Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 121 of 376 (709615)
10-28-2013 6:14 PM


Interesting video for scientists despairing at that futility of the universe -
Lawrenec Krauss expresses this pessimism well in his book to which the following lecture is a reply by a Creationist astronomer.
Why The Universe Is the Way It Is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hRfZ_q8ckg
Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross from (Reasons to Believe)
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Tangle, posted 10-28-2013 6:39 PM jaywill has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 122 of 376 (709617)
10-28-2013 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by jaywill
10-28-2013 6:14 PM


Ok, I ignored his lie that the reason Darwin came up with the theory of evolution was because his 2 year old daughter died, but I stopped listening 2 minutes later when he told the lie that astronomers say that there is nowhere else in the universe that can possibly support advanced life and that planet earth is the only possibility.
Tell me, why do creationist lie so much? I was taught that it hurt Jesus.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 6:14 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jaywill, posted 10-29-2013 10:22 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 123 of 376 (709630)
10-28-2013 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by jaywill
10-28-2013 5:24 PM


You want what?
Why not cut to the chase and present your proof that Adam the first man never existed? That is proof with mathematical precision.
You want proof of a negative?
And mathematical precision on something that is not mathematical?
Why not wish for $6 million dollars and a Lear jet?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 5:24 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by jaywill, posted 10-29-2013 10:17 AM Coyote has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 124 of 376 (709661)
10-29-2013 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Coyote
10-28-2013 8:29 PM


Re: You want what?
You want proof of a negative?
That's right. I have been through a number of iterations with you. All these exchanges contained a general skeptical flavor that I really should believe something else from what I am taught to believe in the Bible concerning the first man Adam.
The general flavor of your participation seems to me to be that because of science research not available to any of the writers of the Scriptures a concept of a first man should be discarded.
You say you are not interested in my belief. You seem to be interested in my changing my belief to believe something else though. Rather than continue reading your general "Hath God Said ... ?" to doubt statements in the Bible, show me your unquestionable scientific proof a first man Adam never lived. I don't claim scientific proof that he did. I explained why I trust in Scriptures that I'm on the right track to believe he did.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Coyote, posted 10-28-2013 8:29 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 10-29-2013 10:44 AM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 125 of 376 (709662)
10-29-2013 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Tangle
10-28-2013 6:39 PM


erased.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Tangle, posted 10-28-2013 6:39 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 126 of 376 (709664)
10-29-2013 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by jaywill
10-28-2013 5:24 PM


Re: First man?
Why not cut to the chase and present your proof that Adam the first man never existed?
It is up to you to support your claims, not I. There is this thing called a burden of proof. It is up to the person making the positive claim to produce positive evidence to support that claim. What you are using is a logical fallacy:
Your logical fallacy is burden of proof
Or to put it another way:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 5:24 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 127 of 376 (709665)
10-29-2013 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by jaywill
10-29-2013 10:17 AM


Re: You want what?
That's right. I have been through a number of iterations with you. All these exchanges contained a general skeptical flavor that I really should believe something else from what I am taught to believe in the Bible concerning the first man Adam.
We are asking you to follow the evidence. Belief has nothing to do with it.
The general flavor of your participation seems to me to be that because of science research not available to any of the writers of the Scriptures a concept of a first man should be discarded.
Why should we accept it to begin with? If there is no evidence for a first man, then why accept it as true?
You say you are not interested in my belief. You seem to be interested in my changing my belief to believe something else though. Rather than continue reading your general "Hath God Said ... ?" to doubt statements in the Bible, show me your unquestionable scientific proof a first man Adam never lived.
Burden of proof fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by jaywill, posted 10-29-2013 10:17 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jaywill, posted 10-29-2013 11:38 AM Taq has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 128 of 376 (709671)
10-29-2013 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Granny Magda
10-28-2013 10:58 AM


Re: First man?
'
Bwa-hah-hah-ha! That is frigging hilarious!
Jaywill, did it occur to you to find out even the tiniest little thing about the Tethys before you started throwing out crazy theories? Did you even read Prssie's message? If you go back and read it very carefully, you'll find a clue...
I took a quick look over on Wikopedia to see an article about what he was talking about before I posted.
The matter of Genesis 6 and the Nephilim I have held in my concepts for many years. Probably, I first got convinced of this matter of ancient heroes (like Apollo, Zues, Kronos, Hercules, etc.) in mythology having some basis is SOMETHING that happened in the deep occult realms of early civilizations, in the mid 70s.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Granny Magda, posted 10-28-2013 10:58 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Granny Magda, posted 10-30-2013 1:35 PM jaywill has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 376 (709672)
10-29-2013 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by jaywill
10-28-2013 5:24 PM


