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

[1213]

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

No reason to think so. Plants grow slowly. If they were created as seeds, it take time before they "sprung up" from the ground.

 

[metis]

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

I don't understand. How can one say they match when the order is clearly different?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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 also possible that the whole story is complete bunk. If you have to engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to make the story "work," maybe the story ain't worth believing in the first place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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's not reasonable. And it demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works in the first place.
As does this post. Seriously, you really should go study up on this stuff if you're going to be engaging in conversations about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No reason to think so. Plants grow slowly. If they were created as seeds, it take time before they "sprung up" from the ground.

Excuses are not refutations. For a refutation you need evidence. That is why the claims of the Bible contradicting itself are in reality very very rarely refuted by apologists. They merely look for excuses because they seem to know that the evidence is against them.

 

[dybmh]

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

Actually, that's precisely what it says:

וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ וְכָל־עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִצְמָח כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל־הָאָרֶץ וְאָדָם אַיִן לַֽעֲבֹד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה׃







This is before the sprouts were on the earth.

 

[dybmh]

Excuses are not refutations. For a refutation you need evidence. That is why the claims of the Bible contradicting itself are in reality very very rarely refuted by apologists. They merely look for excuses because they seem to know that the evidence is against them.

You need evidence that it takes time for a seed to sprout? Oooooookay. *rolls-eyes*

 

[Subduction Zone]

You need evidence that it takes time for a seed to sprout? Oooooookay. *rolls-eyes*

No, you need evidence that it was planted.

 

[dybmh]

No, you need evidence that it was planted.

If you acknowedge that it takes time for a seed to sprout then what was brought is not an excuse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you acknowedge that it takes time for a seed to sprout then what was brought is not an excuse.

No, it is still an excuse.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How can one say they match when the order is clearly different?

Rhetorical question, right? I think you know how that happens. They say that seeing is believing, but only for the open-minded willing to evaluate evidence dispassionately and come to conclusions AFTER reviewing evidence. Once one has been fitted for a faith-based confirmation bias, it becomes believing is seeing, and the evidence is massaged to conform to belief.

The Bible is reliable because it corresponds with my experience.

The opposite was true for me (former Christian here). Were you aware that much of Genesis and Exodus have been disproven?

Experience is the evidence that the text is true

Were you ever able to move a mountain with faith? I wasn't.

I believe He can but just is not disposed to do so most of the time.

You believe your god can lie? That's not good if you're banking on an eternity in heaven based in that god's promise.

I believe the theory of evolution is not demonstrable. You can't drop an ape gene in a petri dish and watch it grow into a human.

Theories aren't demonstrable. They are falsifiable. This one has never been falsified. Maybe you meant that evolution isn't demonstrable rather than its theory, but that would be wrong.

Lucy can be seen as just on different looking human.

By that reasoning, so can monkeys. Lucy was part of the way to human, but not there yet.

If we would take all modern people and arrange them in a row, someone could see similar chain of evolution in that.

There's not much evidence of evolution looking at single generation or three of anything.

It does not necessary mean humans have evolved from other species.

Nor need it. It only need be likely. You seem to think it's impossible.

There is no proof that all species evolved as the theory claims.

Same answer.

If the theory would be correct, it should be testable and repeatable. For example we should be able to take rats and make them evolve into miniature whales, as the theory suggests.

You don't seem to know what reproducibility is in science, and probably don't know what observation refers to. We neither need to observe nor reproduce the history of the world. We observe what is here now, and we reproduce what we have already done.

maybe the person was not the Adam, but if the idea of unbroken lineage is true, it would lead to Adam

I'm sure it has led to countless Adams, but if none were the first man, so what?

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.

If Genesis two might not be talking about literally creating animals, why should be believe that either story refers to anything literal? Was it you having problems with "probable" and lack of "proof" in science? Maybe Adam was just a statue.

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.

What they see is what a faith-based confirmation bias does to perception. You can't see what is plainly clear to others.

That God forms animals in the garden after creating human, does not mean there could not have been already many animals.

