How does the story of Adam and Eve compatible with science?

[1213]

How long does evolution imply that it would take to turn rats into whales? A few days? Weeks? Months? Years?

To be valid a test has to be reasonable. You are talking about changes that took millions of years to occur. The last time I checked you could not slot a multi-million year experiment in the laboratory.

The theory of evolution is testable. You just refuse to learn how to properly test it. For example there are some things that should be possible if creation was true, but would be impossible if evolution was true. Those possible observations would be a way to test it. Do you need more help than that?

The test I told is reasonable and the only test that could prove the theory possible. If the theory works, it could be done in laboratory, with fast breeding species, by always selecting the animal that has changed the most towards the goal. But, I believe we all know it would not work, even in a millions of years.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for the scriptures, now everyone can see that created and after that human was created. Genesis 2 can be seen as more detailed description of the how man was created. That God forms animals in the garden after creating human, does not mean there could not have been already many animals. God just made more of them for Adam in the Garden. And actually, it may be even possible that God just made images/statues of the animals for Adam to name them. Genesis 2 is not literally speaking of creating animals.

What makes you say Genesis 1 is literal and Genesis 2 is figurative? Why could it not be the other way round?

But either way, at least the point is established that some of it has to be figurative, in order to avoid the seeming contradiction between the two.

 

[exchemist]

If it is not proven, it is not a fact, only a belief.

Yeah, but because there can be other reasons also for that, it doesn't work for other than those who have strong faith in the theory.

Nope. A theory is never proven, as it can alway in principle be shown incomplete or wrong, by later observations that don't fit. But that emphatically does not mean it is no more than a belief. Theories in science are based on observation, are testable against observation and predict what else we should be able to observe. Mere beliefs don't do that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For critical thinker, the next question would be, where did the 1000 come from? All from different parents?

ow dear..................


I suggest you read the article again. And this time, in full and with attention.

For example, note how males of today can trace their lineage to "Y-chromosome adam" and how females today can trace their lineage to "mitochondrial eve".
So these ancestors aren't the ancestor of ALL humans. The Y chromosome is past down by father to SON (not to daughter) and mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the MOTHER only. Thus this lineage that can be traced back, concerns ONLY the Y-chromosome in males and the mitochondrial DNA in females.

Again: this concerns only female and male lineages. It does NOT concern human lineages in general.

Literally every "conclusion" you tried to draw from this article has been incorrect and the result of either not reading it and just flipping over the names "adam" and "eve" while ignoring the prefixes "Y chromosome" and "mitochondrial", or... you just didn't understand what the article was saying.

Don't know which it is, but both are possible... considering your demonstrated ignorance on basic things like what genetic bottlenecks are and who reproduction works on the genetic level, it certainly is plausible that you did read it in full and simply didn't comprehend it.

This is why I adviced you to study up before commenting.
But you're not going to, are you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it is not proven, it is not a fact, only a belief.

Theories aren't facts. Theories explain facts.

Here are some more theories that are not "proven":
- theory of relativity
- germ theory of desease
- atomic theory
- plate tectonics theory
- quantum theory
- cell theory
- kinetic theory of gasses
- ....

NONE of these are "proven". ALL of them are well supported and confirmed by evidence.
Without calibrating the internal clocks of satellites to accommodate for the effects claimed by the theory of relativity, GPS does not work.
Without atomic theory, nukes don't explode and nuclear power stations don't work.
Without quantum theory, pc's won't work.
Etc

So in your opinion, all of these are "only a belief"?

Yeah, but because there can be other reasons also for that

Such as?
Also, that's just one (very general) prediction out of literally millions of more specific predictions.
Never has there been a fact uncovered that doesn't fit within the evolutionary framework and / or which fundamentally contradicted predictions.
Ever.

, it doesn't work for other than those who have strong faith in the theory.

Scientific theories don't require faith. They require evidence.
"faith" has no business in science. If faith is required to accept a theory, the theory is dismissed at face value.
Science requires evidence.
Theories are hypothesis that are so well-supported that they get promoted to "theory" - which is the end stage of an explanatory model in science. The best you can have.

