Adam and Eve

[Jose Fly]

I would need to know what are their reasons, before I can answer to that.

Well I'm a biologist so my answer is pretty simple.....we follow the evidence where it leads.

But, generally the whole godless world view seems to be one vast confirmation bias, which reminds me of Münchhausen trilemma. Interestingly nowadays “science” seems to be more and more dogmatic. For example if you don’t easily believe in man made climate change, because no proper evidence, you are treated almost like heretic in “dark ages”.

Can I take that to mean that you view the community of earth and life scientists as "godless"?

 

[night912]

Please tell, why do you think the speed of development is very different now than it was 200 000 years ago?
Or, if you think the speed is the same, why we have no evidence of for example over 100000-year-old computers?

Please tell me why you don't accept the evidence that I provided before we can move on. You ask for evidence and evidence was presented so address that first.

 

[night912]

Your error is in that there is no real scientific evidence for millions of years.

Sorry but blaming me for your error doesn't mean that I made the error.

 

[Valjean]

I would need to know what are their reasons, before I can answer to that.

And we keep posting evidence, or steering you to websites, and you persist in ignoring it; so please stop declaring so vehemently that there is no evidence.

But, generally the whole godless world view seems to be one vast confirmation bias,

But it's you who ignore contrary evidence and obstinately stick with an unevidenced opinion. You even insist there is no evidence!

which reminds me of Münchhausen trilemma. Interestingly nowadays “science” seems to be more and more dogmatic. For example if you don’t easily believe in man made climate change, because no proper evidence, you are treated almost like heretic in “dark ages”.

So we can't know anything for sure? Should we just throw up our hands and give up, or try to make the best of things? In the absence of absolute certainty, I'd say go with probability, and maximizing probability is what science does.

Dogmatic? Well, there are certain well-established facts that are considered axiomatic, and even these are open to new evidence/interpretation, but all the rest is just following evidence, forming hypotheses and then trying to disprove them. This is the scientific method. If it doesn't stand up to testing, it's not accepted. Not dogmatic.

Climate change? It's not because disbelievers are withholding belief pending evidence. If you feel like a heretic it's because you're withholding belief despite evidence. Once again, your confirmation bias is preventing you from even looking at the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is just no intelligent reason to think there was millions of years. If human would have existed millions of years, there should be evidence for it. By what I know, currently it is believed that human in current form has existed at least 200 000 years. If so, why we can see development only from about 10000 years, why did they wait about 200 000 before started to develop things as we can see from about 10000 years?



Your error is in that there is no real scientific evidence for millions of years.

There is endless scientific evidence for billions of years. As a Christian you should know that it was Christian geologists that first refuted the Noah's Ark myth. There are some rock strata where we can count annual deposit layers. And there can be millions in just one formation.

There is no scientific evidence for the myths of Genesis.

First you need to know what scientific evidence is:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

That is from Wikipedia, but I can find other science based sources that give the same definition. This applies to all of the sciences not just evoltion.

Now the rock formation that I spoke of:

Green River Formation - Wikipedia

The sediments of the Green River Formation present a continuous record of six million years. The mean thickness of a varve here is 0.18 mm, with a minimum thickness of 0.014 mm and maximum of 9.8 mm.[1]

That is just one very small part of the geologic column, and it alone spans a time of over six million years.

 

[Valjean]

Please tell, why do you think the speed of development is very different now than it was 200 000 years ago?
Or, if you think the speed is the same, why we have no evidence of for example over 100000-year-old computers?

By "speed of development," do you mean technological development? Our technological development took off when we abandoned tradition and faith for science.

If you believe there is real scientific evidence, please tell one example of that? I have no other choice than think there is no such thing, if nobody can show such thing exists.

Please! Stop asking for what we've already given you. Stop pretending that you have no evidence!

I don’t believe in magic. And, if everything would have come into existence without God, that would be more like magic and miracle, because there is nothing in nature that indicates that things just pop out from nothing, without reason.

OK. How, then, did the natural world come into existence? (not who; how -- what mechanism do you propose)?
When something happens without any natural cause or mechanism, that's magic.

I think you have things backwards. It's the atheists that don't believe in miracles; who look for natural, observable, testable mechanisms. It's the theists who propose everything was just spoken into existence. It's the theists who believe in magic.

 

[night912]

I don’t believe in magic. And, if everything would have come into existence without God, that would be more like magic and miracle, because there is nothing in nature that indicates that things just pop out from nothing, without reason.

So are you saying that the universe coming from God is a natural occurrence?

 

[metis]

Still no real scientific evidence, but your opinion and belief is noted.

Obviously you didn't read what I posted as it does indeed provide links to numerous scientific studies.

Human evolution is not a matter of "belief" but a matter whether one is willing to accept overwhelming scientific evidence. Divine creation, otoh, relies exclusively on belief minus objective evidence, which is all fine & dandy since I do believe in Divine creation but not to the point of believing that the Genesis creation accounts are literally how it happened.

Again, maybe seek out a denomination that is more accepting of the reality that there's more than enough evidence that humans have evolved over millions of years, especially since Christianity should be far more enlightening than darkening.

 

[Muffled]

Speculation as creationists use the word is not allowed in the sciences. It is only very early in the process that anything like "speculation" is allowed. Ideas are formed and then they are tested. Repeatedly. Tweaked if they need it. The finished product is the opposite of speculation. It is an idea that has been tested and confirmed many times over. To the uneducated it may seem like speculation. And to creationists tend to resist the simple education that would allow themselves to see that science is not speculation.

If you weren't there, you don't have the facts. God was there.