Then by that same reckoning, that God creates Adam and Eve doesn't mean that there weren't already many human beings.

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

All beliefs are considered true, and a correct belief is one that is demonstrably correct, that is, accurately maps in words some aspect of reality out there.

If they are not proven facts, they are beliefs.

Proof isn't the currency for belief for anybody. Empiricists just need compelling evidence, and faith-based thinkers need nothing but the will to believe. You're a creationist, correct? If so, lack of proof isn't a deal killer for you, so why are bringing it up now? Your worldview is based not just in the unproven, but also the unfalsifiable (can never be proved or disproved) and the already disproven.

 

[dybmh]

Then by that same reckoning, that God creates Adam and Eve doesn't mean that there weren't already many human beings.

Not quite. Gen 1 does not deliver the human to earth. It's still with God until Gen 2.

 

[1213]

It's also possible that the whole story is complete bunk. If you have to engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to make the story "work," maybe the story ain't worth believing in the first place.

Mental gymnastics are only needed to make it look not working, like atheists do.

 

[1213]

I don't understand. How can one say they match when the order is clearly different?

If you think the order is different, then you have matched them wrongly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mental gymnastics are only needed to make it look not working, like atheists do.

No. Now you are telling falsehoods about others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you think the order is different, then you have matched them wrongly.

How so? Where was his error? Be specific.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are still bananas.

Newsflash: if they would become something else then bananas, or subspecies thereof, then evolution theory would be disproven.

Count on creationists, to actually demand evidence FOR evolution theory which if found, would actually DISPROVE evolution theory.
This is the level of ignorance and misunderstanding creationists deal with.

I don't think I've ever met a creationist who actually wasn't arguing strawmen.....

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.

Right, because the difference between broccoli and brussel sprouts is just the size.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

The bacteria in Lenski's experiment didn't just eat different food.
Instead, they evolved entirely novel metabolic pathways which allowed them to consume a food source that their ancestors and peers (in the other populations) literally were UNABLE TO.

You really have no clue, have you?

It's not that the ancestors or peers "wouldn't" consume that new food source. It's that they literally were physically unable to do so.
It required genetic changes to make it possible

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

All you have are strawman.
Whatever idea you are opposing, it's not actually evolution theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If they are not proven facts, they are beliefs.

Atomic theory
Germ theory of desease
Theory of relativity
Plate tectonic theory
...

All just "beliefs" since they are not "proven".

Meanwhile, without applying atomic theory, nukes don't explode and nuclear power stations don't produce electricity.
Without applying relativity, GPS satellites are off by several miles and thus won't work.

And then the kicker: all of those theories...... LESS supported / LESS established then evolution theory.

But you go ahead and continue arguing strawmen with your head lodged firmly into the ground.

Your quote above is literally the dumbest thing you could say when trying to argue about science.
This is not even science 101. It's instead extremely basic scientific terminology.

Theory = the highest possible status any explanatory model in science can achieve.

Theories don't become facts. They explain facts.

But you don't care that you make such rookie mistakes, do you?

 

[Apostle John]

Atomic theory
Germ theory of desease
Theory of relativity
Plate tectonic theory
...

All just "beliefs" since they are not "proven".

Meanwhile, without applying atomic theory, nukes don't explode and nuclear power stations don't produce electricity.
Without applying relativity, GPS satellites are off by several miles and thus won't work.

And then the kicker: all of those theories...... LESS supported / LESS established then evolution theory.

But you go ahead and continue arguing strawmen with your head lodged firmly into the ground.

Your quote above is literally the dumbest thing you could say when trying to argue about science.
This is not even science 101. It's instead extremely basic scientific terminology.

Theory = the highest possible status any explanatory model in science can achieve.

Theories don't become facts. They explain facts.

But you don't care that you make such rookie mistakes, do you?

Here’s the kicker: They aren’t necessarily true if they are only theory status. Theory of relativity has currently been brought into question by mapping dark matter. Ergo they are only beliefs.