The Instigator
Phenenas
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
princearchitect
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

The Biblical Adam and Eve were real people

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
princearchitect
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,327 times Debate No: 90429
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (1)

 

Phenenas

Con

I will be arguing that it is scientifically, logically, and historically impossible that the Biblical Adam and Eve ever existed in the real world. Pro must argue not only that Adam and Eve are historical, non-fictional figures, but that the accounts of their lives outlined in Genesis are completely accurate. Therefore, the BoP is shared by Pro and Con.

Definitions:
Adam - according to the Book of Genesis, the first man, created from dust by God.
Eve - according to the Book of Genesis, the first woman, created from one of Adam's ribs.
Biblical - going by what the Bible (Old Testament in this case) has to say about the subject.

Rounds:
Round 1 - acceptance
Round 2 - opening arguments
Round 3 - defense and rebuttal
Round 4 - final defense and conclusion

Good luck to whoever accepts!
princearchitect

Pro

I accept con's challenge, thank you for the invitation.
Debate Round No. 1
Phenenas

Con

Thank you for accepting, Pro. Here is a breakdown of my opening argument:

1. Fossils
2. Incest
3. Evolution
4. Aging

1. Fossils
The general consensus is that Adam and Eve were created several millennia ago, around 4000 BC [1]. If they were the first man and woman, then how does one account for the multitudes of fossils found by archaeologists dating long before that, which are very clearly human? Take some of the earlier human fossils dating from the Mesolithic era [2]. Not only do they date back long before Eden supposedly existed, but they were found in regions all over the world, not just the Fertile Crescent.

The modern human species, Homo sapiens, first developed from Homo heidelbergensis from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago [3]. We are, in fact, part of a great evolutionary tree of subhuman species, including Neanderthalis, Erectus, and Habilis. We know this because scientists use fossil records to trace changes in anatomy, diet, brain size, and migratory patterns through these "breeds" of human back to our ape ancestors [4]. The overwhelming majority of scientists support these records as factual, since their age was determined with radiocarbon dating, an extremely reliable method of measuring how long ago an organism was alive [5]. Since they clearly contradict Scripture, Pro must argue that either the records are unreliable, or the scientists are.

2. Incest
According the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were the first two humans and the ancestors of all people that would come after. God did not directly create any other humans, going by Genesis 3:20, which states "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." [6]. Therefore, the only way they could have populated the Earth is with copious amounts of interbreeding between family members. As most of us know, incest is not only morally wrong, but leads to many genetic disorders, diseases, and defects [7]. Humans, and many animals, need a sufficient amount of genetic variation to survive and adapt as a species for more than a few generations. To obtain the amount of variation needed to create a viable population of humans, scientists estimate 160 individuals as the absolute minimum number [8], let alone two.

Let us move on to the moral problems caused by this incestual issue. In the Book of Leviticus, supposedly written by Moses, who according to Judeo-Christian tradition received direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit, we see laws specifically prohibiting incest of any kind. In the eighteenth chapter, sexual relations with one's siblings, parents, and other relatives are all strictly forbidden [9]. Keeping this in mind, let us examine Genesis 4:17, reading "Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch." Many scholars are baffled by this passage because there is no previous mention of Cain having a wife. Because Eve is "mother of all the living", God cannot have created a wife for Cain, so we are left with two options: 1. Cain married his sister, or more disturbingly, 2. Cain married Eve herself. Both of these options are vile sins according to the Laws of Moses.

One could argue that because Adam and Eve were affected by original sin and expelled from Eden, their children were forced to indulge in sinful acts just to survive. But early on in Genesis, even before the Fall, God explicitly commands Adam and Eve to reproduce. "Be fruitful and multiply", He says to them, in spite of the fact that the only way they can multiply is with the wicked act of inbreeding. I accuse God of contradicting Himself. You might say that God's laws have changed between pre-Flood and Mosaic times, but Scripture makes no mention of this.

