Adam & Eve did NOT exist.

The central myth of Christianity has been disproven by modern science, and this information deserves to be spread far and wide.

Why Evolution Threatens Christianity: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/evolution-threatens-christi...
Adam and Eve did not exist: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/adam-and-eve-the-ultimate-...
http://www.thegeneticgenealogist.com/2007/07/20/mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chrom...

Facts of Evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY
Frequently asked questions about evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/index.html
Evolution: Fact and Theory: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
TalkOrigins Introduction to Evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Evidence of Common Descent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
15 evolutionary gems: http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
Evolution teaching resources: http://www.evoled.org/
Human Evolution: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
Evolution 101: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
More lines of evidence for evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01
Partial list of transitional forms: http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
Scientific evidence against a young earth: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (full documentary): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

This video was originally created by Euphobia1. Check out her channel for more great videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/Euphobia1

Category:

Education

Tags:

• evolution
• darwin
• science
• creationism
• adam
• eve
• creationist
• christian
• religion
• atheist
• atheism
• reason
• education
• cosmos
• dawkins
• hitchens
• apologetics
• bible
• quran
• islam
• mohammed
• dinosaurs
• sagan
• dna
• debate

[JamesWilliams1990]

evidence that they didnt exist?

[bdwilson1000]

@JamesWilliams1990

Check the top three links in the description bar.

[fallingskyz]

someone correct me if im wrong, but the video seems to make the fallacy of denying the antecedent. the argument seems to be this:

if the first man/woman bring in original sin, then there is a need for a savior.

there was no first man/woman to bring in original sin.

therefore, there is no need for a savior.

im not trying to troll, rather this kept me up last night trying to understand a way around this. I suppose another possibility could be that adam/eve werent the original sinners...im stuck

[bdwilson1000]

@fallingskyz

I suggest you look up Romans 5:12-21

Paul repeatedly references Adam (a fictional character) in the SAME BREATH as Jesus! This is the author of nearly half the NT and the founder of early Christianity..yet he doesn't seem to make any distinction between a myth and Jesus. Personally I found this troubling as a Christian. It is obvious they are inextricably tied together. The death/sin gained by Adam is corrected by the 2nd Adam. No original sin = Jesus is unnecessary.

[fallingskyz]

@bdwilson1000 yes, this is exactly what I mean. Adam & original sin are explicitly talked about in the NT. And, it makes sense when the connection is made based on these specific details. Therefore, I would obviously conclude that "no original sin=no need for savior." But when I put it into a conditional statement, it seems logically invalid. the original premise being made is "if original sin, then a need for a savior. no original sin, therefore no need for a savior." am I forming this wrong?

[bdwilson1000]

@fallingskyz

If the need for a savior is based on the original sin/fallen world idea, then the argument that Jesus died for no reason is valid. If you want to assert that humans still need to be "saved" despite the fact that there is no hereditary sin that we got from Adam which condemns us, I suppose you can do so, but I don't think you can support this idea with the bible.

[kriss299]

Too stupid for science? Try religion. 

[kriss299]

@caccycacman In DNA. Wake up.

[kriss299]

@JamesWilliams1990 Do you believe in talking snakes. If you think that you're crazy. Seek help in a psychiatric hospital.

[bdwilson1000]

@fallingskyz

In other words, lets dispense with the placeholders like "Original sin" and rephrase the argument to include the real theological meaning..

We live in a condemnable state that we need to be saved from, therefore we need someone to save us.

We do not live in a condemnable state that we need to be saved from, therefore we don't need someone to save us.

Once the hidden assumptions Christians have about original sin are included in the argument, the fallacy disappears.

[fallingskyz]

@bdwilson1000 i completely understand that. but, you do see how when I put into a conditional statement, it becomes logically invalid? If the premises are correct, then why does it makes sense outside it's logical form, but not as a logical conditional statement. this is what Im trying to get at. Why does it make sense one way and not the other.