Are Adam and Eve Incompatible with Evolution?

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Nope, not joking.

I guess I have to ask again, because this isn't an answer to my question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.



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



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.

Whoa, what? "It is the same with the Bible telling us things that humans have only discovered recently."

That sentence doesn't make much sense. If the Bible talks about such things (like what?), then humans would have discovered them a long time ago, rather than "recently."

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.



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



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.

No serious scientist today points to "spontaneous generation" as the origins of life on earth.
You really need to update your science knowledge.

 

[gnostic]

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?

Dust and water do not transform into cells.

Dust are by-product waste, and it is non-living.

For example, a person has skin covering the body, especially muscles. The skin are made layers of tissues, and these each layer made of specific types of cells.

The top layer of the skin, the epidermis, have the tendency to shed or flake off, cells break down, drying up, thereby turning to dust.

You cannot simply add water to these dust, and expect it to become a living skin, the cells cannot regenerate into living cells again.

It is utter nonsense that you think you can add water to dust, and expect cell regenerate and become living cell.

And it is the same decomposition of other tissues and organs. Once all the body parts are reduced to dust, cells won’t regenerate, because the cells have completely broken down.

Water won’t do anything to dust, except make it wet.

 

[Honestly]

The bible teaches in a number of places that we are the children of God, I believe that we are spirit children of God, placed in physical bodies. It appears that the creation steps in the first chapter of Genesis is the spiritual creation because chapter 2 states that there was not yet a man and that the plants were created before they grew. The breath of life that was given to Adam in order to make him a living soul was probably his pre created spirit. Death is simply the seperation of our spirit from our body. The physical body dies and the spirit is eternal,

Adam was the first being in which a spirit child of God was placed in a physical body. To me, whatever process and however long it took God to produce Adams physical body and a compatible environement, is irrelavant.

 

[all souls loved]

Adam and Eve are very incompatible with the theory of evolution:
1) The theory of evolution says much suffering and death occurred before mankind evolved to adam and eve's level. The Bible, however, states everything was "very good" before dam and eve sinned, therefore implying no death and suffering.
2) Jesus quoted genesis and said "In the beginning, He made them male and female..."

Man and Woman were created fully-formed right from the beginning.

 

[all souls loved]

When you look at the ape-men exhibits in museums today, they only have dioramas and other artificial exhibits because fossils of supposed 'ape-men' are nothing but fragments and very unimpressive.

This is why photos of ape-men skulls are 90% plaster and 10% bone fragments.

 

[all souls loved]

'Lucy' was nothing but bones picked out of 4 boxes of bones collected along a desert wash in Africa. There is no way to prove any of the bones belong to the same individual.

Once again, this is pseudoscience. The only thing the bone fragments convinces me is that they are assigning more value to the bits of bone than they have any right to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1) The theory of evolution says much suffering and death occurred before mankind evolved to adam and eve's level.

"level"?

The Bible, however, states everything was "very good" before dam and eve sinned, therefore implying no death and suffering.

Which is the first hint that that bible story is not an accurate narrative of reality.

2) Jesus quoted genesis and said "In the beginning, He made them male and female..."
Man and Woman were created fully-formed right from the beginning.

Which demonstrably isn't true.

 

[metis]

Adam and Eve are very incompatible with the theory of evolution:

Only if one takes the creation accounts as being literal history, which most Christian theologians today don't. Instead, it's probably allegorical and a refutation of the earlier and much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian narratives.

This is why photos of ape-men skulls are 90% plaster and 10% bone fragments.

You must have invented this as the percent varies a great deal.

'Lucy' was nothing but bones picked out of 4 boxes of bones collected along a desert wash in Africa. There is no way to prove any of the bones belong to the same individual.

Even do a jigsaw puzzle? The bones must fit in a pattern or they would be of different individuals.

Once again, this is pseudoscience.

No, it is not.

As one who was brought up to reject the ToE as my former church taught, when I went into science in my undergrad years, I realized that what I was being taught in my church simply wasn't true, although I knew that even before college as my parents were "museum freaks", thus I had seen more than enough evidence for the ToE. I eventually got a grad degree in anthropology and taught the subject for 30 years.

The denomination I belong to accepts the science as long as there's the understanding that God caused all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

When you look at the ape-men exhibits in museums today, they only have dioramas and other artificial exhibits because fossils of supposed 'ape-men' are nothing but fragments and very unimpressive.

This is why photos of ape-men skulls are 90% plaster and 10% bone fragments.

Uh, no. Displays in museums are made out of plaster so that the originals don't get damaged. The originals are stored elsewhere in places where they can be kept safe.

The rest of this is an outdated creationist talking point from about 40 years ago. There are many, many hominid fossils in existence.