3. Evolution
Evolution is a scientific fact. Humans did not come about spontaneously, created from dust and/or ribs, but diverged from the apes in a complex process that took millions upon millions of years. The fossil evidence I mentioned earlier lends great support to evolution, as well as the similarities of the human genome to those of primates, particularly the chimpanzee [10]. As many know, there is only a small percentage of difference in DNA between the human and chimp. This fact, combined with the numerous fossils leading back to Africa, shows that we are very closely related to the great apes, and in fact belong in the primate family. The empirical proof is so overwhelming that evolution cannot be described as a mere theory, but as an undeniable truth.

I will return briefly to the idea of genetic variation. If everyone on the planet is descended from only two individuals, how did different races come about? If Genesis is to be believed, every single human being on the Earth would contain only mixtures of Adam and Eve's DNA, but we are so diverse that the very idea is impossible. While all human races are the same species, Homo sapiens, scientists sometimes describe them as "subspecies". The five major subspecies of human diverged over tens of thousands of years, spreading all across the planet [11]. One common defense I have heard was the Tower of Babel story told in Genesis 11, where God divides humanity and scatters them around the world. However, the story only mentions that different languages came about as a result; it says nothing of culture or skin color. And still, two or three thousand years is far too short a time for racial differences to form.

4. Aging
According to Genesis 5:3, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and was fertile for much of that time, judging by his having a son at 130 years of age. How could this have come about? The oldest person on record was Jeanne Calment, a Frenchwoman who survived 122 years [12], not much in comparison to Adam, and she had access to modern healthcare unavailable to Adam. If we examine Genesis, Adam and Eve's close descendants lived for many hundreds of years, but after Noah, the lifespan slowly evens out to what it is today. Perhaps the gift of immortality, which Adam and Eve were given in Eden, is gradually lost over time. That makes sense in the context of the myth, but it contradicts science.

In the Neolithic era, which the supposed Edenic period falls into chronologically, the average life expectancy for humans was only 20-33 years, due to disease, predators, and climate [13]. Indeed, the world was a very deadly place in ancient times, even in Scripture. In Genesis 3:17, God curses the ground as punishment for original sin, saying "through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life". How is it that ten generations of men, from Adam to Noah, all lived for hundreds of years, apparently not succumbing to starvation, disease, or murder? Many horrible creatures walked the Earth, including, according to some fundamentalist theologians, dinosaurs. I must ask Pro if he believes that dinosaurs and humans coexisted with each other, and if not, his thoughts on how dinosaur fossils relate to Eden.

These are not all of my arguments, but I simply ran out of space this round. I thank Pro again for accepting, and I look forward to his rebuttal.

SOURCES:
princearchitect

Pro

First and Foremost, I want to thank my Lord & Savior Jesus Christ for blessing me with the chance to represent him.
I also want to thank Con for his opening argument and sharing his beliefs in this debate.

Allow me to open up by showing an error in Con's opening statement, "I will be arguing that it is scientifically, logically, and historically impossible that the Biblical Adam and Eve ever existed in the real world."

Understand that Con cannot rationally say it's impossible scientifically because that which is determine scientific requires observation. The meaning of science is, knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation. http://www.merriam-webster.com....

Unless Con was actually there observing these events unfold with actual facts learned through experiments he cannot logically conclude that such events are impossible.

I also like to make known that Con's sources number 3, 4, & 10 do not open up for me.

Con stated,1. Fossils
The general consensus is that Adam and Eve were created several millennia ago, around 4000 BC [1]. If they were the first man and woman, then how does one account for the multitudes of fossils found by archaeologists dating long before that, which are very clearly human? Take some of the earlier human fossils dating from the Mesolithic era.

According to Google search "The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use." But it also states that, "Older fossils cannot be dated by carbon-14 or as Con states it, "radiocarbon" methods and require radiometric dating. https://www.google.com...
client=opera&q=methods+of+dating+fossils&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

So Con's opening argument concerning the dating of these fossils fails because if these fossils are millions of years old the dating method archaeologist prefer to use cannot be used. So his argument concerning fossils dating from the Mesolithic era fails as well. Also let me emphasize that the fossil record is a unreliable method to determine how we evolved through natural selection because when a fossil is found one cannot determine what the fossil evolved from and what it evolved to.
Unless we have observable evidence of these evolutionary changes actually happened in nature these determinations are only assumptions.

