The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Adam And Eve Story In The Bible Never Happened

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,438 times Debate No: 51305
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I would perfer to have someone religious in this debate. First round is for acceptance. Good luck.


I will accept this debate.

I await Pro to prove his case that I may rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1


Case 1: The Lie Called Adam And Eve

The Bible self-destructs with everything science has taught us. The science of forensics disproves Adam and Eve 100 times over. If we are from Adam and Eve, We would practically be cousins with everyone in the world! No. This is scientifically impossible. Instead, forensics states that we are not all related. Adam and Eve also don't explain race. If we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, we would all be one race. Adam and Eve states they have two sons, Kain and Abel, but, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GIRLS?!???!? They must have had something to repopulate with. It is also said Adam and eve knew how to speak, but even cavemen had no idea of the simplest languages! Wouldn't Adam and Eve have taught their children to speak their language? They also say that Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, yet, man has never found a tree that give knowledge of everything in the universe! The tree had a fruit, which means it probably had seeds, which would have made other trees similar to it, giving infinite knowledge of everything. They also say that the snake spoke at one time, yet, the snake has no vocal cords! (1) There is also evidence that the Earth is older than 4,000 years. Human footprints believed to be 40,000 years old have actually been older! It is 51,000 years old. (2) This conflicts with the story you gave right? Hell, even a tree shows the Earth is older than 4,000 years! (3) That is all Adam and Eve should be taken as. A story!





Appeal to Science

What you are doing is saying “Science disproves! Science disproves!” The problem is that science isn’t founded off of truth, it’s founded off of explanation. For example, in physics there is something called absolute time and space, and this is where classical mechanics contradicts with special relativity. It doesn’t matter how well established the science is, there still something fundamentally wrong because they contradict. So they aren’t founded off of truth, but explanations and can be incorrect.

Science has been known to be fallible, an example being the radioisotope dating (I’ll use this example because its herald to be reliable by people of simplicity). Yes, they’ve had to recalculate out the dates of the earth before.

This fallacy is kind of like the appeal to authority, just because some authority says something doesn’t mean it’s true. Because authorities can be wrong. Likewise, science can be contradictive, and fallible. I won’t be convinced until you can prove to me that science is 100% correct all the time, which is just flat out untrue.

Scientifically impossible

Not really. And I’m skeptical of the “forensics” craft of genetics anyway, most of them presume evolution to be true, something that has never been empirically proven. No one has ever observed one life-form evolving into a higher life-form. “forensics” as you call it can state whatever it wants, just because something or someone states something doesn’t mean it’s true.

Earth is older than 4,000 years old

This is typical of science. the earth is 40,000 years one day then the next day say I’m older. It will not stop. Just shows how unreliable it is.

If they want to believe the earth is old because some unreliable dating method told them to… That’s their folly, not mine! To me it’s all theoretical and not provable.

Adam’s Daughters

See gen 5:4, mentions that he fathered sons and “daughters”.

Discussion of the fruit

You might be miss interpreting the tree of knowledge. You seem to be interpreting as “give” knowledge (like literally uploaded good and evil "information"). But could have given them understanding, or a sense of clarity… a way to receive information than simply uploading information into your mind. As it said “their eyes were opened” when they saw each other naked, even though they knew they were naked previously, they had a new understanding on how to see things as opposed to new knowledge.

Some herbs have been known to effect clarity of mind. Drug addicts have been known to perceive things differently than normal. Food & drinks can effect behavior (e.g. sugar and caffeine). It’s not implausible that some fruits can have a psychological effect on people (how they interpret information), after all other consumption items seem to do.

“A scoffer seeks wisdom in vain, but knowledge is easy for a man of understanding.”
--------- Proverbs 14:6

Science has a subjective nature to it

I feel like I should point out that science is subjective. At one point in time alchemy would have been considered science for they say “knowledge I have, I know! I know!” Or Welteislehre (world ice theory). There are scientist that do disagree with each other, such as the existence of gravity (Eric Verlinde)

The reason why I make a point about this is because I will probably disagree with pro on presumptions that his sources make. Such as the assumption of an old earth, it’s an assumption because no one has lived long enough to test the validity of the claim (it’s only theoretical because it can’t be observed by anyone). Obviously there are scientist that disagree on the earth age, because there does exist creationist scientist that operate on different presumptions then other scientist do.

