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

[SkepticThinker]

God is the Creator. Science (man) has never created any planet or life from scratch.


Soft tissue discovered on dinosaur fossils that became extinct 65 million years ago isn’t ridiculous?

No, it's not.

Instead of parroting outdated talking points from creationist websites, read and learn:

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

A T. rex found with soft tissue preserved in her bones was an 'iron lady,' according to new research finding that iron kept the tissues from decaying for millennia.

www.livescience.com

Mechanisms of soft tissue and protein preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex - Scientific Reports

The idea that original soft tissue structures and the native structural proteins comprising them can persist across geological time is controversial, in part because rigorous and testable mechanisms that can occur under natural conditions, resulting in such preservation, have not been well...

www.nature.com

Fun fact, Mary Schweitzer's discovery of the T. Rex fossil containing collagen (i.e. soft tissue) helped to further demonstrate that dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern birds:

"Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex."


Did you think this discovery showed that dinosaurs lived just a few thousand years ago or something?
It doesn't.

 

[Apostle John]

No, it's not.

Instead of parroting outdated talking points from creationist websites, read and learn:

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

A T. rex found with soft tissue preserved in her bones was an 'iron lady,' according to new research finding that iron kept the tissues from decaying for millennia.

www.livescience.com

Mechanisms of soft tissue and protein preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex - Scientific Reports

The idea that original soft tissue structures and the native structural proteins comprising them can persist across geological time is controversial, in part because rigorous and testable mechanisms that can occur under natural conditions, resulting in such preservation, have not been well...

www.nature.com

Fun fact, Mary Schweitzer's discovery of the T. Rex fossil containing collagen (i.e. soft tissue) helped to further demonstrate that dinosaurs are the ancestors of modern birds:

"Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex."


Did you think this discovery showed that dinosaurs lived just a few thousand years ago or something?
It doesn't.

This is an example of bad science. Their experiments do not mirror what happens in real life. They badly want to come up with an explanation to fit their theory and it’s a lie. I believe it’s even been ridiculed by other science.

 

[metis]

There is enough objective evidence for faith, which are both observable and testable.

Then maybe post these here, as I have asked this before of some here and never got a response other than just more song & dance that elevates belief over evidence.

I read up on the first so called transitional fossil.

All fossils that are found between different forms over time are "transitional fossils", but it's typically difficult to make "exact" connections because of "bottlenecking". But it's the general patterns that allow us to often get the "picture", such as why multicell fossils have never been found on any strata older than 1 billion years b.p. No human fossils found during the many dinosaur years or before. Etc.

No one is assuming.... except perhaps the crowd that makes the assumption that people wrote down history; referred to it as history; corroborated it as history; but really meant it as myth.
That makes absolutely no sense at all.

To you.

Those writers were shown to be honest. verified to be, as well.

And you know them personally so as to verify this?

In fact, the founder of Christianity... the one you say is your lord, did nothing but exalt these ones as being preservers of God's word for later generation.

So, all those in all other religious faiths are barking up the wrong tree, right?

The reality is that you are conflating opinion with objective evidence.

Religion is based on faith, not objective evidence, which is a major reason why it is virtually impossible to prove one's faith is objectively correct. Try to prove Buddhism is wrong, for example. or Hinduism. or...

I personally have faith in Jesus, but I definitely cannot prove that Jesus is correct and Mohammed is somehow wrong. Nor would I even try and do that because I think it's immoral. I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in during my mid-20's largely because of its anti-science and religious bigotry and I never have regretted it.

Unless you can put forth objectively derived evidence to somehow miraculously show that the fossil records, d.n.a. evidence, and the various types of dating techniques are completely unreliable, then I guess I'll just move on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is an example of bad science. Their experiments do not mirror what happens in real life. They badly want to come up with an explanation to fit their theory and it’s a lie. I believe it’s even been ridiculed by other science.

That's an example of good science, which I don't think you even know how to recognize in the first place.
If you believe it's been "ridiculed by other science" (whatever that means) then please go ahead and demonstrate that.

Also, you didn't answer my question.

 

[Apostle John]

If you believe it's been "ridiculed by other science" (whatever that means) then please go ahead and demonstrate that.

That’s easy, just read their own words like:

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.
After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.
"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."
Formaldehyde of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

Now think, using common sense and ask yourself why don’t most if not all human bones and animal bones ever buried have soft tissue on them hundred of years later, not just millions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That’s easy, just read their own words like:

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.
After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.
"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."
Formaldehyde of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

Now think, using common sense and ask yourself why don’t most if not all human bones and animal bones ever buried have soft tissue on them hundred of years later, not just millions.

Because obviously the process, the elements and environment described here aren't the same for every single fossil on earth.

If you read through the link I provided, it tells of how the researchers analyzed other fossils in their possession, looking for soft tissue, and actually found it in about half of their samples, going back to the Jurassic Period which lasted from about 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago.