Allow me to say that for the sake of space and how we are limited to a number of words in each round for me to answer Con's arguments, I would number his argument and offer my rebuttal.

2. Incest

A common misconception among Biblical critics is that Adam and Eve were the only two populating the world. They ask this common question, If Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain and Able, then Cain killed Able and knew his wife, where did his wife come from? There are multiple scriptures that answers this question.

Genesis 5:4 King James Version (KJV)
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
https://www.biblegateway.com...

Also study Luke 3:36-38 it gives us there names
https://www.biblegateway.com...

As we can clearly see Adam begot other sons and daughters, so the argument that their was only two populating the earth fails.

Now lets move on the problems of incest being morally wrong and interbreeding disorders.
In my research I found this interesting article in Bible.org which states, "As to incest, it was not considered a sin and was not prohibited for Adam and early man. If the race was to populate and fulfill the command of Gen. 1:28, there is little doubt that Adam"s sons and daughters had to have married their own sisters and brothers if the race was to populate the earth, but due to the purity of the race as evidenced also by the long length of life, there were no adverse effects as we see happening today. Gradually, as the effects of sin took its toll on the human race, marrying one"s own sister, etc., began to create hereditary problems.

We know that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters in addition to Abel, Cain, and Seth (Gen. 5:4), and if there was only one original family, then the first marriages had to be between brothers and sisters. Such marriages in the beginning were not harmful. Incest is dangerous because inherited mutant genes that produce deformed, sickly, or moronic children are more likely to find expression in children if those genes are carried by both parents. Certainly, Adam and Eve, coming from the creative hand of God, had no such mutant genes. Therefore, marriages between brothers and sisters, or nieces and nephews in the first and second generations following Adam and Eve would not have been dangerous.

Therefore when Con states, "God cannot have created a wife for Cain, so we are left with two options: 1. Cain married his sister, or more disturbingly, 2. Cain married Eve herself. Both of these options are vile sins according to the Laws of Moses.

For the sake of space, If God is willing, In my next round I will refute more of Con's opening arguments in the next round as more space is permitted for me to do especially 3. Evolution and 4. Aging arguments.

Again I want to thank Con for this debate and I look forward to his response.
Debate Round No. 2
Phenenas

Con

Thank you for responding, Pro. However, I have spotted several flaws in your counter-argument. Let's take a look.

"Con cannot rationally say it's impossible scientifically because that which is determine scientific requires observation."

Here, Pro makes the common mistake of assuming that science is restricted only to observable, controlled experiments in a laboratory. But the "observations" of science are not limited only to what we can see with the naked eye. Scientists don't need to travel back in time to the Cretaceous period to know that dinosaurs existed, nor do they need to fly to the sun to know what elements it's composed of. We have petrified skeletons and spectrometers for that. In the same manner, we can look at already-existing archaeological and biological evidence, notice that the story of Adam and Eve contradicts this evidence, and conclude that the story is false.

I must point out that Google itself is not a source, but a means to find sources. This, I believe, is the source Pro used to refute my point about radiocarbon dating: http://www.actionbioscience.org... And I must admit that I erred in terminology last round. I used the term "radiocarbon" when it should have been "radiometric". Radiocarbon dating is reserved for the later Stone Age fossils. Now that I've corrected myself, my point still stands. Both methods are seen as very accurate by all qualified scientists in the field of geology. [1] The only difference is precision. We know that humans and apes diverged somewhere in the vicinity of 4-5 million years ago based on radiometric dating, and we know the Dead Sea Scrolls are around 2000 years old based on radiocarbon dating.

"Also let me emphasize that the fossil record is a unreliable method to determine how we evolved through natural selection because when a fossil is found one cannot determine what the fossil evolved from and what it evolved to."

