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

[Apostle John]

Ease up on the personal attacks and you should quit ignoring the beam or two in your eyes.

If you would think for yourself you could learn the concept of evidence. Then you would be able to understand how your ideas fail. That does not necessarily mean that God does not exist. But your version of God is clearly wrong.

Thinking for oneself comes natural. Average intelligence allows one to weigh up evidence. A clear mind being transformed by the renewal of my mind is all I needed.

 

[dybmh]

And yet Eve was Adam's downfall in the myth. The Bible does not appear to support that view.

You asked about being built from Adam's bone, and you have been answered. What happened after that is complicated.

 

[metis]

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

It's so sad that you have to twist things when anyone can clearly see that the order is different. Jesus said that the Truth is mandatory for us, so why would you play a game with this and not deal with the Truth?

The order of the creation of animals versus Adam is different between 1:1 and 2:4, and it's right there in plain sight. It seems you have created an idol of sorts with the scriptures, and the early Church never assumed that they were completely inerrant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thinking for oneself comes natural. Average intelligence allows one to weigh up evidence. A clear mind being transformed by the renewal of my mind is all I needed.

You do not appear to think for yourself here. Are you able to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You asked about being built from Adam's bone, and you have been answered. What happened after that is complicated.

No, you madeca baseless claim that was easily refuted.

 

[dybmh]

No, you madeca baseless claim that was easily refuted.

OK, so, your claim is: "Eve was the downfall of Adam" correct?

 

[1213]

The order of the creation of animals versus Adam is different between 1:1 and 2:4

That is no true, if you read it as it is written.

 

[1213]

...
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.
...
Theories don't become facts. They explain facts.

I am then a theory, because I also explain facts.

Things can work, even if the theory is not correct. And I think it is funny how theory of relativity is so appreciated. Of course everything is relative. And in some cases relativity is nice, because then one doesn't necessary have to know true distances, only the relationship between them. I think it should be basic knowledge for everyone automatically, by common sense.

 

[1213]

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

Sorry, I have read about it and I have not seen any evidence for evolution in that experiment. It is basically like saying, "my kid has longer arms than I have, he must be a new species". No, there can be lot of variation in offspring and it is possible that different genes are activated in different situations, but it is not good reason to believe all species evolved as the theory of evolution suggests.

 

[1213]

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

Ok, that means humans have not evolved from other species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Things can work, even if the theory is not correct.

At some point, they will fail.
Newtonian theory of gravity for example, did a fine job explaining the facts of gravity when dealing with medium sized masses traveling at medium speeds..

It failed once we were dealing with very heavy masses and very high speeds.

You could not build a GPS system with Newtonian theory of gravity.
Enter Einsteinian physics, who expanded Newtonian theory with relativity.

Newtonian physics is still more then enough for medium sized masses traveling at medium speeds because relativistic effects are neglectable there.
But it will only take you so far. At some point, relativistic effects come into play and then it will fail.

This is how we zero-in on truth in science.

Every time a theory is replaced with another one, we are making progress and painting an ever-more accurate picture.

And I think it is funny how theory of relativity is so appreciated. Of course everything is relative. And in some cases relativity is nice, because then one doesn't necessary have to know true distances, only the relationship between them. I think it should be basic knowledge for everyone automatically, by common sense.

I think that once again, you are exposing your ignorance on the science you are trying to talk about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, I have read about it and I have not seen any evidence for evolution in that experiment.

Did you read about it from creationist lying sources perhaps?

Because the actual specific mutations (yes, plural) that made this metabolic pathway an option were actually identified. Even the generations in which they happened are known. Almost immediately after these mutations were introduced in the population, the population size exploded as a direct result of having more resources available as food. This population explosion is actually how they noticed that something significant happened there.

So there was a genetic mutation that turned out to be beneficial.
This mutation was then "selected" and past on to off spring.
This mutation then quickly spread and achieved fixation (ie: became a fixed part of the genome, present in +95% of all individuals of the population).

Sure sounds like evolution by natural selection to me.
But perhaps you are once again thinking about some strawman instead...

It is basically like saying, "my kid has longer arms than I have, he must be a new species".

No.

No, there can be lot of variation in offspring and it is possible that different genes are activated in different situations

Not what happened here. This wasn't mere variation. This was an entirely novel genetic trait that gave them an advantage that wasn't present in their ancestors or peers.

You really do have your head stuck in the ground.

, but it is not good reason to believe all species evolved as the theory of evolution suggests.

No, that single demonstration of every aspect of the mechanism of evolution indeed is not enough to accept all species evolved.
The mountains and mountains of other evidence (that you no doubt remain willfully ignorant about also), however, is.

 

[metis]

That is no true, if you read it as it is written.

I literally posted the verses for you that clearly show the order being different, and yet you come back with this!!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, that means humans have not evolved from other species.

Humans are still apes, primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes.


No species will ever outgrow its ancestry.
We are subspecies of our ancestors.

Just like all other species are subspecies of their ancestors.

 

[Muffled]

That does not make it any more reliable than any other religious book. There will be that sort of adherents for any religion. By your standards Islam is correct, as is Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

I believe I can guarantee that people from other religions do not have the same experience as me. They can't be born again spiritually because their religion does not have that.

 

[Muffled]

So he only lies when it comes to evolution. Why does he do that? And if God can lie then why trust his promises of salvation?

I believe you are incorrect. He does not lie about evolution. Usually He either lies to protect the innocent or to destroy the wicked.

 

[Muffled]

You believe incorrectly.

Evolutionary theory doesn't suggest that you can.

Perhaps your beliefs about evolution are inaccurate, because you don't seem to understand it.

I believe I understand what demonstrable means. So what do you think that is since it isn't the petrie dish?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry, I have read about it and I have not seen any evidence for evolution in that experiment. It is basically like saying, "my kid has longer arms than I have, he must be a new species". No, there can be lot of variation in offspring and it is possible that different genes are activated in different situations, but it is not good reason to believe all species evolved as the theory of evolution suggests.

Then I would submit (again) that you do not understand evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I can guarantee that people from other religions do not have the same experience as me. They can't be born again spiritually because their religion does not have that.

You are probably not "born again spiritually" either. That is merely a belief of yours. if you seriously think that your experience is significantly different you should try to find evidence for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you are incorrect. He does not lie about evolution. Usually He either lies to protect the innocent or to destroy the wicked.

Then you believe that life is the product of evolution and that Adam and Eve and pretty much the rest of the stories of Genesis are a myth. You cannot have it both ways.;