What you have presented here reinforces Mary Schweitzer et al's claims and refutes your own claim that the finding is being "ridiculed by science."

And you still didn't answer my question.

 

[Apostle John]

Because obviously the process, the elements and environment described here aren't the same for every single fossil on earth.

If you read through the link I provided, it tells of how the researchers analyzed other fossils in their possession, looking for soft tissue, and actually found it in about half of their samples, going back to the Jurassic Period which lasted from about 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago.

What you have presented here reinforces Mary Schweitzer et al's claims and refutes your own claim that the finding is being "ridiculed by science."

And you still didn't answer my question.

I answered your question conclusively, you just didn’t think using common sense as I suggested.

I don’t believe there was a ‘Jurassic period’ and don’t find the science you follow reliable information. Dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I answered your question conclusively, you just didn’t think using common sense as I suggested.

You demonstrated my point for me, so thanks for that.

I don’t believe there was a ‘Jurassic period’ and don’t find the science you follow reliable information. Dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago.

There was a Jurassic period, so sorry, but you're demonstrably wrong. You just cited the science that says so, in trying to make a different point about how science is wrong, which is pretty hilarious, if you ask me.

You finally did answer my question! Wow. So you think dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago. What's that based on? It's definitely not based on scientific findings.

 

[Apostle John]

You demonstrated my point for me, so thanks for that.

There was a Jurassic period, so sorry, but you're demonstrably wrong. You just cited the science that says so, in trying to make a different point about how science is wrong, which is pretty hilarious, if you ask me.

You finally did answer my question! Wow. So you think dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago. What's that based on? It's definitely not based on scientific findings.

This song would appear to summarise you thought processes:

 

[metis]

I don’t believe there was a ‘Jurassic period’ and don’t find the science you follow reliable information. Dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago.

Yah, and I'm better looking than George Clooney!

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is an example of bad science. Their experiments do not mirror what happens in real life. They badly want to come up with an explanation to fit their theory and it’s a lie. I believe it’s even been ridiculed by other science.

What do you mean by that? How do they not "mirror real life"? Do you not know that the woman that did that work was a real Christian, not one that claims that God is liar?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yah, and I'm better looking than George Clooney!

He is somewhat right. I just had leftover dinosaur for breakfast. soo good.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This song would appear to summarise you thought processes:

Translation: Ooops, I'm left with nothing to say so now I'm going to try and insult you because that's what I do when I'm backed into a corner.

 

[nPeace]

Then maybe post these here, as I have asked this before of some here and never got a response other than just more song & dance that elevates belief over evidence.

We can objectively test the reliability of scripture, regarding historical, scientific, and prophetic accuracy,
We can objectively observe the results - the effect - upon those applying Bible principles.

All fossils that are found between different forms over time are "transitional fossils", but it's typically difficult to make "exact" connections because of "bottlenecking". But it's the general patterns that allow us to often get the "picture", such as why multicell fossils have never been found on any strata older than 1 billion years b.p. No human fossils found during the many dinosaur years or before. Etc.

You are making a claim.
I'm saying that that is a subjective opinion.
How do you objectively show a fossil to be transitional?

To you.

...and millions of people, who actually study the text.

And you know them personally so as to verify this?

Those studying the text, see this.
Certain criterion are considered.

• criterion of embarrassment holds that the authors of the gospels had no reason to invent embarrassing incidents
• Bart Ehrman, using the criterion of dissimilarity to judge the historical reliability of the claim Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, notes that "it is hard to imagine a Christian inventing the story of Jesus' baptism since this could be taken to mean that he was John's subordinate."
• the criterion of multiple attestation which says that when two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is more likely that the accounts are accurate reports of events or that they are reporting a tradition which pre-dates the sources themselves.

So, all those in all other religious faiths are barking up the wrong tree, right?

Excuse me?
How does that relate to... In fact, the founder of Christianity... the one you say is your lord, did nothing but exalt these ones as being preservers of God's word for later generation.

The reality is that you are conflating opinion with objective evidence.

Please demonstrate that assertion.

Religion is based on faith, not objective evidence, which is a major reason why it is virtually impossible to prove one's faith is objectively correct. Try to prove Buddhism is wrong, for example. or Hinduism. or...

Faith is based on objective evidence.
Faith is not mere belief.
If someone says they have no evidence of... but they just believe, that is not faith.

I personally have faith in Jesus, but I definitely cannot prove that Jesus is correct and Mohammed is somehow wrong. Nor would I even try and do that because I think it's immoral. I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in during my mid-20's largely because of its anti-science and religious bigotry and I never have regretted it.

What do you mean by, you "personally have faith in Jesus"?

Unless you can put forth objectively derived evidence to somehow miraculously show that the fossil records, d.n.a. evidence, and the various types of dating techniques are completely unreliable, then I guess I'll just move on.

