y 6,000yrs or so.
Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense.