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.

Observing someone’s thought patterns overtime and concluding there must be an evil, negative spirit driving them and particularly when they have the ability to respond back, isn’t a personal attack in my book. I actually think it could be considered a scientific observation with real evidence, not conceptual, that could have the potential to help them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Observing someone’s thought patterns overtime and concluding there must be an evil, negative spirit driving them and particularly when they have the ability to respond back, isn’t a personal attack in my book. I actually think it could be considered a scientific observation with real evidence, not conceptual, that could have the potential to help them.

I need to remind you that you do not understand the concept of evidence and to date have been too afraid to even discuss the idea.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Observing someone’s thought patterns overtime and concluding there must be an evil, negative spirit driving them and particularly when they have the ability to respond back, isn’t a personal attack in my book. I actually think it could be considered a scientific observation with real evidence, not conceptual, that could have the potential to help them.

There is nothing scientific about what you just said here.

 

[Apostle John]

There is nothing scientific about what you just said here.

You would know as you stated you’re a psychologist.

 

[sayak83]

Okay.


Yes.

Some scientists do believe that, but they debate many things concerning "human origins".
For example in this article...
Modern humans and Neanderthals may have overlapped, shared culture in Western Europe
But findings, based on a reevaluation of radiocarbon dating data, aren’t swaying some experts
Other scientists, however, say the wide margins of error for many of the dates analyzed in the study undercut strong claims about the identities of the inhabitants and whether they indeed overlapped. It’s “a good starting point,” but the conclusions could change based on more accurate dating, says Sahra Talamo, a chemist who directs a radiocarbon laboratory at the University of Bologna.

Evidently they are not really sure of those things they believe.
Even if some feel certain, it's not the case that all the experts agree.

You do not believe that it is a tiny bit illogical to claim that a debate about whether modern humans and Neanderthals coexisted together in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern region 60,000 years ago or not is actually throwing doubt on whether modern humans existed 6000 years ago???!!!!
Radiometric dating have a +- 10% or so error at very early times. So 60,000 years can be 55,000 or 65,000. Hence the extent of overlap between the two populations during a 10,000 year window of coexistence is being disputed as we need a bit more dating work to reduce the uncertainties.
However we know that modern humans existed 100,000 years ago and Neanderthals also existed by 70,000 years ago. The claim about 6000 years ago they existed or not is just absurd.

 

[nPeace]

You do not believe that it is a tiny bit illogical to claim that a debate about whether modern humans and Neanderthals coexisted together in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern region 60,000 years ago or not is actually throwing doubt on whether modern humans existed 6000 years ago???!!!!
Radiometric dating have a +- 10% or so error at very early times. So 60,000 years can be 55,000 or 65,000. Hence the extent of overlap between the two populations during a 10,000 year window of coexistence is being disputed as we need a bit more dating work to reduce the uncertainties.
However we know that modern humans existed 100,000 years ago and Neanderthals also existed by 70,000 years ago. The claim about 6000 years ago they existed or not is just absurd.

You are free to hold your beliefs... like everyone else... absurd or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You would know as you stated you’re a psychologist.

You should learn the basics of science. You are not lacking in intelligence. If you did so you might be able to understand how and why so many of your arguments fail.

People here will gladly help you with the basics.

 

[sayak83]

You are free to hold your beliefs... like everyone else... absurd or not.

Thanks for the tacit acknowledgement of the absurdity of the claim you made.

 

[1213]

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.

So, we actually have only one species?

 

[1213]

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

And i have showed that Genesis 2 is not speaking of creating plants or animals. It is weird why you insist it is speaking of creating those, even though it is not.

 

[1213]

So there was a genetic mutation that turned out to be beneficial.
This mutation was then "selected" and past on to off spring.

Do we have any image of the DNA, what changed there?

 

[1213]

You could not build a GPS system with Newtonian theory of gravity.

Why not?

I believe Tesla was correct when he said:

 

[exchemist]

Why not?

I believe Tesla was correct when he said:
View attachment 75019

Subsequent events have amply vindicated Einstein. No "underlying errors" have been found.

(By the way, Tesla is a favourite of various sorts of crank, so I'd be a bit circumspect, if I were you, about choosing to quote from him.)

 

[Apostle John]

You should learn the basics of science. You are not lacking in intelligence. If you did so you might be able to understand how and why so many of your arguments fail.

I know about the basics and don’t argue with them, preferring to take things easy.

People here will gladly help you with the basics.

Yes, you can keep talking to yourself, trying to keep things alive but, tbh, you’ve sounded like you’re already held back wearing a millstone.

Years ago I actually raised my voice telling a base individual (the immoral type) firmly ‘they’re all leaving without finishing it off’. He didn’t like it and remained stubborn.

 

[metis]

And i have showed that Genesis 2 is not speaking of creating plants or animals. It is weird why you insist it is speaking of creating those, even though it is not.

Again, you simply do not get it as both accounts include an order that don't match, and in no way is there any indications that 2:4 is just a summary of 1:1. I've seen this nonsense many times before, and all the perpetrators are doing is to look for any scheme that tries to make "variations" say the same thing, which is certainly not sound theology by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know about the basics and don’t argue with them, preferring to take things easy.


Yes, you can keep talking to yourself, trying to keep things alive but, tbh, you’ve sounded like you’re already held back wearing a millstone.

Years ago I actually raised my voice telling a base individual (the immoral type) firmly ‘they’re all leaving without finishing it off’. He didn’t like it and remained stubborn.

It is no skin off of my nose if you insist on claiming that your God is a liar. But remember your empty threat. I do not call God a liar. You do. If God is real, you are in trouble. Now you may have insulted and lied avout about another person in the past. How does that help you here. Right now your arguments are very similar to those of a toddler insisting that Santa Claus is real. You cannot give an explanation of why your book of myths is reliable and other books of myth are not.

And of course you still run away from the discussion on Romans 3. You now know it is about circumcision and not the Bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know about the basics and don’t argue with them, preferring to take things easy.

You've demonstrated repeatedly that you do not.

Yes, you can keep talking to yourself, trying to keep things alive but, tbh, you’ve sounded like you’re already held back wearing a millstone.

Years ago I actually raised my voice telling a base individual (the immoral type) firmly ‘they’re all leaving without finishing it off’. He didn’t like it and remained stubborn.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks for the tacit acknowledgement of the absurdity of the claim you made.

What's absurd, is what you believe.

 

[sayak83]

What's absurd, is what you believe.

Demonstrate the absurdity of my beliefs.
You were unable to defend yourself against my claims of absurdity. So I am justified in saying that your claims were absurd.
Now demonstrate that my beliefs are absurd.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, we actually have only one species?

Did you even read the post?
Are you playing dumb on purpose?


Maybe you should look up the word "sub species" before making an even bigger fool of your self.