Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

god or advanced entity?

  • god

    Votes: 14 40.0%
  • advanced entity

    Votes: 21 60.0%

  • Total voters
    35
Status
Not open for further replies.
Once again. The fossil and genetic evidence suggests that modern homo sapiens sapiens (our species) evolved from archaic home sapiens about 200,000 years ago. Possibly from a group of homo rhodesiensis separated geographically from most other of the other homo sapiens alive at the time. Of course modern homo sapiens sapiens just happens to be the only surviving species or sub-species.

The female individual that all humans can trace their mitochondrial DNA was but one of what is believed to be several thousand contemporary females. All those other female contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to every woman living in the present day. DNA studies show that these other females have living descendants today, but at least one of the line was a male. Male homo sapiens also existed at the time of Mitochondrial Eve, possibly up to 4,000-6,000 individuals.

DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population, about 200,000 years ago never dropped below tens of thousands and anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic homo-sapiens who continued to exist alongside modern homo-sapiens but eventually, died out.

Again this is accepted scientific knowledge backed up by nuclear DNA evidence. Feel free to present alternative scientific evidence that supports a first and only pair of homo sapiens on earth.

As was suggested earlier, it is entirely possible for Adam and Eve to have existed at the same time. Whether they actually met is a different matter. But at least we know it is possible.
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.3171.html
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,952
16,606
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
As was suggested earlier, it is entirely possible for Adam and Eve to have existed at the same time. Whether they actually met is a different matter. But at least we know it is possible.

And when you speak of "Adam" and "Eve", do you speak of the first and only humans on earth?

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.3171.html

Could you point out the salient parts of the above article that suggest Adam and Eve could have existed at the same time and possibly met?
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
10k Posts Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 Essendon Player Sponsor 2017 Essendon Player Sponsor 2016 Essendon Player Sponsor 2014 Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
Aug 16, 2009
22,111
17,902
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
Roy, you're splitting hairs. Uncommon for you i know.
The point is that a long held scientific fact was that 'adam' and 'eve'
Lived far apart timewise from each other. Now it looks like that existed a lot
Closer than previously thought and you jump straight to the 'show me where they coexisted'
Argument. You've jumped ahead far too many steps, but I guess, again, that is a common
Arguing tactic.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,952
16,606
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Roy, you're splitting hairs. Uncommon for you i know.
The point is that a long held scientific fact was that 'adam' and 'eve' Lived far apart timewise from each other. Now it looks like that existed a lot
Closer than previously thought and you jump straight to the 'show me where they coexisted'

You could at least quote my question accurately. I've asked you quite clearly several times.

What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?

Why won't you answer this? Is it that difficult to understand for you?

How does that study change anything I've said?

My original comment was: "There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures."

Have you any scientific evidence to suggest otherwise?

Argument. You've jumped ahead far too many steps, but I guess, again, that is a common Arguing tactic.

I don't think so.

It's really a simple question surely.

What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?
 
Last edited:

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
10k Posts Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 Essendon Player Sponsor 2017 Essendon Player Sponsor 2016 Essendon Player Sponsor 2014 Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
Aug 16, 2009
22,111
17,902
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
You could at least quote my question accurately. I've asked you quite clearly several times.

What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?

Why won't you answer this? Is it that difficult to understand for you?

How does that study change anything I've said?

My original comment was



I don't think so.

It's really a simple question surely.

What scientific evidence is there for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth?

And like I said, I'm happy to wait to see what more scientific truths get turned on their heads before I make a judgment. You've wasted your time repeating the same question ad nauseum when it was already answered.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,952
16,606
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
And like I said, I'm happy to wait to see what more scientific truths get turned on their heads before I make a judgment. You've wasted your time repeating the same question ad nauseum when it was already answered.

You sure you and Numbers aren't the same poster? That's his tactic also.

If you'd answered my question, I wouldn't continue to ask it. I'd instead make further comment on your answer in an effort to keep the "discussion" (such as it is) going.

Ok, your efforts to dodge providing an answer, even along the lines of "Yes....(such as)", or "No" or even a "Not at this stage" speaks volumes.

Clearly you can''t provide any scientific evidence that for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth.

In the light of no alternative scientific evidence actually presented here, my original comment that: "There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures." seems very valid.
 
Last edited:
Oct 17, 2000
18,952
16,606
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
And like I said, I'm happy to wait to see what more scientific truths get turned on their heads

Are you claiming that the study you quoted has turned the argument I presented "on its head"? I've asked this before and at the risk of not getting another question answered, can I ask how this study has changed anything I've presented?
 

clogged

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Apr 4, 2013
13,670
16,890
AFL Club
Fremantle
And like I said, I'm happy to wait to see what more scientific truths get turned on their heads before I make a judgment. You've wasted your time repeating the same question ad nauseum when it was already answered.
No, you're waiting until they might agree with your bronze age superstition, then take that as the 'science'.

Don't lie spartanwa. Your god might judge you.
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
10k Posts Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 Essendon Player Sponsor 2017 Essendon Player Sponsor 2016 Essendon Player Sponsor 2014 Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
Aug 16, 2009
22,111
17,902
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
You sure you and Numbers aren't the same poster? That's his tactic also.

If you'd answered my question, I wouldn't continue to ask it. I'd instead make further comment on your answer in an effort to keep the "discussion" (such as it is) going.