We most certainly can determine what fossils evolved from and what they evolved into. Take a look at this map of fossil findings of several different species all over Africa and Eurasia, supported by findings from the National Geographic Society (check source number 2 for the full-size image if you can't see it):



Here we see Australopithecus, with a skeleton that looks about halfway between ape and man, which lived in East Africa around 4 million years ago. Homo habilis lived in roughly the same area, up until 2 million years ago. At 1 million years ago, we see the Homo erectus species migrating all over the place, from North Africa to Europe to Asia to Indonesia. Fast forward to 600,000 years ago, and there are Homo heidelbergensis fossils in roughly the same areas. We find Neanderthal fossils in Europe and Western Asia, and finally Homo sapiens, modern man, originating in Africa, migrating throughout the Eastern Hemisphere, and unlike all the other species, failing to go extinct. [3] Most of the time, these fossils become more humanlike and less apelike as they date more recently in history, and the areas they were found in correspond perfectly to suggest a great migration. I must ask Pro: what does he make of these findings? Are these patterns a huge coincidence, or are the bones simply hoaxes?

"As we can clearly see Adam begot other sons and daughters, so the argument that their was only two populating the earth fails."

I never made any such argument, and I am well aware that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. But as I mentioned, Cain would have to be taking his own sister as his wife, which God later forbids.

Pro cites an article from Bible.org which explains how incest was not prohibited in Edenic times. However, there is not a single verse in Scripture that supports it, and it is simply the conjecture of modern theologians. The idea of Adam and Eve's DNA being too "perfect" to give their children genetic disorders is an interesting one, but it's purely theoretical and not based on any reliable evidence.

I will give my fifth point, which I was unable to post during Round 2 since I ran out of characters.


5. Migration
Genesis is very explicit about the location of Eden, where Adam and Eve were created. In Genesis 2:10, we get this description: "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah ... The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates." All that matches up perfectly to the region of Mesopotamia, roughly corresponding to modern-day Iraq. While it is true that the first great civilizations arose in Mesopotamia (Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, etc.), mankind really started in Africa. As the map shows, tons of fossils of human ancestors were found in Africa, as well as the modern species of Homo sapiens tens of thousands of years ago. Based on this evidence, the vast majority of scholars believe that humanity originated in Africa, not the Middle East, and migrated outward in a series of waves. [4]

My refutation is finished, but I have one more question for Pro. Last round, I asked Pro about his interpretation of dinosaur fossils and whether or not they contradict the Bible, and he declined to answer. I am unaware if he overlooked the question or was simply saving his answer for this round, but I wish to point out the dilemma again as a reminder. That point could be vital to the nature of this debate. All that being said, I will allow Pro to make his counter-argument.

SOURCES:
princearchitect

Pro

Allow me to apologize that I forgot to mention a source in my rebuttal and here it is.
https://bible.org...

Again I want to thank Con for his rebuttal, and again I find common fundamental mistakes and errors in his logic, not only that I have evidence that he is dishonest. But let me touch bases on the second have of his opening argument then I will touch bases on his rebuttal. As we can clearly see when I debunked his incest argument that he failed to touch bases on in his rebuttal so I think that he concedes that argument and to add to the fallacy of such arguments even from an evolutionary perspective if we all descended from the same family tree, incest has to take place for the world to populate as we see today.

Consider this statement from Bible.org: But here is another issue to consider. If one accepts the evolutionary hypothesis as to the origin of the human race, has that really relieved the issue of incest? Not unless you also propound the idea of the evolution of many pairs of beings, pre-human or whatever, at the same time. No matter what theory of the origin of the human race one may take, are we not driven to the conclusion that in the early history of the race, there was the need for intermarriage of the children of the same pair? https://bible.org...

