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

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

You go ahead and believe whatever you wish.

Not quite sure what you hope to accomplish with such behavior of believing tales in books over actual empirical data, but whatever makes you sleep at night I guess.

 

[metis]

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.

Nope, but that doesn't mean nor imply that I believe that there are not Truths found in the Bible. Same can be said what's taught in the religious texts in other religions.

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

It was already explained, so if you just want to ignore that, then that's on you.

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

As I have for six decades, including teaching both Christian theology and also a comparative religions course.

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.

Obviously, you're not addressing my point but just skirting around it.

Faith is based on objective evidence.

There simply is no objective evidence that God or Gods exist. If there was, it would be VERY noticeable because people would constantly post the supposed evidence. If one accepts it, as I do, then that's based on faith derived from something else.

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

That should be very obvious based on what I posted, so all you are now doing is playing games. Your positions is one of the main reasons I left the fundamentalist church I grew up in and had been thinking about going into the ministry, but the fact that they virtually badmouthed science so as to teach falsehoods appalled me. And now you are doing the exact same thing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Oh my bad, I forgot you don't ever answer my questions.
Why bother clarifying what you're talking about, amirite?

It seems you are assuming that the word "directed" must indicate some sort of "director" like a god or something, right? But you're just anthropomorphisizing the word where it's not warranted. The environment doesn't need to be intelligent to "select" for beneficial survival traits.

But who knows what you're really trying to say since your flippant response doesn't clarify anything at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Thank you!

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe the evidence I have is good enough for me. I believe God is not going to give you the evidence you want and I have my doubts whether you would accept it even if He did.

 

[Muffled]

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.;

I believe you have to explain that. I only see one way and that is Jesus as He says: "I am the Way."

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe that is what we are here for to come to understand things but evidently no-one has helped with that yet. Can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the evidence I have is good enough for me. I believe God is not going to give you the evidence you want and I have my doubts whether you would accept it even if He did.

The problem is that you probably do not have proper understanding of the concept of evidence. Odds are very high that you do not know how to tell the difference between reliable and unreliable evidence or how to test your evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you have to explain that. I only see one way and that is Jesus as He says: "I am the Way."

If you are a Christian you should know that Jesus often used all sorts of literary tools. I do not see him confirming the myths of Adam and Eve or Noah and his magic boat. The fact that life is the product of evolution does not refute the Christian God. It only refutes those that insist on a literal Genesis. But then if you treated all of the Bible that way you would be a Flat Earther since the Bible only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed. Does a spherical Earth refute Christianity? Does the heliocentric Earth refute Christianity? If not then evolution should not either.

No one has been arguing against Christianity, just an overly literal interpretation of some of the books of the Bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe that is what we are here for to come to understand things but evidently no-one has helped with that yet. Can you?

Sure. What would you like help with?

 

[Apostle John]

You go ahead and believe whatever you wish.

Not quite sure what you hope to accomplish with such behavior of believing tales in books over actual empirical data, but whatever makes you sleep at night I guess.

I find actual trustworthy empirical data strongly supports the Bible. I don’t trust dates proposed that go beyond 6000 years ago. Regarding accomplishment with my beliefs, I am quite sure me and fellow Christians go to heaven, the rest go to hell.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I find actual trustworthy empirical data strongly supports the Bible. I don’t trust dates proposed that go beyond 6000 years ago.

There isn't any "trustworthy empirical data" that supports a 6000 year-old earth.

Regarding accomplishment with my beliefs, I am quite sure me and fellow Christians go to heaven, the rest go to hell.

Yeah, so sure that you have absolutely no way to demonstrate this claim to anyone.

 

[Apostle John]

There isn't any "trustworthy empirical data" that supports a 6000 year-old earth.

You certainly haven’t for your belief.

I have my own empirical evidence for my belief. I got a lot of abuse when saying that before and won’t bother talking about it here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You certainly haven’t for your belief.

That's because we're talking about your belief. And how it falls far outside of everything that the empirical data shows.
Also, I did actually provide you with scientific information about the age of the earth, so there's that.

I have my own empirical evidence for my belief. I got a lot of abuse when saying that before and won’t bother talking about it here.

What a great way to avoid ever having to demonstrate the veracity of your claims!
Good thing science doesn't work that way.

 

[Apostle John]

That's because we're talking about your belief. And how it falls far outside of everything that the empirical data shows.
Also, I did actually provide you with scientific information about the age of the earth, so there's that.

What a great way to avoid ever having to demonstrate the veracity of your claims!
Good thing science doesn't work that way.

There is no general agreement on how the terms evidence and empirical are to be defined. Often different fields work with quite different conceptions. In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what determines whether holding a certain belief is rational. This is only possible if the evidence is possessed by the person, which has prompted various epistemologists to conceive evidence as private mental states like experiences or other beliefs.

I have given my evidence/testimony on another website, to people that hear disembodied voices. A few believed me, going by their positive feedback and appear to have moved on, others continue to struggle with their problems.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no general agreement on how the terms evidence and empirical are to be defined. Often different fields work with quite different conceptions. In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what determines whether holding a certain belief is rational. This is only possible if the evidence is possessed by the person, which has prompted various epistemologists to conceive evidence as private mental states like experiences or other beliefs.

I have given my evidence/testimony on another website, to people that hear disembodied voices. A few believed me, going by their positive feedback and appear to have moved on, others continue to struggle with their problems.

I'm talking about measurable/observable/detectable repeatable evidence that can be shown to anybody to demonstrate the veracity of a claim. So that anybody and everybody can analyze it and come to the same conclusion.

So your empirical evidence of the age of the earth is disembodied voices?

 

[Apostle John]

I'm talking about measurable/observable/detectable repeatable evidence that can be shown to anybody to demonstrate the veracity of a claim. So that anybody and everybody can analyze it and come to the same conclusion.

So your empirical evidence of the age of the earth is disembodied voices?

What you’re talking about isn’t the definition of empirical evidence I go by. My experience involving disembodied voices substantiates what can be found in the Bible. No other type of evidence comes close to matching my personal evidence for me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What you’re talking about isn’t the definition of empirical evidence I go by. My experience involving disembodied voices substantiates what can be found in the Bible. No other type of evidence comes close to matching my personal evidence for me.

Yeah, then world is how I think, because I am the Truth in my version.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you’re talking about isn’t the definition of empirical evidence I go by. My experience involving disembodied voices substantiates what can be found in the Bible. No other type of evidence comes close to matching my personal evidence for me.

That is the opposite of empirical evidence. And people see visons and hear voices quite often for both other religions and no religions at all. People are very easily fooled by those sorts of events. That is about the absolute least reliable evidence that there is, even though it can be very convincing.

Do you think that you could properly test it? How would you refute it if it were wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no general agreement on how the terms evidence and empirical are to be defined. Often different fields work with quite different conceptions. In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what determines whether holding a certain belief is rational. This is only possible if the evidence is possessed by the person, which has prompted various epistemologists to conceive evidence as private mental states like experiences or other beliefs.

I have given my evidence/testimony on another website, to people that hear disembodied voices. A few believed me, going by their positive feedback and appear to have moved on, others continue to struggle with their problems.

Empirical means that everyone can observe it. If only you can observe it then it is subjective. The etymology should help you there.

I know that it can be very convincing, but if you try to look at it rationally it will probably fall apart.