Are Adam and Eve Incompatible with Evolution?

[Brian2]

Methodological naturalism is key to the scientific method. Without it there would be no science at all.

A theory based on objective evidence is not a "guess".

It can be based on methodological naturalism however and that would mean guessing surely.
If for example there is a theory of how spiders learned how to spin a web to catch flies, how would that be more than a guess?

 

[Brian2]

Yes. If the whole human race were really descended from one couple, via incest over many generations, the effects of inbreeding would have destroyed mankind before it got going.

I wonder how many sons and daughters A @E did have and how long it would have taken for an initial perfect genome (no mutations, or mistakes) would take to build up mutations that would cause genetic problems.

 

[exchemist]

It can be based on methodological naturalism however and that would mean guessing surely.
If for example there is a theory of how spiders learned how to spin a web to catch flies, how would that be more than a guess?

Because it would be supported with evidence. For instance one could take a spider's egg, hatch it and feed the spider, out of contact with other spiders, until it was old enough to spin a web - and then see if it could do it. And if it could, that would prove its behaviour is innate and not learnt.

I think you will find this has indeed been studied along the sort of lines I indicate. In which case it is not a guess but a scientific theory.

That is the difference.

 

[Audie]

I don't think that rigorous application of evidence is anathema to revealed religions. It is just that what is seen as evidence expands when it comes to theology.



Religion has held up scientific progress in the past yes.
The "presumption of no God" has led science in the wrong directions, and it will not come back from these directions because the presumption remains.
Evidence for the existence of spirit and God is ignored because you first need evidence for those things in order to posit evidence for them.
I could mention OBEs in NDEs where people know of events in other rooms and scientists are wanting to explain it in terms of brain activity.
I could mention science saying that evidence points to life coming from dead matter when evidence shows life only coming from other life and the only thing that points to life coming from dead matter is the presumption of no pre existing life.
I could probably point to other things that science has said, not because of rigorous application of evidence, but because of the presumption.
The good part about all this for atheists, sceptics, is that they can point to science and say "see, science agrees with us" when in reality it is the presumption that agrees and the conclusions of science falling from the presumption. IOWs circular reasoning. I call it the Science of the Gaps. It's where science is insinuated into a situation because an answer is needed and the presumption says it can't be supernatural.

What " revealed" info proves to be factual
when examined against the evidence?
Takes a lot of " expansion" to make noahs ark
match a fact.

Religion never stopped interfering with science,
and has never added to human knowledge,
tho its been good at " lo here", and " lo there"
with divers weird and utterly mistaken notions
about the cause of material facts.

You SAY that science has gone astray for
lack of religion ( the one true one?.) but
give no examples; the " presumption of no god"
is mistaken and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science even is.

There is no evidence of god(s) or spirits.
If there is, go get it. Everything in science
really has evidence you can go get.
Youd find the court is like that too.

" cousin joe bob said he seen the flying saucer"
Is worthless.

"Expansion" of the definition of evidence to include thingsthat arent there is a sorry
argument.
NDE etc are ANECDOTES like mermaid sightings.
Listen to " Coast to Coast" as people relate in all
evident seriousness their trip into the hollow
earth, and encounters with flying saucers.
That science does not accept woo woo anecdotes is no weakness. Gullible acceptance is a terrible weakness for revealed religions and a most popular way for frauds to deceive.


All matter is dead matter. "Only from
prexisting life" is the presumption of religion
which if accepted ends research. Opposite to
where you think " presumption" comes from and takes you.
People study organic chemistry in every interesting direction it takes them.


You have identified no circular reasoning by atheists, still less for science.
I know a lot of people like to point out the one
big glaring flaw in whatever, evolution, ztheism, science, as if there were one and all atheists or scientists are blind to it.
Theres an odd arrogance in such an idea.

"Insinuate" does not mean what you think.

As to your last bit on how " presumption"
messes up science.
The way of science is to work with evidence, data, facts, see where it goes.
Goddidit presumes "we know goddidit "
Super convenient, takes no effort at all.

If anyone ever detected anything supernatural
and could show it around, why, that would be terrif and all kinds of data could be gathered.

Pretending " science" would ignore or reject
such is just making things up.
.