My opponent stated: Let us move on to the moral problems caused by this incestual issue. In the Book of Leviticus, supposedly written by Moses, who according to Judeo-Christian tradition received direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit, we see laws specifically prohibiting incest of any kind. In the eighteenth chapter, sexual relations with one's siblings, parents, and other relatives are all strictly forbidden [9]. Keeping this in mind, let us examine Genesis 4:17, reading "Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch." Many scholars are baffled by this passage because there is no previous mention of Cain having a wife. Because Eve is "mother of all the living", God cannot have created a wife for Cain, so we are left with two options: 1. Cain married his sister, or more disturbingly, 2. Cain married Eve herself. Both of these options are vile sins according to the Laws of Moses.

This is a common error made by Biblical critics, they cherry pic scriptures, try to connect them together and come to a conclusion that God made a mistake, he is not to be trusted. Not comprehending that scriptures verifies scriptures, that if one finds a inconsistency in one part, the answer could be in another part. For example, He takes the incest of Adam and Eve and the first generation of the human race populating the world with the law of Moses in Leviticus & come to a conclusion that God is contradicting himself. But Con failed to factor in, Romans 5:12-14 King James Version (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

As we can clearly see sin is not inputed when there is no law, and there was no law from Adam to Moses, so for Con to say things like, "God cannot have created a wife for Cain, so we are left with two options: 1. Cain married his sister, or more disturbingly, 2. Cain married Eve herself. Both of these options are vile sins according to the Laws of Moses." Only tells me the only thing thats vile in this fallacy is Con's gross misinterpretation of the scriptures as we can clearly see errors in his logic, research, and understanding.

Allow me to touch bases on Con's rebuttal when he stated, " I will return briefly to the idea of genetic variation. If everyone on the planet is descended from only two individuals, how did different races come about? If Genesis is to be believed, every single human being on the Earth would contain only mixtures of Adam and Eve's DNA, but we are so diverse that the very idea is impossible.

There goes that impossible word again, when their is a very logical explanation and concrete evidence to prove it is not impossible because every human being on earth have Melanin and Melanocyte. Melanin is a broad term for a group of natural pigments found in most organisms (arachnids are one of the few groups in which it has not been detected). Melanin is produced by the oxidation of the amino acid tyrosine, followed by polymerization. The pigment is produced in a specialized group of ligaments and tissues known as melanocytes.

There are three basic types of melanin: eumelanin, pheomelanin, and neuromelanin. The most common is eumelanin, of which there are two types"brown eumelanin and black eumelanin. Pheomelanin is a cysteine-containing red polymer of benzothiazine units largely responsible for red hair, among other pigmentation. Neuromelanin is found in the brain, though its function remains obscure.

In the skin, melanogenesis occurs after exposure to UV radiation, causing the skin to visibly tan. Melanin is an effective absorber of light; the pigment is able to dissipate over 99.9% of absorbed UV radiation.[1] Because of this property, melanin is thought to protect skin cells from UVB radiation damage, reducing the risk of cancer. Furthermore, though exposure to UV radiation is associated with increased risk of malignant melanoma, a cancer of the melanocytes, studies have shown a lower incidence for skin cancer in individuals with more concentrated melanin, i.e. darker skin tone.https://en.wikipedia.org...

Now lets look at Melanocyte are melanin-producing cells located in the bottom layer (the stratum basale) of the skin's epidermis, the middle layer of the eye (the uvea),[3] the inner ear,[4] meninges,[5] bones,[6] and heart.[7] Melanin is the pigment primarily responsible for skin color. Once synthesised, melanin is contained in a special organelle called a melanosome and moved along arm-like structures called dendrites, so as to reach the keratinocytes.https://en.wikipedia.org...

Through a process called melanogenesis, these cells produce melanin, which is a pigment found in the skin, eyes, and hair. This melanogenesis leads to a long-lasting pigmentation, which is in contrast to the pigmentation that originates from oxidation of already-existing melanin.