Why is it you tend to shift the burden of proof?

What objective evidence have you provided? You need to do that. That burden of proof lies with you.
I asked you When did we observe whale evolution? What testing gave results that were not influenced by subjective opinion?
You did not answer.

When you can answer, it will give an indication that you have more than a claim, and we can look and see if you do have objective evidence.
It looks like you haven't answered because you know it is subjective.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can objectively test the reliability of scripture, regarding historical, scientific, and prophetic accuracy,
We can objectively observe the results - the effect - upon those applying Bible principles.


You are making a claim.
I'm saying that that is a subjective opinion.
How do you objectively show a fossil to be transitional?


...and millions of people, who actually study the text.


Those studying the text, see this.
Certain criterion are considered.

• criterion of embarrassment holds that the authors of the gospels had no reason to invent embarrassing incidents
• Bart Ehrman, using the criterion of dissimilarity to judge the historical reliability of the claim Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, notes that "it is hard to imagine a Christian inventing the story of Jesus' baptism since this could be taken to mean that he was John's subordinate."
• the criterion of multiple attestation which says that when two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is more likely that the accounts are accurate reports of events or that they are reporting a tradition which pre-dates the sources themselves.

Excuse me?
How does that relate to... In fact, the founder of Christianity... the one you say is your lord, did nothing but exalt these ones as being preservers of God's word for later generation.


Please demonstrate that assertion.


Faith is based on objective evidence.
Faith is not mere belief.
If someone says they have no evidence of... but they just believe, that is not faith.


What do you mean by, you "personally have faith in Jesus"?


Why is it you tend to shift the burden of proof?

What objective evidence have you provided? You need to do that. That burden of proof lies with you.
I asked you When did we observe whale evolution? What testing gave results that were not influenced by subjective opinion?
You did not answer.

When you can answer, it will give an indication that you have more than a claim, and we can look and see if you do have objective evidence.
It looks like you haven't answered because you know it is subjective.

Typical Gish Gallop. I see that he still is all over the place and does not understand the burden of proof. Or when it comes to the Bible what a good argument is for it. The criterion of embarrassment is one of the worst failed arguments. Superman stories get too boring in short order because Superman can overcome almost anything easily with his super powers. The story of Jesus could have had the same flaws, but giving him human characteristics and failings makes the story much more compelling.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why don’t you just admit it and give the real reason you hide behind the multitude of sock puppet accounts.

"Why don't you just admit it and give the real reason you beat your wife?"

Loaded question is loaded....

I have just this one account. Why would I need others?

You’re flying the gay rainbow colours on this forum.

Not sure what that means, but it sounds like it is meant as an insult.

Homosexuality isn’t natural.

Except that it is. It occurs with an average of 10% in most mammalian species.

It is a Darwinian paradox like soft tissue found on dinosaur bones.

Neither are "darwinian paradoxes"

Your agenda can only lead to hell ad infinitum.

Santa won't bring you presents next year if you keep this up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Eventually they left

...yet apparantly took with them literally every trace they even exist. Not a single piece of alien garbage, alien tech or whatever remains. Nada.

How else did the Summerians map the universe thousands of year's ago with no telescopes.

Argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Natural selection is a result - the result of environmental pressure acting on genes, etc. Which then results in a process, they call natural selection.

Which means natural selection is directed by the environment.

It is what it is - a process... based on the various existing conditions.

And those conditions are what direct the process. And those conditions are the pressures coming from the environment.
Thus, the environment directs natural selection.

It is not like something that exists, that is being guided by anything to a destination.

It is something that occurs. And the environment directs it by its state of being.
So this process doesn't produce random results. It produces results which are directed by the environmental pressures at play, which are in turn determined by the environment.

Thus once again: the environment directs natural selection.

That is another thing about your absurd beliefs.
You try to make sense of them, and end up making absurd claims.

Funny since everything you just said about natural selection, makes the same claim just using different words.

Oh. ...and the environment is not intelligent.

I never said it was.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry. I can't help you if you can't read... or understand what you read.

Why can't you simply answer his question?

I don't see an answer to said question in the post you linked.

Perhaps we are all just too dumb to understand your superior logic in that post. So in that case, cut us some slack and just answer the question in simpler terms that even we stupid atheists can understand.

Tnx

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Soft tissue discovered on dinosaur fossils that became extinct 65 million years ago isn’t ridiculous?

btw: I've seen you mention this soft tissue stuff several times now, as if you think you are making some kind of point.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

A T. rex found with soft tissue preserved in her bones was an 'iron lady,' according to new research finding that iron kept the tissues from decaying for millennia.

www.livescience.com

Maybe you should read up.
That's a paper from 10 years ago btw. So this stuff you are peddling has been debunked over a decade ago.