Re: First man?
Why not cut to the chase and present your proof that Adam the first man never existed?
You, yourself, have seen how babies are born. That's how men get here. They come out of wombs.
There could not be a first man because he would have no womb to come out of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 5:24 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jaywill, posted 10-29-2013 12:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 130 of 376 (709679)
10-29-2013 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Taq
10-29-2013 10:44 AM


Re: You want what?
We are asking you to follow the evidence. Belief has nothing to do with it.
If belief has nothing to do with it then why are you trying to persuade me to come over and believe like you, that no Adam ever lived?
In some many eloquent words you admitted probably, you cannot prove no Adam ever lived.
Did I ever claim I had scientific proof that he did?
I have just gone back through every post I wrote on this discussion to see where I used the words either "prove" or "proof".
I asked myself, "Where did I tell everyone that I was here to give proof for the first man Adam which is undeniably scientifically assured ?" (Whew! Am I wordy.)
I used these words in the following posts:
#30 - concerning whether something proved that Paul was ignorant or appealing to common myths.
#32 - where I said something didn't prove that Adam never lived.
#38 - where I asked whether something proved Adam never lived.
#57 - where I said something a poster wrote proves that dogs are not more intelligent than humans.
#98 - where I stated that something didn't prove no first man existed.
#106 - where I asked if something proved that Adam never lived.
#118 - where I used the phrase "asked for proof".
#123 - where I asked for "your proof"
I see no post in which I promised to prove Adam was the first man.
And I gave my reasons why I came to believe Adam was the first man.
Anyone is welcomed to say they don't believe it for this histogram or chart reason or some other. But if you continue to insist that I also should not believe it, I ask you for your sure knowledge that if has to be not believed.
Neither one of us has absolutely undeniable proof for our beliefs. And if not on this discussion on some recent one I said we all eventually will put our trust in SOMEONE.
I think I'll place my trust in Jesus who appears to have regarded Genesis as history.
jaywill:
The general flavor of your participation seems to me to be that because of science research not available to any of the writers of the Scriptures a concept of a first man should be discarded.
Why should we accept it to begin with? If there is no evidence for a first man, then why accept it as true?
You don't have to. I don't agree there is no evidence. I agree there is no sure proof yet. Maybe there never will be either way.
Burden of proof fallacy.
Do not now nor ever have in this discussion claimed I can prove "the first man Adam". You have some of my reasons for trusting Christ on early Genesis.
You may have some of my reasons why the New Testament is weakened (in some aspects) if we surmise that "the first man Adam" is purely fictional. And the Old Testament too for that matter kinds of loses its seamless historical flow in Genesis, if Adam is regarded as non-historical.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 10-29-2013 10:44 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Taq, posted 10-29-2013 1:34 PM jaywill has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 131 of 376 (709681)
10-29-2013 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by jaywill
10-28-2013 5:20 PM


jaywill writes:
Considerations to Joseph's (the legal father) ancestral line and Mary's (the virgin mother's) ancestral line account for the discrepencies.
Your foot appears to be in your mouth up to the knee. If Mary was a virgin, Joseph's ancestry is irrelevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jaywill, posted 10-28-2013 5:20 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by jaywill, posted 10-29-2013 12:06 PM ringo has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 132 of 376 (709684)
10-29-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ringo
10-29-2013 11:50 AM


Your foot appears to be in your mouth up to the knee. If Mary was a virgin, Joseph's ancestry is irrelevant.
Explain why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 10-29-2013 11:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 10-29-2013 12:12 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 133 of 376 (709685)
10-29-2013 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by New Cat's Eye
10-29-2013 11:08 AM


Re: First man?
There could not be a first man because he would have no womb to come out of.
That is true unless special creation was involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2013 11:08 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2013 2:28 PM jaywill has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 134 of 376 (709687)
10-29-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by jaywill
10-29-2013 12:06 PM


jaywill writes:
ringo writes:
Your foot appears to be in your mouth up to the knee. If Mary was a virgin, Joseph's ancestry is irrelevant.
Explain why.
You first. If Joseph was not Jesus' father, why does his geneology have to be in the Bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by jaywill, posted 10-29-2013 12:06 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jaywill, posted 10-29-2013 12:19 PM ringo has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 135 of 376 (709691)
10-29-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ringo
10-29-2013 12:12 PM


You first. If Joseph was not Jesus' father, why does his geneology have to be in the Bible?
I didn't yet say you were wrong.
You first. Why are the issues which make Joseph's ancestory irrelevant if Mary was a virgin ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 10-29-2013 12:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by DrJones*, posted 10-29-2013 12:27 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 10-29-2013 12:27 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024