Vocal Cords & Language

You assume that you need vocal cords to speak in a language. That’s not necessary true, some languages don’t need a complex instrument of tones (vocal cords) to operate. There does exist a language that only operates off of two kinds of noises, such as Morse code. So if it’s possible to speak in dots and dashes, surely it’s possible to speak in snake hisses.

I understand that you may not believe in animal languages, but I do. I do believe that animals communicate with each other daily. For a bee does complex dances to signal to the hive that it’s found an area to pollinate, and a crow will communicate through a crow to other crows when it spots an intruder. I just think their way to speak to each other is far different then our way, and much more difficult to understand.

Also, your claim that caveman actually didn’t know even the simplest of languages. How do you know that? Bring me a caveman that I may see and verify that that’s true. For I know that you don't know because you never met one.

Debate Round No. 2



Rebuttal 1:

First off, science is science. There are many things in science that are for sure. Like, humans have hearts. It's not like we are going to find another organ that does the heart's job. This is completely incorrect. Science can be wrong, but you need evidence to prove it wrong. You have presented no evidence for Adam and Eve yet. The source you presented cab easily be dismissed. It is biased because it is specifically a bible website. This means it can fake whatever they want to prove the bible right. Keep presenting links like that and I'll destroy it everytime.

Rebuttal 2:

A basic assumption that is easily disproven. Did you know, now, if a woman is too skiny, she can't get pregnant. This has never happened before! (1)
So, you are calling the science we use to find murder suspects guilty or not guilty possibly un-true?!? This is stupidity!

Rebuttal 3:

I have proved that the one link that you had was bias. If you refuse to believe it, then I can't help you there.

Rebuttal 4:

Good job! The one thing that you proved correct!

Rebuttal 5:

So, you are saying Adam and Eve were high? I literally laughed at that. Dude, that is not a good argument at all.

Rebuttal 6:

We have evidence for evolution. The bible has been wrong and immoral. Like, the bible once said the Earth was the center of the universe. The bible also said slavery was okay. We have all this evidence, which I can present to you if you want me to, for evolution. Yet, only evidence against Adam and Eve.

Rebuttal 7:

My link states cavemen couldn't speak, they only could draw.

You still have yet to prove Adam and Eve.



Burden of Proof

The topic states “Adam And Eve Story In The Bible Never Happened” It is clear that pro is trying to disprove something here. I have not claimed that the events have factually happened, so I don’t have the burden of proof for I never claimed it. However Pro does have the burden of disproof. Just because Pro is skeptic, does not mean the event never happened.

Rebuttal 1

"Like, humans have hearts. It's not like we are going to find another organ that does the heart's job." --- Pro

A heart is not science, a heart is an object. Science is like numbers, it doesn’t exist. It’s like a meta on objects (or an event like the big bang). In a basic sense its explanation. An example “how a heart works” is the science aspect of a heart, but not the heart itself, for the heart is a heart. Science identifies a heart, but the object is not the property of science.

Argument from Simplicity

"Science can be wrong, but you need evidence to prove it wrong" --- Pro

That’s being unfairly bias to science, for science can be wrong. Why not simply say… “Bible can be wrong, but you need evidence to disprove it.” Yet you use science to disprove it, because you unfairly favor it more. You’re too simple with science.

"The source you presented can easily be dismissed. It is biased because it is specifically a bible website." --- Pro

I need to know. Do you or do you not acknowledge that radiometric dating has been recalculated? You do know the sources they used weren’t Bible bias.

You requested a person who favored religion in round one. When you requested a biased person, why do you bash me for my biasedness? That’s just mean. I have nothing to hide nor fear of my biasedness, I am what I am, religious. I am here because you preferred a religious person.