Ok, your efforts to dodge providing an answer, even along the lines of "Yes....(such as)", or "No" or even a "Not at this stage" speaks volumes.

Clearly you can''t provide any scientific evidence that for the existence of Adam and Eve as the first and only humans on earth.

My original comment that: "There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures." seems very valid.

You are trying to twist and force an answer which I have already given you, and please don't talk about dodging answers, you are the master of it. You use vacuous quotes and hone in on minor points to dodge the original point being made. Point in case today, all I said was you, typically, made a definitive statement about something which you really can't do, and when challenged you twisted the statement to turn it back as an attacking question without ever giving regard to what was actually being said. Again, typically.
 
My original comment that: "There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures." seems very valid.

There are lots of things that there is no scientific evidence for, yet. That doesn't make them invalid.

Things are logically impossible or physically impossible or technologically impossible.
You claim Adam & Eve are impossible, which kind of impossible are they and how?
 
Last edited:

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
10k Posts Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 Essendon Player Sponsor 2017 Essendon Player Sponsor 2016 Essendon Player Sponsor 2014 Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
Aug 16, 2009
22,111
17,902
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
No, you're waiting until they might agree with your bronze age superstition, then take that as the 'science'.

Don't lie spartanwa. Your god might judge you.

Champion contribution!
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
10k Posts Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 Essendon Player Sponsor 2017 Essendon Player Sponsor 2016 Essendon Player Sponsor 2014 Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
Aug 16, 2009
22,111
17,902
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
Then without any empirical, scientific evidence to support such phenomena, why I should accept their validity?

That's right. You should support the ever changing, inconsistencies instead
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,952
16,606
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
You are trying to twist and force an answer which I have already given you, and please don't talk about dodging answers, you are the master of it. You use vacuous quotes and hone in on minor points to dodge the original point being made.
'

Yes, yes. I accepted that established scientific fact and truth is open to change in light of new scientific evidence and /or the development of new technology, long before I engaged in any 'discussion' with you. Way to state the obvious.

made a definitive statement about something which you really can't do,

My statement was: "There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures."

Is there ANY evidence to the contrary? Is my statement incorrect based on what we know or what evidence we have? If you think it is, present it here.

and when challenged you twisted the statement to turn it back as an attacking question without ever giving regard to what was actually being said. Again, typically.

Once again. I accepted that established scientific fact and truth is open to change in light of new scientific evidence and /or the development of new technology, long before I engaged in any 'discussion' with you. You know that...or from our previous 'discussions' should know that.

I then asked you, that if you disagree with my so--called 'definitive' statement to provide alternative scientific evidence in support of your premise. You have not done so, despite repeated requests.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,952
16,606
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Who says you have to accept them? But you seem certain that you have evidence to reject them when you don't!

OK. So feel free to present alternative scientific evidence that opposes my statement and will cause me to change my opinion/statement. Away you go. Just the salient points will do.

If I don't have the scientific evidence to support my statement, show me how the evidence I presented, WORD FOR WORD, is incorrect.
 
Last edited:

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
10k Posts Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 Essendon Player Sponsor 2017 Essendon Player Sponsor 2016 Essendon Player Sponsor 2014 Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
Aug 16, 2009
22,111
17,902
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
As opposed to the unchanging "Word of God"?

Anything I support is based on the available empirical scientific evidence, where possible.

Well the very thing you disparage has remained pretty consistent I would have thought.
 
OK. So feel free to present alternative scientific evidence that opposes my statement. Away you go. Just the salient points will do.

If I don't have the scientific evidence to support my statement, show me how the evidence I presented, WORD FOR WORD, is incorrect.

You are the one claiming Adam & Eve is impossible, what you have presented does not say that at all. There are only 3 kinds of impossible, which kind of impossible are you atrributing to Adam & Eve? Logical, physical or technological?
 

clogged

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Apr 4, 2013
13,670
16,890
AFL Club
Fremantle
You are the one claiming Adam & Eve is impossible
It is impossible even if a supposed mitochondrial Eve and Adam existed at the same time, because the scientific evidence that might prove this also negates the entire Genesis myth.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,952
16,606
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
You are the one claiming Adam & Eve is impossible, what you have presented does not say that at all.

What the....? Did you actually read properly what I said? Is basic comprehension beyond you?

I said: "There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures."

See that second, third and fourth words in the bold, italicised and underlined section?

"no scientific evidence"

Yet again. Is there any scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman? If so, could you present it here?

I can't make it any clearer.
 
What the....? Did you actually read properly what I said? Is basic comprehension beyond you?

I said: "There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures."

See that second, third and fourth words in the bold, italicised and underlined section?

"no scientific evidence"

Yet again. Is there any scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman? If so, could you present it here?

I can't make it any clearer.

Are you able to comprehend?

No scientific evidence is vastly different to scientifically impossible, don't go confusing the 2.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,952
16,606
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Are you able to comprehend?

No scientific evidence is vastly different to scientifically impossible, don't go confusing the 2.

Clearly basic comprehension is beyond you. Nowhere have I previously used the phrase "scientifically impossible" or anything akin to that.

Just address the statement I've made and you won't get too confused.

"There's no scientific evidence for the existence of a first man and woman. Adam and Eve are no more than literary figures."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back