Are Adam and Eve Incompatible with Evolution?

[leroy]

Even then, Genesis 3 say that Adam must toil the soil, to grow his own food, as did Cain being a farmer (Genesis 4), while his brother Abel tends herds of sheep and goat.

So they were farmers and shepherds, which respectively meant crop farming (agriculture) and animal domestication.

This is more settle lifestyle, that exist during Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures of the time.

And supposedly when Cain left the family, he supposedly found and built the first “city”, hence civilization.

So that would put Adam and his sons around the times of late Neolithic period if you considered both constructing and living in city as well as farming, which is more settled lifestyle.

But humans have been around a lot longer than living in farming settlements (villages and towns), and even lot longer than city living, which require a great deal of planning.

Farming and growing crops, living in settlements as opposed to nomadic culture, creating pottery ware to store food and water, were part of the Neolithic Revolution that started around 12,000 years ago.

Urbanization and city life, started with proto-city, started about 7000 years ago.

But for most of human history, the Homo sapiens, hence for tens of thousands of years, humans were nomadic, living as hunters and gatherers. Their tools and hunting weapons were made from stones, flints, bones and woods. They only stay in place no longer than they have to, trying to find games, some fruits in the vicinity of their encampments and the all-important water.

This period is the Paleolithic period, which have been divided “lower, “middle” and “upper” Paleolithic. The further back in time that archaeology explore, the cruder were tool and more primitive were techniques in making these tools.

And as I said in my previous reply Homo sapiens sapiens, which are subspecies of Homo sapiens, have been around 60,000 years (but could be a lot longer than that date), which more or less coincided with the start of the Upper Paleolithic.

But earlier species of the Homo sapiens, extend as far back as 200,000 years ago, perhaps longer still. This would mean that the Homo sapiens were contemporaries to the Neanderthals and even contemporaries to the much older Homo erectus, which didn’t become extinct till 140,000 years ago. The Neanderthals didn’t become extinct till about 40,000 years ago.

Anyway, the points being the modern human species (Homo sapiens sapiens) than there have been around lot longer than those who started farming and growing livestock (hence animal husbandry) or building cities.

So you are still wrong that Adam being the first Homo sapiens sapiens. Plus this Adam and his Garden of Eden are still nothing more than a myth.

Granted, my view has been refuted

You made very good and solid points

 

[rational experiences]

The human brothers as a group agree to first claim I am right. Yet normally it's one only personal thinking.

Just a human only.

Deitisation.

The man self says I know God created the whole of everything.

Yet he places his life mind body above that of his thesis the god.

Proof to self. If I somehow found the God of everything I would consume it in a Formula as a resource by my own machine.

As if I personally from my body a God created the resource to put into my machine.

100 per cent self idolised possessed.

Your final claim an alien inside a metal machine is the God.

You are just the human inside of a gods heaven gas water brain possessed by metals in AI actually.

The organisation healer was in fact dealing in totality about all things phenomena and the human condition.

In science the theist about God in reality his assessed lying wants the alien plus the machine to be his resource. Inside his machine reacting.

Which is not any thesis cosmic beginnings.

Does not make sense to anyone yet the scientist says God is science.

God by scientific term was everything a human wasn't.

Yes he says God is anti to us alien machine as it destroys our being. As yes I agree I began in evil first.

Yet says it on behalf of his own machine. Not intending to put himself into a reaction.

The God of his science.

The biologist says in human consciousness you are lying occult theist.

Another way is immaculate heavens I need to keep me from burning to death plus void. Two.

Mother womb plus inheritor.

It was half set on fire sacrificed.

I want to by thesis only to travel back in time to immaculate. Then activate in machine natural heavens light.

In natural atmosphere it is to light up in heavens first to burn as natural immaculate. Already first. He says I won't change anything.

Thesis says as science machine doesn't own it.

Like the bible memory said about first pyramid science. Eve n ING sky lit up sacrificed him.

Big bang theist says cold mass of some sort ignites is cosmic beginning God was then changed into evolution cooling.

Without mass existing or held yet.

Lies in new theories by conditions. I want. Not what is reality.

All based on the heavens also he says not yet a mass statement.

He knows no biological humans body could be a resource. Yet theories as if we have all universal cosmic connections.

In reality he says radiation attacked changes biology. If I find it I can have it.