 

[Muffled]

What you seem to mean is that scientists put together models based on the evidence that is currently available. Science knows it has incomplete evidence and that is has to adjust the models as more data is collected. I see theists often critical of science because it adjusts to more data, and this bad habit seems rooted in the pattern of religious stories being interpreted as a stable fact, which of course they are not.

The fact is humans evolved from hominids and our species is estimated to have emerged about 200,000 years ago given the latest data. Adam and Eve are irrelevant to explaining human origins.


That's a dangerous thing to assert because you're accusing God of setting up Adam and Eve to fail in the Garden, and so all sin is a result of God designing creation exactly how it is. You can't insist God was caught off guard and fooled at any point in human history because it is omniscient.

I believe that is not fact. It is a scientist's concept that is not correct.

I believe God in His original creation (not Adam and Eve) said it was good. The origin of evil is not Adam and Eve.

 

[Muffled]

As you pointed out, God cannot lie. That means that there was no Flood of Noah. No Garden of Eden.

I believe that is illogical. God said they existed and He does not lie so that means they existed.

 

[night912]

I believe that is illogical. God said they existed and He does not lie so that means they existed.

Or God does not lie because he does not exist.

Or they don't exist because God doesn't exist.

A lot of things can be plugged in to fit the desired conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that is illogical. God said they existed and He does not lie so that means they existed.

No. You are conflating what the Bible says with what God says. The Bible was written by man. Tell me did God make the world or did man? Actually that is a false dichotomy, but it will do for now. If God made the Earth then the Adam and Eve story is not true since the Earth tells us that there was no Adam. Either your interpretation of the Bible is wrong, or God lies.

 

[1213]

So are you saying that the universe coming from God is a natural occurrence?

No.

 

[1213]

... when we abandoned tradition and faith for science....

Why didn’t that happen 100 000 years ago?

...When something happens without any natural cause or mechanism, that's magic.....

Magic is the application of beliefs, rituals or actions employed in the belief that they can subdue or manipulate natural or supernatural beings and forces…
Magic (supernatural) - Wikipedia

I don’t think God used magic. If it was magic, then anything can be called magic.

 

[1213]

...
The sediments of the Green River Formation present a continuous record of six million years. The mean thickness of a varve here is 0.18 mm, with a minimum thickness of 0.014 mm and maximum of 9.8 mm.[1]
....

Yes, I can believe there is many varves. The problem with that is, there is no reason to believe the varves mean years. It is purely a belief that can’t be proven correct. But, apparently people believe it, because it fits to their world view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why didn’t that happen 100 000 years ago?



Magic is the application of beliefs, rituals or actions employed in the belief that they can subdue or manipulate natural or supernatural beings and forces…
Magic (supernatural) - Wikipedia

I don’t think God used magic. If it was magic, then anything can be called magic.

Why do you think that it would?

Technology is not magical.

And if you read Genesis it is rather explicit that God used magic. One can even identify the types of spells used.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I can believe there is many varves. The problem with that is, there is no reason to believe the varves mean years. It is purely a belief that can’t be proven correct. But, apparently people believe it, because it fits to their world view.

Actually there is a very good reason to believe that they are annual and there is no reason to believe anything else. You will find this again and again. Endless evidence that supports only an old Earth.

And instead of using denial you should be asking how they know that they are annual layers. It is not because people want to believe something That is the dishonest act of creationists not of scientists.

Did you not see the definition of scientific evidence that I posted? I posted it so that you would not repeat the mistake of "no evidence".

 

[night912]

No.

Then that means that the universe coming into existence was not caused by God. You don't believe that it's "natural" or "supernatural" cause if God created the universe and you've eliminated the "I don't know" since you claimed that God created the universe. That leaves you with the only option of, God didn't create the universe.

Just so you won't backpedal, here's what you said.

I don’t believe in magic. And, if everything would have come into existence without God, that would be more like magic and miracle, because there is nothing in nature that indicates that things just pop out from nothing, without reason.

Both magic and miracles are supernatural.

Then I asked you this.

So are you saying that the universe coming from God is a natural occurrence?

Your answer was no.

 

[Valjean]

Why didn’t that happen 100 000 years ago?

Why didn't it happen four and a half billion years ago?
Why did God wait billions of years even to create man?
Why didn't the Neanderthals in ice age Europe invent the needle and learn to sew clothing, or maybe invent a bow to hunt?
Why didn't the industrial revolution begin With Heron's steam engine in 1st century Egypt?

Progress and invention are multi-factoral and complicated. Many things must come together just right.

In re: the scientific revolution.
1. Religion and people of faith worked hard, and very effectively, to suppress progress for hundreds of years.
2. There was no pressing need, ie: no selective pressure to think critically, abstractly, and learn.

Magic is the application of beliefs, rituals or actions employed in the belief that they can subdue or manipulate natural or supernatural beings and forces…

Magic (supernatural) - Wikipedia

I don’t think God used magic. If it was magic, then anything can be called magic.

Yes -- effect without mechanism. The action of speaking or whatever God did to manipulate the universe into materializing the Sun, Earth and living things is magic.

"Let there be light, and there was light" -- magic.
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- magic.

"...then anything can be called magic." -- I don't think so. I've never seen magic, you've never seen magic. Nobody's ever seen magic. Every action always has a natural mechanism. Everything happens in accordance with the laws and constants of physics and mathematics.

People used to think there was magic. When they didn't understand how something worked: day and night, Summer and Winter, earthquakes, disease... they just called it magic, ie: "Goddidit!"
But when we learned the real mechanisms underlying these phenomena, the magic vanished -- along with the need for a magician.