 

[Brian2]

When one arrives at statements based on evidence and rational inquiry, then those statements are called conclusions, not "guesses".

Yes but a conclusion is not necessarily correct if the assumptions are not correct.

There is no such thing as that presumption.
Instead, there is only the idea of "let's only include things / keep into account things for which we actually have a shred of evidence instead of whatever we can imagine and can't be falsified".

It's called "being rational".

Being rational is seeing evidence for spirit in OBEs in NDEs that show consciousness outside the body in another room and a life giving God in the science that tells us that life only comes from other life.

 

[exchemist]

I wonder how many sons and daughters A @E did have and how long it would have taken for an initial perfect genome (no mutations, or mistakes) would take to build up mutations that would cause genetic problems.

Where would this "perfect" initial genome come from?

 

[Audie]

I wonder how many sons and daughters A @E did have and how long it would have taken for an initial perfect genome (no mutations, or mistakes) would take to build up mutations that would cause genetic problems.

It would could happen with first child.
Where'd this presumption of perfection come from?

 

[Brian2]

When the story of Adam and Eve was first told, no one knew about evolution.
Or it would have been told differently.

Maybe, maybe not. Evolution can be seen in how it is written now just as other discoveries of science can be seen in how it is written.

 

[Brian2]

Agreed. The crucial role of reproducible evidence is often not appreciated.

Does that mean that ideas about how spiders learned to spin webs to catch food will always be in the realm of hypothesis and never graduate to theory?

 

[Audie]

Yes but a conclusion is not necessarily correct if the assumptions are not correct.



Being rational is seeing evidence for spirit in OBEs in NDEs that show consciousness outside the body in another room and a life giving God in the science that tells us that life only comes from other life.

You are ASSUMING these anecdotes are factual.
Science DOES NOT say life can only come from pre existing life.
As before, this error on your part displays a very fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, and how it works.
Zero rational in your approach. You dont get to
appropriate the rational high ground just by
claiming you have it.

 

[exchemist]

Does that mean that ideas about how spiders learned to spin webs to catch food will always be in the realm of hypothesis and never graduate to theory?

Eh? No, on the contrary. Read post 83.

 

[Brian2]

Nevertheless, the fact that it works so well, might indicate that the naturalistic premise might be right.

Try to post the same without using the products of science, but just by prayer alone, to see what I mean.

Ciao

- viole

It works so well that man sees no need for a God. That is what it has worked will at, seemingly eliminating the need for a God.............but only seemingly.

 

[gnostic]

I agree about the 1000 years but I see no reason why evening and morning mean a 24 hour day necessarily.

Again, I did not say anything about day being 24 hours, but it does say the “light” (daylight) being “day” and “darkness” being “night” in verse 4, follow by “evening and morning” making up a single “day” - “the first day” - in the same verse (5).

4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Then it would follow by 5 more, repeating the same “And there was evening and there was morning...” in successive days.

For you to say it isn’t a day, is you just twisting the verse to mean any unknown day.

As I keep telling you, the Hebrew yom isn’t an unknown period of time, because this part “And there was evening and there was morning...” always provide the context as to what yom mean: and in these cases, yom is equated as a “day”.

To try change what it mean, is you being dishonest with your interpretations.

The silly thing when it Genesis being direct with wordings, you take metaphorically. You don’t know how to read your own bible.

Although, I don’t agree with Genesis 1 being science or being history, at least I understand what Genesis 1 without dishonestly twisting what these verses say.

You do the exact opposite, you believe that god created everything but you don’t know how to read and understand these verses. That’s because you have twisted what the verses out of proportions.

 

[exchemist]

It works so well that man sees no need for a God. That is what it has worked will at, seemingly eliminating the need for a God.............but only seemingly.

All science does is eliminate a primitive, superstitious "God of the Gaps". Anyone who believes in such a God is doomed to have his faith destroyed by advances in science. I have read that Cardinal Newman said as much, over a century ago. The main Western church denominations have not taught such a view of God for a very long time.

 

[Brian2]

Because it would be supported with evidence. For instance one could take a spider's egg, hatch it and feed the spider, out of contact with other spiders, until it was old enough to spin a web - and then see if it could do it. And if it could, that would prove its behaviour is innate and not learnt.