No human or earth would exist compared to cosmic radiation as comparing body types.

As his mind in greed says infinite mass of radiation versus life on earth.

Intention destroyer stated.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

You should care. Not about what I think, but about the fact that you believe things on bad '(or rather: no) evidence.

The easiest person to fool, is yourself.

Right back at you.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Goading does not work on me.

It worked for me.

 

[Brian2]

No. I mean there is no evidence whatsoever. Or, at least, no more evidence then, say, invisible garden fairies. Or any other God, including the great Juju at the bottm of the sea, or Apollo.

And you have to ask yourself: why did the the creator of the whole universe sort of declared a middle eastern tribe as His chosen one? Isn’t more likely that a middle estern tribe made up a God who likes them? Like most Gods do as a courtesy to their creators?

Ciao

- viole

You don't seem to know the OT and the horrible things that God says about His chosen people, Israel.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, and naturalism systematically overruled them. You never have it the other way round.
So, it should be clear where to put our money.

ciao

- viole

As I said, I am telling science where it's limits are. I am overruling naturalism.

 

[Brian2]

No. The word is very clear - "from the dust of the ground". Don't be a blasphemer. You have the temerity to change the word of the Lord?

Not me, I'm just imagining how God might have done that, having been informed by science.
I wonder if God used a bit of water on the dust so it stuck together or do you think the Bible meant just dust and nothing else?

 

[Brian2]

If you want anyone to consider the existence of your God in explaining how the universe works, then you'll need to first demonstrate that said God exists. Until you can do that, you have no business inserting said God into scientific explanations of the universe. That's the reason scientists don't consider Gods when trying to explain how things work - because they're not in evidence and scientific explanations works just fine without having to insert any unevidenced God's into them.

Not to mention the fact that "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything at all about how anything works.

I don't insert God into science, I just say where science is wrong imo and where it is inserting science where it should not be.
Science does not accept the theological evidence for God because science is science and theology is theology.
If you want to be a slave to science and the naturalistic methodology of science and ignore the theological evidence that is your concern.
I show sceptics that God exists and they ignore the evidence, that is all I can do.
For some reason some people think God is not needed when we can see how something works. That was not the case with the wheel but some how it is the case with other things where we can see how they work.
If you want to put your money on natural causes for life and the universe, it is your money.

 

[Brian2]

It really isn't evidence for "spirit" because you've never demonstrated the existence of "spirit" in the first place. It's just an assertion. Also, it's not an actual explanation that actually explains anything. In that sense, it's pretty much just the same empty claim as "God did it."
What is the definition of "spirit?" What are the properties of spirits? How do they operate? What mechanisms are involved? How do we identify and measure spirits? None of this is even explained or answered with these claims of OBEs and spirits..

There is not need to know everything about spirits in order to theorise their existence with this NDE evidence.
Science cannot explain it in any other way except saying it is lies.
Scientists do not want to upturn the whole basic understanding of nature, and be branded loopy by postulating "spirits". Science would rather experiment on the brain for the next 200 years to find an answer than do that.

"Life magicked itself into existence from dead matter ... ?" Wait, this is how theists believe that God created life, isn't it? Why are you trying to pin that on scientists?

Our bodies are composed of chemicals. Life is chemistry. Your body is animated thanks to endless amounts of chemical reactions that are being produced at any given moment. When these chemical reactions stop occurring, we die. I don't know why you are having such a hard time with this.

It is evident that life is more than chemistry and electricity. However using the naturalistic methodology it is possible for science to turn what is self evident into a lie at this point.
It is not as if life has been demonstrated to be no more than chemistry,,,,,,,,,,,,,that part is just a presumption.
You accept that presumption and reject the presumption of a pre existing life, God, as the source of life.
You want chemicals to magic themselves into life and consciousness but reject a pre existing God gave life.
Which way is Occams razor going to cut?
Science can't say something is true just by asserting it.

OBEs and NDEs will continue to be "poo haaed" as long as they are asserted without evidence or proper explanation.

For some reason you think that a lot of people under anaesthetic and almost dead, who wake up knowing and having seen and heard verified details of what went on in the room or elsewhere while in this state, is not evidence of consciousness existing outside the body. It sounds like good solid scientific evidence to me.
No surely not, not in this day and age of enlightenment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is science actually scared of going back to what has been seen as superstition?