The difference in skin color between lightly and darkly pigmented individuals is due not to the number (quantity) of melanocytes in their skin, but to the melanocytes' level of activity (quantity and relative amounts of eumelanin and pheomelanin). This process is under hormonal control, including the MSH and ACTH peptides that are produced from the precursor proopiomelanocortin. People with oculocutaneous albinism typically have a very low level of melanin production.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

So what were dealing with here as the human race populated the world, we had to migrate to different parts of the world, its not hard to conclude that the people and the generations after them who were exposed to more UV radiation would produce a different skin pigmentation and color tone than those who migrated to parts of the world where less UV radiation was exposed to them. This is concrete evidence that proves it had nothing to do wit the Tower of Babel.

So for Con to assume its impossible to have different races according to the Genesis creation narrative is a false dichotomy based on subjective and faulty reasoning. I would encourage Con who have done some research but with a skeptical mind to renounce his personal biases which leads to one-sided research that would be exposed by the evidence. Time is up!
Debate Round No. 3
Phenenas

Con

Thank you for this debate, Pro, and I'm sorry that you misunderstood the round structure. You had ample opportunity to present your own viewpoints in round 2; I assure you that I wasn't attempting to dominate the whole argument. I hope our future debates will go more smoothly.

Final Defense
Con cites a quote from Bible.org, which reads "...are we not driven to the conclusion that in the early history of the race, there was the need for intermarriage of the children of the same pair?" Yes, absolutely! From Neolithic tribes to ancient Egyptian dynasties, there has been a lot of inbreeding in ancient human history. But there is at least some genetic variation; Scripture would tell us that our genes can be traced back to only two individuals, the least variation humanly possible. That's the point I was driving at. All children are simply a combination of their mother's and father's DNA; therefore, if Genesis was right, every human on this planet would be simply a different mixture of Adam and Eve, which seems highly unlikely to me.

Pro quoted Romans 5 to refute my argument that God contradicted Himself, and I must admit that he was correct. These verses concisely explain why incest was permissible before the days of Moses, and I was ignorant of the quote before he brought it to my attention. So I will give that point to Pro, and I trust he is quite pleased with himself. But on the scientific front, which this debate mostly rests on, I remain mostly unrefuted.

For his final argument, Pro copies and pastes a lengthy description of the pigment melanin. He gave a total of six consecutive paragraphs ripped directly from the article. This is unnecessary, irrelevant to the debate, and borders on plagiarism. Anyway, it isn't that simple. The races have slight genetic differences, not just different skin colors. For example, those of African descent are far more likely to have sickle-cell anemia due to their natural resistance to malaria. Besides, it would take over ten thousand years for sunlight to have any noticeable effect on melanin levels [1], but according to creationists, the universe has only been around for six thousand.

Conclusion

I began this debate by presenting scientific evidence as to why Adam and Eve could not have existed, backing it up with quotes from Scripture. Pro, due to a large misunderstanding, stuck to refuting my arguments without presenting any evidence for his side. He has succeeded in rebuking my theological argument about God contradicting Himself with a verse from Romans 5. For point 2 alone, I'll admit, I was wrong.

However, my scientific evidence, the focus of this debate, has gone largely untouched by Pro. All he has delivered thus far is a sourceless generalization that you can't trust fossil records, and an essay on melanin yanked straight from Wikipedia. In the comments, he states that I "failed to present any viable reasons why Adam and Eve were not real but presented these false dichotomy either/or situations attacking the bible". Somehow, Pro fails to see how archaeology, evolution, genetics, and ancient history could possibly ever influence an argument about whether or not Adam and Eve existed. And daring to question the Bible on a logical level is "attacking" it, as we all know.

Pro believes that I should be penalized because I asked questions during my opening argument, questions that I was expecting to be answered during round 3. Voters, take that however you will. While I'll admit this did not go the way I intended, I again thank Pro for his argument, and wish him the best of luck during the voting period.

SOURCES:
princearchitect

Pro

Con should not win this debate, he have broken the cardinal debate rule, never let your opponent use your own source against you. I will use Con's own source to bring his entire argument to nothing.