I think you will find this has indeed been studied along the sort of lines I indicate. In which case it is not a guess but a scientific theory.

That is the difference.

Are you saying that it has been found that spiders learn how to spin a web by watching other spiders?
Being innate is not how a spider learned how to spin a web.

 

[Brian2]

Where would this "perfect" initial genome come from?

The first human that God created.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes but a conclusion is not necessarily correct if the assumptions are not correct.

What assumptions?

Being rational is seeing evidence for spirit in OBEs in NDEs that show consciousness outside the body in another room and a life giving God in the science that tells us that life only comes from other life.

Just believing extra-ordinary claims in anecdotes with no independent verifiable evidence, is the very opposite of rationality.

It's in fact how you get scammed into buying magic beans.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wonder how many sons and daughters A @E did have and how long it would have taken for an initial perfect genome (no mutations, or mistakes) would take to build up mutations that would cause genetic problems.

What is a "perfect genome"?

Your statement here reveals deep ignorance on how genetics work and what exactly the problem is with incest.

Hint: the problem is lack of genetic variation. If you have a population of 100 billion clones, you'ld have the same problem. No matter how "perfect" the genome is (whatever "perfect" means here)

 

[Brian2]

What " revealed" info proves to be factual
when examined against the evidence?
Takes a lot of " expansion" to make noahs ark
match a fact.

Religion never stopped interfering with science,
and has never added to human knowledge,
tho its been good at " lo here", and " lo there"
with divers weird and utterly mistaken notions
about the cause of material facts.

You SAY that science has gone astray for
lack of religion ( the one true one?.) but
give no examples; the " presumption of no god"
is mistaken and indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what science even is.

There is no evidence of god(s) or spirits.
If there is, go get it. Everything in science
really has evidence you can go get.
Youd find the court is like that too.

" cousin joe bob said he seen the flying saucer"
Is worthless.

"Expansion" of the definition of evidence to include thingsthat arent there is a sorry
argument.
NDE etc are ANECDOTES like mermaid sightings.
Listen to " Coast to Coast" as people relate in all
evident seriousness their trip into the hollow
earth, and encounters with flying saucers.
That science does not accept woo woo anecdotes is no weakness. Gullible acceptance is a terrible weakness for revealed religions and a most popular way for frauds to deceive.


All matter is dead matter. "Only from
prexisting life" is the presumption of religion
which if accepted ends research. Opposite to
where you think " presumption" comes from and takes you.
People study organic chemistry in every interesting direction it takes them.


You have identified no circular reasoning by atheists, still less for science.
I know a lot of people like to point out the one
big glaring flaw in whatever, evolution, ztheism, science, as if there were one and all atheists or scientists are blind to it.
Theres an odd arrogance in such an idea.

"Insinuate" does not mean what you think.

As to your last bit on how " presumption"
messes up science.
The way of science is to work with evidence, data, facts, see where it goes.
Goddidit presumes "we know goddidit "
Super convenient, takes no effort at all.

If anyone ever detected anything supernatural
and could show it around, why, that would be terrif and all kinds of data could be gathered.

Pretending " science" would ignore or reject
such is just making things up.
.

If anecdotes are shown to be true than that is evidence. If people have had conscious experiences in one room while asleep in another that is evidence.
If the only thing that we know is that life can come only from other life and people want to ignore that for a hypothesis that presumes the opposite that is living by choice in a fantasy instead of living in the knowledge we have until something new is shown to be true.

 

[gnostic]

Those things in which science and the Bible disagree. But that is a matter of opinion until all the evidence is in, and neither of us have all the evidence.

No, Brian, you just don’t understand science, period!

And if you cannot understand the science, how do you expect to understand the evidence that debunked your verses?

The thing is, Brian, there are already evidence there that disagree with what Genesis claimed, but you refuse to “what is”.

Although this verse is about not judging others, unless you want to be judged yourself, I think this teaching would still apply to you, when Jesus said this:

3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye?

You don’t have wisdom to judge what the scientific evidence are, and you don’t have wisdom to judge what Genesis 1 mean or to see where the verses are wrong, scientifically, because you have log that in your own eye.