 

[Darkstorn]

As I said, I am telling science where it's limits are. I am overruling naturalism.

By reading your posts I'm fully convinced that this is either a hilarious joke or incredible lack of self-awareness.

I.E the image I get is a useless, skilless person trying to prop up their non-existent abilities.

 

[Brian2]

When did any God say any of that, and how was it verified?

You must be joking.
No I guess not. You must be someone who believes nothing unless it is verified.
No that can't be true as you refuse to believe the verified reports of peoples' NDEs.
Maybe you are a scientist who wants to verify God using a claim that God spoke.
No, a claim is just a claim and cannot be verified I am told.

 

[Brian2]

By reading your posts I'm fully convinced that this is either a hilarious joke or incredible lack of self-awareness.

I.E the image I get is a useless, skilless person trying to prop up their non-existent abilities.

You can choose whichever one you want.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not me, I'm just imagining how God might have done that, having been informed by science.
I wonder if God used a bit of water on the dust so it stuck together or do you think the Bible meant just dust and nothing else?

No. The All-Mighty can do it without water. What is it that the Lord of firmament cannot do? A square peg in a round hole! Yes, He can do it. He can turn water into wine, feed 5,000 with five loaves of bread and two fish. Now don't ask me how. I am not Him. The dust can then absorb water and take the shape of humans. Was his creation of universe any less asstounding?

 

[danieldemol]

If evidence of spirit and even God is found it has to be ignored because of the naturalistic presumption.

I'm sorry but that is absolutely not true.

I will mention OBEs in NDEs where people have known what went on in other rooms and science looks for answers in the workings of the brain and ignore the obvious.

If OBEs and NDEs can be accounted for using natural explanations, why would a supernatural explanation which adds extra assumptions - and does not explain cases where people's brain stopped and they did not have an NDE/OBE - be prefferable to a simpler natural explanation?

I will mention the scientific finding that life only comes from other life

According to my understanding that is a religious assertion, *not* a scientific finding.

In my opinion.

 

[Brian2]

I'm sorry but that is absolutely not true.

Brian2 said: >>>If evidence of spirit and even God is found it has to be ignored because of the naturalistic presumption.<<<

That statement is not true. It does not have to be ignored but the reality is that it is ignored and will be for 1000 years because it seems you cannot bring God or spirit into the picture unless there is evidence for God or spirit to begin with. (a bit like you have to believe to believe--circular).
So the NDE are not evidence for spirit because occams razor neatly cuts God out and naturalistic explanations will continue forever without mention the obvious explanation of consciousness really does exist outside bodies and the obvious explanation of that, spirit.
It is the same with where life came from. It is the same with where the universe came from. It is the same with inexplicable design in nature. (Occams razor in that one eliminates the word "design")
It is the same with the impossibility of time having come from an eternity in the past.
It is the same with fulfilled Biblical prophecies.
It is the same with the Bible telling us things that humans have only discovered recently.
None of it registers in science because it is not the right type of evidence and sceptics latch onto this and say that therefore there is no evidence for a God.

If OBEs and NDEs can be accounted for using natural explanations, why would a supernatural explanation which adds extra assumptions - and does not explain cases where people's brain stopped and they did not have an NDE/OBE - be prefferable to a simpler natural explanation?

The NDEs where OBEs are claimed and verified events have also been observed are not explained by what is called "natural" explanations.

According to my understanding that is a religious assertion, *not* a scientific finding.

In my opinion.

Louise Pasteur discovered that spontaneous generation did not occur. Rotting meat did not grow flies unless the mean was fly blown.
In normal everyday life does not come from anywhere except other life.
This of course does not mean that something that is dead cannot come to life and become conscious, but that is the hypothesis here.

 

[viole]

As I said, I am telling science where it's limits are. I am overruling naturalism.

Well, at least science has limits. Supernaturalism does not even have that. Like Pauli would say: it is not even wrong.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

You don't seem to know the OT and the horrible things that God says about His chosen people, Israel.

Who cares? Do you object that God did not have a preferred relationship with a tribe in the Middle East?

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

Science indeed can be used to question whether there's a God(s) or not since science deals with cause & effect.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't insert God into science, I just say where science is wrong imo and where it is inserting science where it should not be.

You've done it all over this thread.
You think the scientific community should consider the existence of something that's never been shown to exist, and then include it in their models of reality, when they aren't necessary.

