Three times you've said the bolded but I don't understand how you're trying to disprove something (that Adam was the first man) the credibility of which is based on the very thing (the truthfulness of the bible) that you don't think can trusted in the first place. If the Bible can't be trusted, why would you care what it says about Adam?

Isn't that a circular argument? Or maybe it's begging the question.

Awesome word.

Theres no evidence that there were humans before adam

Recorded history stops at about 4000bc
right around when we say the earth was created

Post the evidence and dont post 1 paragraph articles from wikipedia about that one piece of pottery thats supposedly 10,000 years old

When you say that the Earth was created at around 4000 BC, do you mean just the Earth or the Universe? (i.e. everything)

Indeed everything
Distant starlight already in place for us to observe
It didnt have to travel over lightyears

Because my arguments were always better than the other's arguments.
Also I will never agree with atheists that say they can't prove the Bible is false. Of course it's easy to prove the Bible is false only if you read Genesis and Exodus and if the Bible is false there's no reason to have faith in bible's god. The Tower of Babel story, the flood story, the ark, etc. all shown false by ample evidence. There was no Hebrew captivity in Egypt, no "exodus," no wandering in the wilderness for 40 years, etc. There's evidence for many other parts being incorrect as well, and there isn't a shred of evidence showing anything in the bible (apart from a few city names, tribe names, and people names -- but very few) is correct in any way.

Of course there are proves there were humans before Adam lived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory

There are also proves the dinosaurus dissapeared millions of years ago and some of them were carnivors.

Don't understand too well what you want to say because English is not my first language.

Bible can't be trusted because it's in big contradiction with science. To say that Bible can't be trusted I first have to look for big contradictions between Bible and science and the existance of the first human a few thousands of years ago is one of them.

Question for atheists that think you can't prove Bible is false: why aren't you christians? It may be true after all if you can't prove is false. What if you go to hell?

And don't tell me that if you believe in the wrong religion you will also go to hell. Other religions are more tolerant than christianism or islam with atheists so if you choose one it's best to choose christianity or islam.

Behold the Acheulean handaxe

Wait thats the only thing on the whole page for this huge span of time? (2 millions years)

'not proved false' doesn't give any implication on the probability of truth.

This at least leads to what I is aid about language. When e make their God definitions hazier it becomes increasingly more difficult to offer disproof, but the more their God retreats into being nothing.

yes, but the risk is too high to don't believe in a religion that say you will go to hell if you don't believe. Forever. There is a hell for hindus but it's not forever and everyone has another chance in another live.

If you were 100% sure the Bible is false (like I am) then it wouldn't be risky at all to don't believe.

There's more than 1 religion that include an eternal hell.

I think they all are abrahamic religions. If you believe in Jesus you may go to heaven no matter if you are catholic, protestant or orthodox. If you don't believe in him you'll go 100% in hell if Jesus is indeed God. Well, the same thing happens if you don't believe in Muhhamad. It's a coin flip between christianity and islam. But if you believe in an abrahamic religion at least there are some chances you will go to heaven. If you're atheist or a hindus or a buddhist you will 100% go to an eternal hell if Jesus is God.

Lol, no it isn't.

I agree. I think there are more chances for Jesus to be god than for Muhammad to be god's prophet. So if I had to choose between Jesus and Muhammad I would choose Jesus.

We need to get a RGT HUNL tournament going

There's plenty of cave paintings established to be older than 6k years.

But obviously you're just going to dispute the dating methods somehow, and I'm not sure I want to get into such anti-science.

No chance I'd enter this. They have God on their side.

S'ok, their God has crazy tilt issues

I believe RGT HUNL issue has been solved.

Quaran makes no sense so dont worry about that
It says allah is responsible for the pentateuch and the psalms when those books are uterlly filled with christ and trinity references

and it explicitly goes out of its way to deny the son of god exactly like the bible says
1 John 2:22
22*Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

And it was written by 1 guy... who was "visited by an angel"
Book of mormon is the same

Just use common sense you know which religion is deceiving you.
Go with the one that is consistent the whole way through

Sorry for saying the same stuff so much
Just trying to uphold the truth

For other people who werent here before

:3

Also you know them by their fruits
Compare jesus life to muhameds

:/ eek

And there you have it
Therea no real religions other than the bible
hinduism and buddhism are not about an eternal creator
Theyre mumbo jumbo

So stop using the word "religions" as some broad blanket term
Theres 1 that is even coherent

Common sense says all religions are hoax.

Using common sense you can prove easily the abrahamic god doesn't exist:

http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm