Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

But of course you won't be able to provide anything to back this up. Your reputation here for accuracy and honesty is not the best. Maybe you can improve it by showing a science book that makes this claim.

Wow!!! The levels you are willing to sink to are amazing.It is amazing how many clergy can't keep their hands off of parishoners, adults and children.http://forum.chnetwork.org/index.php?topic=2571.0;wap2Yeah what I posted has noting to do with the topic, but since you felt the need to go there I thought I should give another view of the situation.Edited by Theodoric, : There not their

What else could it possibly mean?

A false dichotomy. Maybe it is all just myth. If the Romans and Jews actually had heard of this guy at the time of his supposed death and resurrection, don't you think there might be some actual historical evidence. There is no contemporary, extra-biblical evidence for the existence of a Jesus. Since these "teachings" weren't developed for decades it would have been hard to wekaen them before they were developed.

Menton even gets his own entry in Encyclopedia of American LoonsHere is a quote from the unesteemed Dr.

quote:

---

Most importantly, the Bible believing creationist will be careful to confine himself to speculations that are consistent with God’s Word.

---

WTF?
How?
And please keep your answer rational.

Social Darwinism is not a part of the Theory of Evolution.You are equivocating and building a straw man. But then agsin you are very good at logical fallacies. Here are some criticisms of the term that you might even understand if you care to actually read.Care to try again?

What do you think his original intent was? Are you making logical fallacies again?And what does that have to do with Social Darwinism? Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it any more true.Did you bother reading the link?Are you now claiming that Social Darwinism is part of the Theory of Evolution?

Even a child should know how ridiculous this claim is.

quote:

---

1 "Race" to a 19th century naturalist simply meant distinct populations within a specific species, not necessarily human races. Indeed, human races, nor even human evolution are not discussed at all in Darwin's first book on evolution. And as such, given as how the "races" mentioned in Darwin's book included various pigeon and pig breeds, as well as certain mollusks, any claim that suggests that Darwin was "racist" is totally absurd.
2 Whoever makes or uses this claim has never so much as read any of Darwin's works, especially since "On the Origin of Species" never discusses human evolution in the first place.
3 "Race," ala "racial variant," is still used by modern-day biologists to refer to different populations within species, with no racist connotations, in fact.
4 "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" is the subtitle of Darwin's Origin of Species. It can be taken to mean the same thing as the later phrase "survival of the fittest" which was not coined by Darwin. The phrase illustrates a consequence of, not a basis for, evolution.

---

Source

And what does the racists ideas of someone in the 1800's have to do with the Theory of Evolution?One of my biggest issues here is the lack of the ability to think by fundies and creos. The writings of Darwin are not the Theory of Evolution. "The Origin of Species" is not some infallible work. Darwin him himself made many changes to the text and the title.Your seem utterly unable to conceive that the TOE is not a religion and Darwin's writings are not some sort of religious text. His writings are an important presentation of thoughts that go into the TOE but they are not the TOE. There are many things in his writings that are either incorrect and not fully thought out. That does not make the TOE wrong.That Darwin followed the racism of the day does not make the TOE and Social Darwinism the same thing. That you cannot understand why Social Darwinism is not part of the TOE shows either extreme dishonesty or the lack of any ability to have any higher level thinking and a total lack of curiosity to make you sure the falsehoods you spout have any veracity at all.ABE WTF does this have to do with the TOE. How does what Huxley or some anonymous internet poster have to say about anything have anything to do with the TOE.You are use the comment of some guy on the internet as your argument? You have gone from ridiculous to pitiful.Edited by Theodoric, : More crap to deal with.

Are you really that freaking clueless or are you intentionally misrepresenting things?
If you actually looked at the talkorigins post you would see that what is said actually has references and people use their actual names. Not unsupported assertions by someone using a pseudonym.There is a huge difference. You know it. The difference makes you look foolish so you pretend there is no difference and proceed to make yourself look more foolish. Keep up the good work.

Some things fundies say are vile and offensive. Their obsession with sex and sexual acts is very disturbing. Please show the studies that show that peoples sexual desires drive nonbelief in the bible. You made the assertion you must have some sort of evidence to back it up. I know this is in the bible study fora, but that does not mean you get to make any wild ass claim you want without a need to back it up. You modus operandi is usually to make logical fallacies but you also have tendency to make claims that have no bearing on reality.Go ahead support the comment. Show that atheist somehow have a higher percentage of sexual "degeneracy"(to use a term I am sure you are familiar with). Instead of what? Fucking everything that moves? Is that what you think atheists do? You are vile. You know nothing about me or seemingly any other atheists.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Troy existed, why don't you put the same belief in the Homeric stories?You see, this one of the logical fallacies I mention. The argument has no validity. Harry Potter must be factual since London is in it. We know London exited and exists so therefore it should be more factual than the bible. The argument is ludicrous and ridiculous.How about you try studying up on logical fallacies and try to reduce yourself to only 4 a day.

So just how you feel? I think you are making my arguments for me. You have no evidence or logic just your gut. More personal feelings. No logical evidential reason. If the authority is truly an authority and if the argument has evidence. It is realistic to compare them based upon your claims that you believe the bible because it mentions real places. Typical fundie, the competition has to meet a higher burden your bible. The bible is not one book. There isn't even one bible. Even if it did explain all of these things, what the fuck does that have to do with it being a factual account or divinely inspired. I smell logical fallacy. So the fewer words the more accurate an account is? That is a really weird way to to attain knowledge. You would think something more in depth and accurate would be a better way for your god pass on knowledge.

Oh a personal attack too. Your debating skills continue to amaze me.Also, I notice that you didn't address my post at all. I addressed your post and if you actually read mine you would have seen that I explained why yoru request for parallels to genesis was silly, disingenuous and setting the bar higher for anything other than the bible.If you want to actually respond to my post go ahead. If not, don't waste our time.