Science does not accept the theological evidence for God because science is science and theology is theology.

Science accepts demonstrable, repeatable evidence for things. There is no such evidence for any God(s).

If you want to be a slave to science and the naturalistic methodology of science and ignore the theological evidence that is your concern.

Science has produced all verifiable information we currently possess about how the world around us operates. So yeah, I'm going with that.

When you can demonstrate that the God you believe in exists, then I'll consider that too.

I show sceptics that God exists and they ignore the evidence, that is all I can do.

I haven't seen any of this evidence. What is it?

For some reason some people think God is not needed when we can see how something works.

Well, the theory of evolution works just fine, without having to insert any God(s) into the equation.
The theory of plate tectonics works just fine, without having to insert any God(s) into the equation.
Germ theory works just fine, without having to insert any God(s) into the equation.
Gravitational theory works just fine, without having to insert any God(s) in to the equation.
Etc.

How does "God did it" explain anything at all? That's not an explanation, it's an assertion.

That was not the case with the wheel but some how it is the case with other things where we can see how they work.
If you want to put your money on natural causes for life and the universe, it is your money.

Well so far, I don't see any need to insert God(s) into our explanations of how the world around us works.

If you could demonstrate that there is some God and then explain how that God did it all, I'll consider that. The science community would as well.
But we don't, because such evidence doesn't appear to exist and all of our naturalistic theories work just fine without "him."

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is not need to know everything about spirits in order to theorise their existence with this NDE evidence.

Of course there is a need to define what spirits are and then define their properties and mechanisms in order to theorize their existence and ______ them as a cause of anything.

Science cannot explain it in any other way except saying it is lies.

Science isn't a person, it's a methodology.

Scientists do not want to upturn the whole basic understanding of nature, and be branded loopy by postulating "spirits". Science would rather experiment on the brain for the next 200 years to find an answer than do that.

They don't? Do you not realize how famous someone would become if they could demonstrate the existence of spirits and God(s)? I'd dare say there would be a Nobel Prize waiting for them.

Darwin overturned the known science of his day. Einstein did as well. Scientists are constantly questioning each other.

It is evident that life is more than chemistry and electricity.

It is? Like what? What evidence points to that?

However using the naturalistic methodology it is possible for science to turn what is self evident into a lie at this point.

What?

It is not as if life has been demonstrated to be no more than chemistry,,,,,,,,,,,,,that part is just a presumption.

Have you demonstrated that it is?

You accept that presumption and reject the presumption of a pre existing life, God, as the source of life.

When has anyone demonstrated the existence of any God(s)? That's the time to believe, and not before.

You want chemicals to magic themselves into life and consciousness but reject a pre existing God gave life.

Our entire bodies are composed of chemicals. At any given moment a whole bunch of chemical reactions are taking place within our bodies. No magic required.

I don't "reject a pre existing God gave life." I don't take it into consideration until there is EVIDENCE for it. Same goes for scientists. I really wish you would understand this basic concept.

Which way is Occams razor going to cut?

Occam's Razor states that the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions is the preferable explanation. How does that help your case when you're assuming the existence of a God(s) and inserting it into the equation when it isn't needed, and not in evidence?

Science can't say something is true just by asserting it.

Good thing it doesn't then. That's what you're doing though.

For some reason you think that a lot of people under anaesthetic and almost dead, who wake up knowing and having seen and heard verified details of what went on in the room or elsewhere while in this state, is not evidence of consciousness existing outside the body. It sounds like good solid scientific evidence to me.

For some reason you think that people under anesthetic (and therefore are already "out of it") with a dying brain that is flailing about are people who are not only thinking clearly, but are experiencing consciousness outside of their bodies. Consciousness is a product of the brain, as far as I can tell, so how did you come to the conclusion that consciousness exists outside the brain, and how do you think NDEs demonstrate that? How does that even work? Do we have any examples of consciousness existing outside of brains? And why do you think dying brains are so reliable?

I've yet to see any NDE under controlled conditions where anyone saw or heard anything that was verified to have occurred while they were "dead." NDE's are NEAR death experiences. Not death experiences.

No surely not, not in this day and age of enlightenment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is science actually scared of going back to what has been seen as superstition?

Again, science isn't a person.
It's a methodology.