Con posted
1. Fossils
The general consensus is that Adam and Eve were created several millennia ago, around 4000 BC [1]. If they were the first man and woman, then how does one account for the multitudes of fossils found by archaeologists dating long before that, which are very clearly human? Take some of the earlier human fossils dating from the Mesolithic era [2]. Not only do they date back long before Eden supposedly existed, but they were found in regions all over the world, not just the Fertile Crescent.

The modern human species, Homo sapiens, first developed from Homo heidelbergensis from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago [3]. We are, in fact, part of a great evolutionary tree of subhuman species, including Neanderthalis, Erectus, and Habilis. We know this because scientists use fossil records to trace changes in anatomy, diet, brain size, and migratory patterns through these "breeds" of human back to our ape ancestors [4]. The overwhelming majority of scientists support these records as factual, since their age was determined with radiocarbon dating, an extremely reliable method of measuring how long ago an organism was alive [5]. Since they clearly contradict Scripture, Pro must argue that either the records are unreliable, or the scientists are.

Con's own source:http://www.infoplease.com... says,

Our Common Ancestor
Most scientists believe our common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Then two species broke off into separate lineages, one ultimately evolving into gorillas and chimps, the other evolving into early humans called hominids. In the millions of years that followed, at least a dozen different species of humanlike creatures have existed, reflected in the fossil discoveries of paleoanthropologists, although many of these species are close relatives but not actual ancestors of modern humans.
In fact, the fossil record does not represent a straight line of ancestry at all; many of these early hominids left no descendents and simply died out.

Con stated, "Since they clearly contradict Scripture, Pro must argue that either the records are unreliable, or the scientists are." How about a 3rd option the only thing that's unreliable in the case above is Con's interpretation of the evidence.
Clearly Con is misinformed.

Con posted 3. Evolution Evolution is a scientific fact.
Con's own source:http://www.infoplease.com... says,
Only a Theory?
Some people dismiss evolution as "just a theory." Evolution is in fact a theory, a scientific theory.

Again Con is misinformed of his own source he used.

Con stated: 3. Evolution The fossil evidence I mentioned earlier lends great support to evolution, as well as the similarities of the human genome to those of primates, particularly the chimpanzee [10]. As many know, there is only a small percentage of difference in DNA between the human and chimp. This fact, combined with the numerous fossils leading back to Africa, shows that we are very closely related to the great apes, and in fact belong in the primate family. The empirical proof is so overwhelming that evolution cannot be described as a mere theory, but as an undeniable truth.

Again Con's own source brings his interpretations to waste, http://www.infoplease.com... says,

The Relationship between Apes and Humans
Since scientists developed the ability to decode the genome and compare the genetic makeup of species, some people have been stunned to learn that about 98.5% of the genes in people and chimpanzees are identical. This finding means chimps are the closest living biological relatives to humans, but it does not mean that humans evolved from chimps. What it does indicate is that humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes (i.e., gorillas and chimpanzees), making us very, very distant cousins. We are therefore related to these other living primates, but we did not descend from them.

Modern humans differ from apes in many significant ways. Human brains are larger and more complex; people have elaborate forms of communication and culture; and people habitually walk upright, can manipulate very small objects, and can speak.

Con stated 1. Fossils The modern human species, Homo sapiens, first developed from Homo heidelbergensis from 100,000 to 200,000 years ago [3]. We are, in fact, part of a great evolutionary tree of subhuman species, including Neanderthalis, Erectus, and Habilis. We know this because scientists use fossil records to trace changes in anatomy, diet, brain size, and migratory patterns through these "breeds" of human back to our ape ancestors [4]. The overwhelming majority of scientists support these records as factual,

Con's own source:http://www.infoplease.com... says, The name australopithecine means "southern ape," in reference to South Africa where the first known fossils were found. According to Con's own source, not only does he have our first common ancestor wrong, when he stated, "We know this because scientists use fossil records to trace changes in anatomy, diet, brain size, and migratory patterns through these "breeds" of human back to our ape ancestors.

He got that wrong as well because his source states:Australopithecines: The very early years of the transition from ape to human, from 6 million to 4 million years ago, is poorly documented in the fossil record.