You try to pull out dirt in my eye when you have some as well. For you are biased to science. Do you not agree that science can be wrong? So why automatically assume that science is correct until proven wrong? Skepticism is perfectly valid because the science system is not always reliable. You are unfairly favoring Science over the Bible, and that is biasness.

Rebuttal 2

"So, you are calling the science we use to find murder suspects guilty or not guilty possibly un-true?!? This is stupidity!" --- Pro

Yes. The reason that why say (e.g. fingerprint matching) is considered workable is because that it’s absurd that your ever find another person that matches another person. But the thing is there is science that is absurd from improbability, e.g. evolution (it’s astronautically unlikely). Like evolution, just because something is absurd doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.

Also note that the science that we put murderers in jail is radically different then dating. For this kind is comparison between two empirical evidence (matching one fingerprint\DNA with another) to falsify this science is simple, get two people with matching fingerprints in the same room, and done, entire science disproven.

With dating it’s actually nigh impossible to falsify because it’s more theoretical then empirical & unreliable. Example can be seen when a dinosaur bone was found with soft tissue (Mary Schweitzer) A typical atheist will usually argue that the bone is unreliable because it “could have been contaminated” (unlikely, the bone baffles quite a few paleontologist) Or, say the evidence is proof that blood cells can survive millions of years (which goes against science). But don’t you see? If there was evidence, it would still be impossible to falsify dating (you can just say it was contaminated). The only known way to falsify dating is to have a witness see the object when it was younger, & testify of its age to be false (and most of the claims are millions of years old & predate humanity, so it can’t be falsified. Where are you going to find a million year old man?).

Showing misdated rocks (say excess argon) is not a problem, scientist periodically make mistakes because they’re human. The thing is, when evidence is presented against it, it’s just theorized out because no one really knows if the earth is 50,000 years old or not, cause no one has lived that long (it’s all theory, not empirical). So there is no possible way to disprove your sources, because dating is not falsifiable. If it’s falsifiable, please tell me how it is.

Rebuttal 3

Yes, it does favor the Bible. Yes, it tells the truth about radiometric recalculating. Yes their sources are good. & yes, I no longer need the link when you said science can be wrong, because that was my point.

However I’m going to write some premises that I think sums up your case. If they aren’t your premises, then please clarify to me if they aren’t & what is.

1) Science is true

Fallacy -- Pro has agreed that science can be wrong. Therefore this premise might be incorrect, & it’s not my burden of proof to prove that science is true because I don’t argue from it.

2) Science states that the Bible is wrong.

Fallacy - - Science is subjective. Gravity can & cannot exist in science because Erik Verlinde says gravity doesn’t exist where some scientist may disagree with him. Creationist are scientist (some with very legit degrees) & some of them disagree with the dating methods.

Conclusion) The Bible is truly wrong. The Adam & Eve story never happened.

Fallacy -- Unprovable, because there is bad reasoning in the premises.

Rebuttal 5

Sin is an addictive drug.

Rebuttal 6

The evidence for evolution is not empirical.
No one has observed one life-form evolving into a higher life form. The evidence is not like a heart, where you can just simply yank it out a dead body & point to it. All the evidence for it is theoretical, subjective. Theories only exist in the mind until proven otherwise (then its knowledge, not science).

You can present all the evidence you wish, but it cannot be from science, because science can be wrong. All I wish is truth, not something that might be in error. For If I forsake my beliefs for new ones, I want it to be over truth, not lies.

Slavery is not immoral.
If a man wishes to contract himself out to say indentured servitude there is nothing immoral with that. What makes slavery seem wrong is when you get a cruel wicked master who mistreats the slave. It’s your opinion that slavery is immoral. If anybody wishes to be my slave, I don’t see why I should deny them their desire.

Immorality is not a valid argument for saying that something did not happen.
What if I told you that there is an insect that exists that will eat her husband after having sex? This immoral sexual cannibalism is practiced by the praying mantis & praying mantis do exist. If immorality is recorded in the Bible, this does not mean that the events did not take place. So the Adam & Eve story might be still true.

