No one said anything about "flying monkeys" or "pink unicorns".
I did. As an analogy to your statement.
You can disagree all you want, but open mockery like that is just rude.
Analogies aren't mockery. I explicitly used examples of things that we both agree probably don't exist. I did that for clarity of the point being made, not for mockery.
That you perceive things as being mockery while not intended to be so, is not something I can do much about.
You brought up the above mentioned creatures that have nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Off course it has to do with what is being talked about. The point being made, obviously, is that things not being disproven, doesn't somehow make them more credible or plausible.
As there are a great many things neither of us believe to be real, which have never been disproven (and never will be disproven either). Like flying monkeys.
It's very easily demonstrated as well...
, but can you explain how the theory of evolution disproves the idea of Adam and Eve as our first parents?
Yes. Evolution theory is about population genetics. Populations evolve, not individuals. Homo sapiens started out as a population of at least thousands. Not just 2 people.
At no point in humanity's history, were there just 2 people.
What assumptions are you going to make about the previously immortal and then mortal bodies of Adam and Eve?
It seems to me that you're the one requiring the assumptions to believe that humans at some point in the past were "immortal"....
The physically impossible event described in the biblical story of Noah.
What do you know about the genetics of men and women that lived to be 900+ years old?
The same thing I know about the genetics of flying monkeys.
Does the Flood event described in Genesis need to be a "global" event?
If it wasn't global, then it would be kind of nonsensical to gather animals on that boat... Or to have that boat to begin with. Instead, you could just move to higher ground and/or out of the affected area.
And the way it is described in the story, it sure seems global.
The Genesis account is not a complete record of everything that supposedly happened. Do you know that only Noah and his family survived the Flood event?
So the story claims. Genetically not true, however.
No one knows what or how it happened. Perhaps it is all allegorical as many Christians currently believe.
Not "perhaps". Rather: "at best".
The flood as described definatly and demonstrably did not happen in reality.
You believe we know and understand all natural laws?
We know enough to know that what is described in the flood story is beyond physical limits would allow. That makes the event impossible.
The Genesis account does claim that after Eve told the Lord that the serpent had beguiled her, the snake's anatomy was altered in some way.
Magic.
How much liquid water existed on the Earth's surface before the Flood event?
There was no flood, so there's no "before" the flood.
The required amount of water
described in the story makes it physically impossible.
It would be more correct to say that the findings of science don't agree with the "assumptions" made about these Biblical stories.
Obviously we are talking about people who believe the bible literally. ie, creationists who think it's all literally true.
Assumptions made about what was written.
No. Instead, responding to claims of creationists saying that it's all literally true.
Well, I know for a fact that I have ancestors from 22 generations back.
I don't know who they were or any details about them or their lives - but they lived. They happened.
Is that a meaningless thing to know?
You know this because you understand the facts of biology.
It is necessarily true. In fact, your ancestry doesn't go back just 22 generations. Your ancestry, and by extension the ancestry of all living things, goes back some 3.8 billion years.
These things are necessarily true as a result of what we know about biology.
The biblical claims are nothing like that. They aren't necessarily true.
No one's faith in God is being made or broken on the details of the Flood event.
That's not entirely true. I know of plenty of ex-fundamentalists who turned atheists as a direct result, or at least in part, of realising that things like the flood never happened.
For such people, finding out that adam and eve never happened, that the flood didn't occur, that the exodus didn't occur,... are real deal breakers.
But, I didn't make any claim at all.
Presenting what the Bible and other scriptures teach is not a claim to their authenticity.
You were the one with the claim about the Biblical stories.
All I said was that there was no evidence to back up your claim.
Challenge...avoided?
No. I supported my claim that the flood as written in the bible and literally believed by biblical creationists, never occured.
You mean all the other unverified claims you made above?
Which claims would that be?
It is if you claimed that you could disprove them.
Which we can, and did.
But even if we couldn't, it wouldn't change anything. The literal biblical stories, would still be just-so stories with no evidence to back them up. It would have to be shelved along side things like flying monkeys, bigfoot and alien abduction. Come to think of it... it would actually have to be on a lower shelve then those things... as those things don't require the laws of nature to be suspended and / or violated, as they don't require invoking magic.
I'm not arrogant enough to think I know everything about all time and space throughout the universe.
Which isn't required.
Claims with no evidence that require the violation of known natural laws, are never credible. No matter how knowledgeable or ignorant one is about the universe and its inner workings.
It sure sounding like you were hinting to that when you felt the need to mention that none of those stories have been disproven. Usually, in discussions like this, whenever the defence mentions that, it is said to make the point that it's justifyable to believe it "because it's not been shown false".
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I have to say that by this point, I've encountered such "argument" so many times, that all alarm bells go off whenever it comes up.
No. Testing the claims of creationists.
Obviously we aren't talking about people who see it as poetry and don't see it as actual events that actually happened in actual reality....
Faith is the belief in things that cannot be proven.
Or supported.
Some people live by faith. Others don't.
Deal with it.
Not the issue.