Now Con have gracefully conceded portions of his incest argument when Romans 5:12-14 debunked his interpretation of the scriptures. Now he should gracefully concede this debate as the gross misinterpretation of his own source data consistently brings his entire case to absolutely nothing.

Con accused me of borderline plagiarism stating, "He gave a total of six consecutive paragraphs ripped directly from the article. This is unnecessary, irrelevant to the debate, and borders on plagiarism." First of all Con it is not plagiarism if you acknowledge the source. Your accusation would have been valid had I ripped the paragraphs, without acknowledging the source, and pond it off like it was my own. But as we can clearly observe I acknowledged all three sources in my rebuttal. 2. Wikipedia is not an article or a peer review, it is a free encyclopedia that gives definitions and meanings to words.

With such overwhelming contradictions from Con's own sources debunking his arguments, consider these three options: 1.Either Con didn't read his own sources altogether! 2.Con did read his sources but manipulated the evidence for the sake of winning a debate! 3. Con underestimated me that I would actually take the time to study his sources and turn it against him.
I think its a combination of 2 & 3. Nevertheless nothing Con argued should be trusted in this debate.

Conclusion:
According to Con's grossly misinterpreted arguments, I find no reason to believe nothing he says, let alone the Biblical Adam and Eve were not real people. The Biblical account of the origins of Adam and Eve is very viable, rather your an Atheist, Evolutionist, or Christian, we all must come to the conclusion that we had to have a beginning, a starting point in human history and that is what Genesis provides, a rational revelation about the beginning of our human history. So tell me logically, who have the most reliable information we should trust? The second-hand information of mankind who uses amazing technology in an attempt to understand the universe. Or the eye-witness information from the one who created it all. Rationally, I choose the eye-witness information.

In closing, I want to thank Con for a spirited debate and good sportsmanship, I encourage voters to vote for Pro as the clear winner of this debate. If any of you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Good luck in the voting Con.
Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
The policy guide is right here:

http://www.debate.org...

Just scroll down to post #4, and there's an abbreviated guide for voting.
Posted by thebestdebate 9 months ago
thebestdebate
He's contacted me. I sent him a copy of my RFD to read it over. I trust your judgment but I would like to inquire further. Is there a page to go to so I know exactly how to vote?
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
@thebestdebate

I'm pretty sure that Blade-of-Truth has already contacted you about this with some details as to why the vote was removed. You're a new voter, so it's understandable that you didn't have the standards down when you posted this vote. If any of the standards are unclear, feel free to ask either him or me about them.
Posted by thebestdebate 9 months ago
thebestdebate
Ooops. I didn't see the voting period was over. I apologize
Posted by thebestdebate 9 months ago
thebestdebate
@whiteflame should I recast? This was my first ever vote. If it didn't meet the standards I'll recheck the RFD and resubmit it so it'll be more accurate (if it's not already).
Posted by princearchitect 9 months ago
princearchitect
Thank you very much dsjpk5. It was very stressful man. indeed.
Posted by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
Congratulations on your win, Prince
Posted by princearchitect 9 months ago
princearchitect
Do what you do best, find another stupid reason why his vote shouldn't count!
Posted by princearchitect 9 months ago
princearchitect
White Flame there go another vote for you to steal.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
Last thing I'll say: could you please stop with this medication nonsense? Whether or not I take medication for any purpose is irrelevant to you, and frankly I've been nothing but cordial in our conversations while you've insulted me and your opponent multiple times. Casting aspersions about my mental status is just absurd and entirely unnecessary.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Kescarte_DeJudica 9 months ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
PhenenasprincearchitectTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Upon reconsideration, I have decided to recast my vote. I decided that the conduct and S&G of the debate was about the same. Both of you used good resources, but I think Con had better ones because he had more of them to back up his argument than Pro had for his. However, I think Pro had a slightly more convincing argument, especially since he was able to disprove his opponent's argument on incest being a contradiction according to the Bible. Please remember though, it was a close decision and both of you presented a very good debate! I look forward to seeing more from both of you in the future!