Rebuttal 7

Then your link is making that up. There is no way to know that your great (x100) grandfather couldn’t speak. Likewise it’s impossible to know that caveman didn’t speak either.

Appeal To Science

Rhetoric Pro defends the science concept, so from rhetoric I’ll show that there are other concepts that disagree with it.

Pro appeals to Science, but I make an appeal to Logic & Wisdom.
Logic dictates that science has errors for it contradicts in absolute time & space. Wisdom dictates that historically entire fields of science has been wrong such as alchemy (even theories have been proven wrong), & It dictates that science is subjective, scientist do disagree with each other (obviously creationist scientist do disagree with evolutionist. & they’re both scientist).

I also make an appeal to Fallacy.
Fallacy says this is confirming the consequent. Doesn’t history books sometimes tell the truth? The Old Testament is a history book of the Jews, of what their forefathers bore record of. Pro can’t prove that it never happened, for he would have to prove all history books to be false. For there does exist a possible world where a book written to be history is true.

Debate Round No. 3


Burden Of Proof:

I never said who had BOP. Therefore I feel like it's an even battleground.

Rebuttal 1:

This is ridiculous! He is suggesting the heart works differently then we know it! E-MC2 is a scientific fact. It will not change. This makes your whole argument invalid.

Rebuttal 2:

Okay, you want to play it like that, then here we go. Humans can't live to 800 years old. This even logic can deduce impossible. If we never evolved one bit from Adam and Eve, with the study of modern medicine, then, we would live to be thousands of years old! Many will argue water shaded them from most UV light. Yet, that alone does not let you live to 800.Science is meant to find out the real truth. Not the bible truth, not your version of reality, but the actual reality. If what you are saying is correct, then all our students should drop science class and whip out their bible. I can argue this. Many of the medication you use is because of a scientific formula. If what science says is incorrect, then your medication doesn't work. You can choose to live in the fantasy that science is wrong, but, you do realize the bible is wrong to right?

Genesis 1-16

God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the otherto rule the night

The moon doesn’t omit it’s own light.

"But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

Genesis 2-20-22

This is not correct at all. This would mean we are all related to each other. Forensics debunks this theory.

"These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture . . . The stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat." (Leviticus 11:13-19)


"There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper." (Leviticus 11:21-22)
- Since when do locusts, katydids (bush-crickets), crickets, and grasshoppers have four legs?

Because of what you have done,you will be the only animato suffer this curse—For as long as you live,you will crawl on your stomach and eat dirt.

Snakes don’t eat dirt!

Noah was 600 years old when he went into the boat to escape the flood

Genesis 7-5

We humans, right now, are lucky to live to 80. The oldest living man is 125 years old. This would mean Noah was 475 years older than him when he boarded the boat. In Egyptian territories, to live to 60 was ancient. Noah was 540 years older than the the considered ancient Egyptians. This is impossible!

The Lord told Noah:

Take your whole family with you into the boat, because you are the only one on this earth who pleases me

Genisis 7-1

I have many problems with this. Clearly, there must have been other good, God fearing people. If this was true, he let them all die. This also means we are decendants of Noah which forensics, proves impossible.

10Seven days later a flood began to cover the earth

Genesis 7-10

Again, this means we are all decendants of Noah.

TheLorddestroyed everything that breathed

Why would God kill these animals. They did nothing wrong.

Genesis 7-22

Also, animals from different continents or nations would die. Like the buffalo. Unless Noah was in North America, all would have died. See my point. Animals from different continents than Noah would all die

The bible also said the Earth was the center of the universe. However, we all know the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

So, that means the bible is wrong on many accounts. I didn't even name them all. With science, my theories can actually be proved. Yours can't. The book isn't even made by god. It is made by man!

