Help Me Understand, part duex

[TheRocketSurgeon]

So.. Mr. Science needs Mr. religion to explain the difference between a preserved bone and a fossil? You know by not knowing that their is a difference between a preserved bone and a fossilized bone, everything you conclude that is based on the age of a given bone is now in question...

A preserved bone is actual 100% bone material that has been kept from decay.

A fossilized bone is when minerals from the surrounding substrate leach into the bone fortifying or even replacing the bone material completely, turning the sample into a bone/mineral hybrid. Fossilized bones are much harder to date, that is why their are such big swings/Date ranges when ever a fossil is found

Quick! Notify the scientific community. They're apparently completely unaware (in your mind) of this information.

Why do you think they don't know this, that they use the method you're suggesting, or that they can't compensate for it?

Adam and Eve supposedly were the first Human beings on Earth.  They were here 6,000 years ago.  We have found Human fossils (just for you) that are over 100,000 years old.

Ah... No.
Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden 6000 years ago.. we have no record of how long they were in the Garden. We know by Genesis 2 that the garden was complete long before the earth was completely formed, we also know the Garden was a picture of what the world looked like at the time of the fall, but again we have no idea how long the Garden existed with Adam and Eve living immortally in it with God. It could have been a week month, a year or even 5 billion years or maybe even a bazillion years. (truly who cares)
So where do we get 6000 years? if we count back the number of generations from Christ to Adam and add 2000 from now to Christ. But seeings how A&E did not have children in the garden, the most accurate thing we can say is it's been 6000 years since the exodus from the Garden. Because again counting back from Christ to Adam was 4000 years (supposedly, I've never actually counted)

We know what your mythology says about A&E. We know how Bishop Ussher calculated the 6000 years based on the geneaology of the "begats".

What we're telling you is that we know there were not two people on earth 6000 years ago, but millions. The cities of Jericho, and Çatal Höyük are over 9000 years old. And the cities of Uruk, Eridu, and Ur (the homeland of Abram) were all founded by the time you're claiming Adam was the lone man in the Garden.

you tell me sport. Your the noob with his foot in his mouth right now. Do you get it? Do you get the garden was a protected preserve that COULD have housed Adam and Eve the 5 billion years 'science' says Evolution took place? and upon the fall of man and his explusion the world outside the garden had time to 'evolve' to the point that Adam and his decendents would have been compatible with the food sources and people? Or do you need further explaination?

I have to confess, I have not heard this argument before. But it begs a question. If humans waited, in a state of eternal life, while everything else evolved and diversified into modern life, why do we show every sign of evolving (shared genetic markers in our noncoding DNA like viral-infection scars, for instance) the same way as everything else on earth? Why would it be necessary to fake the appearance that we evolve the same way as everything else?

How are we finding remains that are 94,000 years older than the first Humans who supposedly set foot on Earth?

Adam was the first man made in the image of God (Which means he was the first man with a soul.) and Adam existed long before Monkey/man 'evolved.' So technically again he was the first man. That said.. Nothing in the bible says Adam was the only Man. In fact it would suggest otherwise. For instance where did the city of Nod Cain was banished to come from? A city then and now is not based on buildings but a given population in a region/community. Who were the people that Adam and Eve's Children marry? The bible makes no claims of incest, it seems to assume that we know that what went on in the garden was not a picture of what was going on outside it's boarders. As Genesis 1,2& 3 focous on the goings on in the garden Anything like say IDK EVOLUTION could have happened outside of it!

Another way to look at it is that humans evolved normally, and that Adam symbolically represents the first modern humans, the ones who had the intelligence and spiritual capacity to recognize their Creator. If you treat it as allegory about mankind rising to know God, in the perfect garden (earth) that was made for us, and living according to God's laws (laws of nature) as hunter-gatherers for the first ~100,000 years of our existence as modern man, before we decided we didn't want to live by natural laws anymore and instead developed agriculture, which meant that we (not God) decided what plants went where, what animals had to die, and what territories were "ours" to build cities on. From then on, instead of living by the providence of God for what we eat, we had to "live by the sweat of our brows". In other words, we decided for ourselves we had the knowledge of good and evil, and destroyed the garden of God. We're still destroying it. It's a powerful allegory... if you don't treat it as a literal history, it becomes something even more important: a warning from our most ancient ancestors of how their ancestors ruined our created relationship with God by defying the laws of Natural Selection.

I suppose by that definition, both agriculture and penicillin are sins, since they defy the laws of NS.

You have a more nuanced understand of science than the average Creationist, so it looks like SofaKing assumed you were an Answers In Genesis-type Creationist incorrectly. Hope you'll forgive us. It's not an unfair assumption-- your kind of theology is more rare, here. Most Christians who debate here tend to either 100% accept evolution or 100% reject it.