"really good theories", remain theories. They don't become facts or laws.

Here're some terminology explanations for you in the scientific world:

Facts = data; observations
Laws = abstractions / generalizations of sets of facts
Hypothesis = proposed explanatory model for a specific set of facts and laws, which makes testable predictions
Theory = a hypothesis that has been tested to hell and back and passed every test and thus was confirmed through evidence, which resulted in the "promotion" to theory.


Again: theories in science don't become facts or laws. Instead, they explain facts and laws.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The test I told is reasonable and the only test that could prove the theory possible

No. So much "no" that, in fact, if such a test were successful, it would even DISPROVE evolution theory.

This is the level of "wrong" in your understanding of the theory you are hellbend on arguing against.

. If the theory works, it could be done in laboratory, with fast breeding species, by always selecting the animal that has changed the most towards the goal.

You mean how we turned this:

into this:

Or how we turned this wild cabbage plant:

Into all of these:

among several others...
Simply through selective breeding?

Then there's domestic dogs also. And cats. And horses. And cows. And..... so on.

Off course, you might miss all of the if your general approach to this subject you are so hellbend on arguing against, looks like this:

But, I believe we all know it would not work, even in a millions of years.

Your beliefs are irrelevant. Especially considering they stem from brutally willful ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The test I told is reasonable and the only test that could prove the theory possible. If the theory works, it could be done in laboratory, with fast breeding species, by always selecting the animal that has changed the most towards the goal. But, I believe we all know it would not work, even in a millions of years.

No, it was not. Please, don't treat your brain like a potato. When given such an experiment you still deny it. The Long-term Lenski Experiment is just that sort of experiment, and you deny that.


oYour demands are self contradictory. Even the most rapidly breeding mammal you are still going to need seven weeks per generation minimum. And since you need millions of generations to accomplishing your goal that alone makes not feasible to do in a lab. Worse yet, you want a large species. That contradicts your "fast breeding" requirement. Larger species take much longer for both gestation and and maturity times. You are back to millions of years. Even worse, this cannot be done in the laboratory with any species that you would agree to. You would need a world.

In other words, please try to be serious. Or at the very least not hypocritical.

 

[metis]

Thanks for the scriptures, now everyone can see that created and after that human was created. Genesis 2 can be seen as more detailed description of the how man was created. That God forms animals in the garden after creating human, does not mean there could not have been already many animals. God just made more of them for Adam in the Garden. And actually, it may be even possible that God just made images/statues of the animals for Adam to name them. Genesis 2 is not literally speaking of creating animals.

Both involve sequencing, thus 2:4 is not just some sort of general essay about 1:1. Plus, experts in ancient Hebrew tell us they were quite clearly written by different authors and at different times. These narratives are by no means the only variations in the Bible, such as four different renditions of the women's visitation to Jesus' tomb whereas no two match.

Again, note that I am not attacking the Bible as I read it every day-- literally. Nor is it important that one take a literalistic approach to the Creation narratives as there's a viable alternative that makes much more sense. The use of "myth" was VERY important in ancient societies, but "myth" does not mean nor imply falsehood.

Anyway, have a most Blessed Easter.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thanks for the scriptures, now everyone can see that created and after that human was created. Genesis 2 can be seen as more detailed description of the how man was created. That God forms animals in the garden after creating human, does not mean there could not have been already many animals. God just made more of them for Adam in the Garden. And actually, it may be even possible that God just made images/statues of the animals for Adam to name them. Genesis 2 is not literally speaking of creating animals.

It's pretty accepted that they are two entirely different stories. For example, in the Genesis 1 account, plants are created before people, and in Genesis 2 humans are created before plants.

 

[1213]

What makes you say Genesis 1 is literal and Genesis 2 is figurative? Why could it not be the other way round?

I don't say Genesis 2 is figurative. Genesis 1 tells the general time frame. Genesis 2 tells more detailed version of the day when man was created. It tells also how God planted the garden, which doesn't mean there could not have been plants already created before that. And forming animals doesn't mean there could not have been already those animals outside the garden.

