Garden of Eden found?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...rden-Eden.html

It's worth skipping the first 5 or 6 paragraphs, it's a crappy "come see THE THING"-style pulp to pull you into the article. Lots of talk about how this is the most amazing find ever, no substance as to what it is.

What it is is a large series of stone structures that dates to 12,000-13,000 years ago. That makes them predate the pyramids and stonehenge by more than 8,000 years, and line up pretty neatly with Young Earth Creationism. The geography of the area's pretty much in line with Biblical descriptions of it. Everything's just so right, the only thing that's suspicious is the book plug.

The article has a decent explanation of its theory of Eden, and it all seems nicely thought out (though I admit it's a little... convenient that it all forms a dangerous parallel with our current environmental situation.) I do like the idea that the garden was a big commune of hunter-gatherers who suddenly ran out of eat and had to turn to agriculture, which ruined the land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtmaWeapon

and line up pretty neatly with Young Earth Creationism.

---

I guess something had to, sooner or later.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...12_306x516.jpg

Fits pretty well with Metroid, too.

It's where the super advanced race of aliens that genetically created humans from apes used to live before they left us here.

Seriously though, pretty interesting find. I don't see why it has anything to do with Eden, however. It's just the remnants of some heretofore unheard of culture. The story of "Eden" doesn't reference any developed culture. Just two naked people who were kicked out. And where is the flaming sword that prevents their return?

It's interesting, but I don't see how it relates to Eden. They keep using the Bible to support the theory, but the Bible describes a garden, not a temple.

Quote:

---

And where is the flaming sword that prevents their return?

---

The angle who guards the gates took pity on them and gave it to them that they might survive outside. Haven't you heard?

...why do the rocks in those pictures look kinda...fake? I dunno.

I don't see the connection between this and the garden of eden. This is evidence of an advanced civilization existing thousands of years before we were aware that such civilizations existed. It lends more credence to the theory of Atlantis than it does the garden of eden.

Nonetheless, it's incredibly cool - after all, we, as a species, have existed for at least a couple of million years - in retrospect, it's kind of weird to think that we've only begun to hit our potential a few thousand years ago.

It's evidence of an advanced civilization nestled between two rivers specifically mentioned as the location of Eden. The theory for the rise and fall of this civilization relates to mankind's transition from hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists. Domesticated cattle and many species of wheat originated near the region. In many ways, it seems like the creation story and man's fall could be metaphors and fables based on an oral history of a thriving land full of bounty that quickly turned to sand. I'm not quite sure about those of you who expected to find a true garden; I'm pretty sure if there were a lush oasis in these regions we'd have found them by satellite some time ago.

I'm kind of skeptical due to the book plug nature of the article, but the location and the age make the find pretty interesting to me.

Interesting discovery..it seems odd that creationists seem to go out of their way to talk of needing faith to believe but trumpet any "scientific" discovery that proves their argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blisspath

but trumpet any "scientific" discovery that proves their argument.

---

such as?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beldaran

such as?

---

Like The Shroud Of Turin, The Ark that was supposedly found on the mountain top in Turkey, numerous sightings of the Ark Of The Covenant, and the burial box of James..all were shown to be not what the discoverers argued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AtmaWeapon

In many ways, it seems like the creation story and man's fall could be metaphors and fables based on an oral history of a thriving land full of bounty that quickly turned to sand.

---

It seems like most of the bible stories are like this. Noah's great flood appears to be based on the flooding of the Black Sea, for instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blisspath

Like The Shroud Of Turin, The Ark that was supposedly found on the mountain top in Turkey, numerous sightings of the Ark Of The Covenant, and the burial box of James..all were shown to be not what the discoverers argued.

---

Every one knows that Indiana Jones found the Ark of the Covenant and it's stashed in Area 51.

Oh come on, the Shroud of Turin's obviously real. Ignore the fact that carbon-14 dating demonstrated that it can't possibly be 2,000 years old - because we all know that nuclear physics is a complete joke and doesn't work in the real world. Also, um, ignore the fact that at the time of its "discovery," churches were always inventing artifacts and claiming they had connections to saints and biblical figures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blisspath

Interesting discovery..it seems odd that creationists seem to go out of their way to talk of needing faith to believe but trumpet any "scientific" discovery that proves their argument.

---

I kind of hope that this comment wasn't directed at the discovery in this thread. The article's theory does much more to support a scientific origin of man than a creationist viewpoint. If we decide this is the Garden of Eden, then we have another chapter of the Bible that gets some important historical facts right. The problem is proving the whole "angel with a flaming sword" and "creation of man from dust" parts; I sincerely doubt evidence to support these parts of Genesis.

Also I don't think it's so odd. Faith in something means you believe it without proof; having proof makes it a lot easier to believe. It's not like having concrete proof of God's existence would make people disappointed and move to another religion. People seek scientific proof of Biblical events in the hopes of moving religion from a faith-based belief system to a fact-based belief system. I doubt this will ever be successful because God's made it pretty clear He wants it to remain faith-based and omnipotent beings are kind of good at getting what they want.

You know, I find the whole faith thing kind of strange. By which I mean I think it's more of a modern creation. The ancient people who wrote these books, they didn't really have faith. They knew God was real. They could see evidence of his work everywhere. Of course, this was due to their limited understanding of science and the like, but the point is, every lightning storm was proof positive that God was up there.

I just think if we were to talk to one of these people about faith, they'd be incredibly confused. "What do you mean, faith? We have proof God is real. That's absurd. Do you have faith that the sky is blue?" The only real questions, I think, would be "What is his message?" and "Should I follow him?"