As for the bias, I just wanted to convert a person that is blinded, and give them sight into reality. Science can be proven and dis-proven. I am telling you, science is correct only when you have enough evidence. I don't believe in the big bang because there is not enough evidence for it, and some evidence against it. That is how you determine what is real. It is time for you to let go off part of your belief. Trust me I was crushed to when I found out it wasn't true. But now, I am happy I know the truth.

Rebuttal 3:

I am running really low on characters so I'll keep it short. Just because it is un-likely doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your argument is kinda flawed.

Rebuttal 4:

I said science that didn't have enough proof.

This is where the proof for and against gravity comes in. Gravity has been proven.

The bible is wrong on that basis.

Rebuttal 5:

LOL. No human is without sin.

Rebuttal 6:

Evolution is happening right now. Stop being so blinded.

Because they may regret their decision. Who wants to become a slave? Many were forced to become a slave Look and read this. (1)

LOL that was funny man.

Rebuttal 8:

Yes it is. It could is documented.

Rebuttal 9:

But who is right. That is what matters. You don't appeal to logic.

Oh and the tower of Babel never happened either. (2)

Ladies and gentlemen, I have proved that:

Adam and Eve couldn't have happened

Proved my opponent's arguments wrong

Science is right

Thank you.






Well, if you never said it, that’s not my fault but yours.

There is no reason to give me a burden that I never claimed. How would you like it if someone required you to prove something not initially required, say prove to me there is a teapot in the center of the universe. The topic is clear, “Adam and Eve Story in the Bible Never Happened” so pro is required to prove that it never happened, but it does not mean that Con is required to prove that it DID happen.

I think you’re trying to even the BOP because you’re no longer confident, that you can’t bear the thought that science might be wrong. For if you were confident that science could disprove the Bible, why require the burden on me?

I recognize that it’s possible for me to be wrong in what I believe, but it’s kind of like absolute time and space: Both classical mechanics and special relativity does contradict, which means one is wrong, but they both work well enough which is why scientist believe both. Likewise the Bible works well for me personally, which is why I believe in it.


My position is that science is possibly wrong, not that it’s always wrong. Honestly I do believe some theories are true, but I don’t believe all of them, I’m skeptical. E=mc2 may very well be true. My case does not deny the possibility, so my argument is not invalid.

Dating is knowingly a fallible science. If you want to get on a technical scale an example of a technique they don’t use anymore is uranium-helium because it’s considered unreliable now (helium atom diffuses easily). On an overall scale the ICR link I brought up mentioned that the dating was officially fallible, it’s telling the truth, their sources are good.

And I would be a fool to think I could disprove the science, because the science is infallible to the utter point it’s not falsifiable. For If I brought up one piece of evidence against it, then you would simply say it was contaminated or a scientist made a mistake. Or if I claimed that data could be contaminated, how could I prove that for I’m not as old as the claims, so I don’t know the true age. It’s literally impossible to disprove his evidence in a debate because the science is just enough unreliable to be neither proven nor disproven. It’s unfair for me because I don’t have the capacity to falsify it, no one does. Therefore the evidence should be rejected.


If you’re saying we should accept science on the benefits to society, this argument does not apply to all science theory. Evolution and dating does not medicate anyone, it doesn’t improve anything. They can be a negative, such as evolution has rationalized racism to the Nazis and their Aryan race. Dating has wasted so much precious debate time where it would be better for a person to enjoy hours of Skyrim then debating it, because there is no way to know how old the earth is for certain.

I know that humans don’t live as old as they use to, it’s written that their age has been modified by God (Gen 6:3) and I don’t know what your meaning by the Adam[f], ribs[g], rib[h]. He took a rib from man and put it into woman.

While I thought about refuting all them in detail, I do know there is an explanation to some of the verses (e.g. they classified bats differently than we do today, birds to them probably meant something like winged creatures. Pluto use to be a planet until it was reclassified, now it’s not a planet. Classification is subjective). But I would like to point out the vanity of pro’s philosophy, that “science can be wrong, but you need evidence to prove it wrong.” If we applied this to Bible verses, suppose you did find a few erroneous word, well congratulations for one word, now you got a million more of them to disprove. So you really can’t fully disprove that the Adam and Eve story never happened, even if you could prove a part of the Bible was with errors. So pro labors in vain trying to find a few verses to discredit the Bible because of his philosophy. It is perfectly fair and right to judge Science the same way as the Bible.