 

[1213]

NONE of these are "proven". ALL of them are well supported and confirmed by evidence.
Without calibrating the internal clocks of satellites to accommodate for the effects claimed by the theory of relativity, GPS does not work.
Without atomic theory, nukes don't explode and nuclear power stations don't work.
Without quantum theory, pc's won't work.
Etc

So in your opinion, all of these are "only a belief"?

If they are not proven facts, they are beliefs.

 

[1213]

You mean how we turned this:
View attachment 74513
into this:
View attachment 74514

They are still bananas. I have no problem with the idea that there can be variations. For example a child can be taller than his parent. Doesn't make a new species.

 

[1213]

...The Long-term Lenski Experiment is just that sort of experiment, and you deny that...

It is poor example. About the same as saying, my child is a new species, because he eats different food than I.

In other words, please try to be serious.

Unfortunately the evolution theory can't be taken seriously, as you point it out with your excuses.

 

[1213]

...four different renditions of the women's visitation to Jesus' tomb whereas no two match.

I think they match, and make together larger image of what happened that day.

Anyway, have a most Blessed Easter.

Thank you and same to you.

 

[1213]

It's pretty accepted that they are two entirely different stories. For example, in the Genesis 1 account, plants are created before people, and in Genesis 2 humans are created before plants.

But, Genesis 2 doesn't speak of creating plants, it tells God planted the garden, and that no plants had yet sprung up, because it had not yet rained.

No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground,
Gen. 2:5

So, no, there is no contradiction, if we are accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is poor example. About the same as saying, my child is a new species, because he eats different food than I.

Like I predicted. You reject it. It is exactly what you demanded. And now you have also demonstrated quite a bit of ignorance. There is no "change of kind" in evolution. You are still an ape. Even the creationist that first developed the species/genus version of biological classification could see that humans are apes. Those E. coli are a "different species" because one of the identifying traits of E. coli is no longer there.

This is why your test failed. The only examples of life that do reproduce that rapidly that confirm evolution you simply deny. That is not a proper test for evolution. I can give you proper tests. The only problem is that life keeps passing those tests.

Unfortunately the evolution theory can't be taken seriously, as you point it out with your excuses.

Oh my, another poor soul that hates reality.

Tell me, why do you call God a liar?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But, Genesis 2 doesn't speak of creating plants, it tells God planted the garden, and that no plants had yet sprung up, because it had not yet rained.

No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground,
Gen. 2:5

So, no, there is no contradiction, if we are accurate.

To reiterate your quote:
Gen 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up

The whole POINT of this verse is that it means humans were created before plants--the opposite of Gen 1

 

[Truthseeker]

--and the fact that the two groups lived side by side for many tens of thousands of years always maintaining distinct physical and behavioral characteristics means nothing to you. We're done.

Neanderthal-Homo sapiens interbreeding​

Neanderthals are known to contribute up to 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans, depending on what region of the word your ancestors come from, and modern humans who lived about 40,000 years ago have been found to have up to 6-9% Neanderthal DNA (Fu et al., 2015).

ps://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals#:~:text=Neanderthal-Homo%20sapiens%20interbreeding,et%20al.%2C%202015).

 

[dybmh]

To reiterate your quote:
Gen 2:5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up

The whole POINT of this verse is that it means humans were created before plants--the opposite of Gen 1

The whole point of the verse is that it hadn't rained yet. Anyway, the order of Gen 2 is:

Verse 5 - plants exist but had not sprouted yet
Verse 7 - human was formed ( not created )
Verse 9 - a garden was planted

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The whole point of the verse is that it hadn't rained yet. Anyway, the order of Gen 2 is:

Verse 5 - plants exist but had not sprouted yet
Verse 7 - human was formed ( not created )
Verse 9 - a garden was planted

ROFL it SAYS there were no plants yet upon the earth. Not that there were unsprouted plants.