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia
Prominent Hominid Fossils
Five Accidental Hominid Fossil Discoveries | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

 

[SkepticThinker]

'Lucy' was nothing but bones picked out of 4 boxes of bones collected along a desert wash in Africa. There is no way to prove any of the bones belong to the same individual.

Once again, this is pseudoscience. The only thing the bone fragments convinces me is that they are assigning more value to the bits of bone than they have any right to.

Nonsense. There are over 300 Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") specimens in existence. Lucy's skeleton itself is more than 40% complete. Many more specimens have been found since then.

This is another talking point that's been outdated for decades now. You really shouldn't get your evolution information from creationist websites, they tend to distort the truth.


Please read these for actual information:

Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy's species
Australopithecus afarensis

 

[metis]

Five Accidental Hominid Fossil Discoveries | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

Sorta reminds me of when at a dinosaur museum in Casper, Wyoming, the curator of the museum was told that I was an anthropologist, so he came out and we talked a bit. Then he took me in the back room whereas fossils were prepared for display, and he handed me a 6-foot dinosaur rib bone that dated around 200 million years bp, which is slightly older than I am. Whatta thrill that was for me-- made me feel young even.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorta reminds me of when at a dinosaur museum in Casper, Wyoming, the curator of the museum was told that I was an anthropologist, so he came out and we talked a bit. Then he took me in the back room whereas fossils were prepared for display, and he handed me a 6-foot dinosaur rib bone that dated around 200 million years bp, which is slightly older than I am. Whatta thrill that was for me-- made me feel young even.

That is so cool! I am beyond jealous.

 

[gnostic]

Sorta reminds me of when at a dinosaur museum in Casper, Wyoming, the curator of the museum was told that I was an anthropologist, so he came out and we talked a bit. Then he took me in the back room whereas fossils were prepared for display, and he handed me a 6-foot dinosaur rib bone that dated around 200 million years bp, which is slightly older than I am. Whatta thrill that was for me-- made me feel young even.

That is so cool! I am beyond jealous.

Yeah, me too.

 

[gnostic]

'Lucy' was nothing but bones picked out of 4 boxes of bones collected along a desert wash in Africa. There is no way to prove any of the bones belong to the same individual.

Once again, this is pseudoscience. The only thing the bone fragments convinces me is that they are assigning more value to the bits of bone than they have any right to.

Nonsense. There are over 300 Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") specimens in existence. Lucy's skeleton itself is more than 40% complete. Many more specimens have been found since then.

This is another talking point that's been outdated for decades now. You really shouldn't get your evolution information from creationist websites, then tend to distort the truth.


Please read these for actual information:

Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy's species
Australopithecus afarensis

There was another site, not too far from where Lucy was found, all dated to the same, so it was concluded they were family of Australopithecus - designated as AL 333.

 

[all souls loved]

Scientists do believe Lucy is a collection of bones form different individuals - i.e. a creation out of ones' imagination:

Lucy is the name assigned to a COMPOSITE of several individuals, therefore, not considered genuine evidence for evolution. It is, however, evidence for the FALLACY of evolution:

"The actual bones of Lucy are dark brown in this reconstruction. The rest are plaster casts based on other bones that, says Zihlman, may BELONG TO CREATURES OF SEVERAL SPECIES."

Article: Flesh and Bone (Discover Magazine, 1992)

 

[all souls loved]

Donald Johanson, the discoverer of Lucy, admitted he cannot prove the bones belong to ONE individual, and said:

"I BELIEVE, although I CANNOT PROVE IT, that they represent the upper legs of one individual."

Ref: Book: Lucy, The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald Johanson.

Comment: Lucy is a mixed collection of bones from multiple individuals and a total FARCE. There is no better source of information than the book written by the discoverer of Lucy, Donald Johanson.

 

[all souls loved]

Donald Johanson, discoverer of Lucy, said:

"Yes, there are older hominid fossils, but they are all fragments. Everything that has been reconstructed from them has had to be done by matching up those little pieces - a tooth here, a bit of jaw there, maybe a complete skull from somewhere else, plus a leg bone from some other place. The fitting together has been done by scientists who know those bones as well as I know my own hand. And yet, when you consider that such reconstruction may consist of pieces from a COUPLE DOZEN INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY HAVE LIVED HUNDREDS OF MILES APART AND MAY HAVE BEEN SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER BY A HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS IN TIME, well, when you look at the complete individual you've just put together, you have to say to yourself 'JUST HOW REAL IS HE?'"

Ref: Book: Lucy, The beginnings of Humankind by D. Johanson.

 

[all souls loved]

Paleontologist Tim White, who helped piece together Lucy, said:

" The bones at Hadar don't have labels, so YOU CAN INTERPRET THEM ANY WAY YOU WANT."

Ref: Book: Lucy, The beginnings of Humankind by D. Johanson.