You keep saying if you have enough evidence. When is enough evidence? If I tried to prove the earth was flat, I could have thousands of evidence from all over the earth to suggest it was flat by looking at the ground. But one evidence from space would smash all the evidence from the earth. Evidence quantity does not matter, the quality thereof does. And the evidence you provided to me is not quality, but not convincingly reliable.

I’m sorry you were swept away by the folly of this world. For I do know that the lies are very convincing, but not provable. The Lord loves you and wants you. But if you don’t return, I still say be blessed with wisdom, that you can grow wiser. Philosophy is greater than science; wisdom better then knowledge.


Yes I know. But the BOP is not mine, but yours. Could you be right? Yes. Could you be wrong? Yes. The BOP is on YOU.


Not so certain about gravity’s existence, I think it’s an illusion. And the idea is starting to become popular in physics. Verlinde has gotten featured on Big Think (featured Bill Nye once), you can watch his 8 minute video that explains it. Know it sounds like madness, but its rational.

Also, the Bible doesn’t mention gravity directly, so it’s not wrong on that basis.


If I’m blind it’s because the evidence is not empirical, I have no way of discerning it from lie or truth with the given evidence. It might be true or it might not be true, I have no reason to believe it over what I already do, so I don’t.

One slave wrote on his tomb stone “Slavery was never unkind to me.” Some slaves wanted to be slaves even though they didn’t need to be because the master would offer securities (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) Also keep in made, despite the slave results, they were about abuses not their freedoms. Technically Christians are slaves because they serve a master without pay, and I want to be a Christian still because I like my master. See page 172:

Also that link is talking mainly about Islamic slavery, which isn’t the best example of slavery (Not all slavery is good, some kinds are better than others). The Bible does state that if a slave runs from his master no one could return him (Deut 23:15-16) If you ran, you were practically free.

But the argument is mute on disproving Adam and eve. Just because the bible disagrees with you on morality, does not mean you are right, it means it disagrees with you. So it’s still possible that the story happened.


I would like to see those 400,000 year old empirically based documents. How on earth could they possibly know that?

Let me get this right, a species that could do art (a visual language) could not speak? I’m a little bit skeptical.


I’m kind of skeptical about that babel article, it’s not peer reviewed by any religious group.

I was appealing to logic to point out that science can be wrong now. I didn’t want to simply say science has been wrong in the past from wisdom, but wanted to point out it can be wrong now too. You are assuming that science your arguing with is right.


Thanks for reading this debate, it was a long one. Please vote for me, I’ll sum the reasons below

1) Pro can’t prove science has disproven the Bible
, because he can’t prove his evidence to be true, only assume it to be true. Science can be wrong.

2) BOP is not on me but on Pro
because he didn’t specify when the topic clearly implies that he has the BOP.

3) His reasoning is fallacious, for it would be confirming the consequent. In which he didn’t disagree on.

4) His evidence is not falsifiable.

I would like to make clear. I don’t hate science, some science I do love and entertain. Pro is right in his assentation some science does have uses (medication) I simply don’t accept all of it, some of it's wrong.

Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Are you copypasting this debate into the one your having with Mikal lol
Posted by theJackster 2 years ago
Start with the creation of Adam and then Eve and you find that it is the scientific truth of how man and woman are created. Of course, you gotta read AND understand the Bible to get it, just reading it alone won't do it in my opinion.
Posted by theJackster 2 years ago
Start with the creation of Adam and then Eve and you find that it is the scientific truth of how man and woman are created. Of course, you gotta read AND understand the Bible to get it, just reading it alone won't do it in my opinion.
Posted by Jabuticaba 2 years ago
Adam and eve also had female children. Saying something is scientifically proven does not make is scientifically proven.
No votes have been placed for this debate.