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

[SkepticThinker]

What you’re talking about isn’t the definition of empirical evidence I go by.

Oh okay, well I guess we'll all just make up our own definitions of stuff, then we'll never be able to actually get anywhere.

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.

And this has what, exactly, to do with the age of the earth?

 

[Apostle John]

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.

There is thousands upon thousands of anecdotal evidence of visions and hearing voices over the centuries and your modern day science has an inadequate, dismissive answer for these experiences. You have nothing convincing and that includes the age of the earth.

Empirical means that everyone can observe it.

That‘s an absolute lie and you will know that. The etymology of empirical is from Greek meaning ‘experience’.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is thousands upon thousands of anecdotal evidence of visions and hearing voices over the centuries and your modern day science has an inadequate, dismissive answer for these experiences. You have nothing convincing and that includes the age of the earth.

That‘s an absolute lie and you will know that. The etymology of empirical is from Greek meaning ‘experience’.

What makes you think that it is "inadequate"? The reason that science is dismissive of it is because voices are highly highly unreliable. They tend to contradict each other. They tend to be wrong. They earn a dismissive attitude. Why are you complaining about that?


It appears that even you know that you are wrong and as a result you unjustly believe those that did not Drink the Kool-Aid.

Yes, "experience" like as "anyone will experience the same results":

Empirical evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And watch the use of the word "lie". Just because you are wrong I do not accuse you of lying.

 

[Apostle John]

Empirical evidence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And watch the use of the word "lie". Just because you are wrong I do not accuse you of lying.

Read that article. You will see I go by the first definition of empirical evidence quoted there, even quoting it on the previous page of this thread knowing you always go to Wikipedia for all you knowledge. Stop bending the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read that article. You will see I go by the first definition of empirical evidence quoted there, even quoting it on the previous page of this thread knowing you always go to Wikipedia for all you knowledge. Stop bending the truth.

What first definition "? It looks as if you may be reading phrases out of context.

Check the Britannica article, once again do not read out of context:

Empirical evidence | Definition, Examples, Evidentialism, Foundationalism, & Facts

Empirical evidence, information gathered directly or indirectly through observation or experimentation that may be used to confirm or disconfirm a scientific theory or to help justify, or establish as reasonable, a person’s belief in a given proposition. A belief may be said to be justified if

www.britannica.com

 

[Apostle John]

What first definition "? It looks as if you may be reading phrases out of context.

Check the Britannica article, once again do not read out of context:

Empirical evidence | Definition, Examples, Evidentialism, Foundationalism, & Facts

Empirical evidence, information gathered directly or indirectly through observation or experimentation that may be used to confirm or disconfirm a scientific theory or to help justify, or establish as reasonable, a person’s belief in a given proposition. A belief may be said to be justified if

www.britannica.com

Read your previously posted Wikipedia article again, before it says “In philosophy of science, on the other hand”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read your previously posted Wikipedia article again, before it says “In philosophy of science, on the other hand”

That is an extremely poor definition since according to your definition the delusions of the insane, which very well may be what happened to you, are just as valid as your "evidence'. You have demoted your own evidence to the point of it being worthless. On the other hand scientific evidence is the most reliable of all forms of evidence. Scientists have a far superior definition of empirical and also a superior definition of evidence. Scientific evidence and there form of "empirical evidence enables you and I to talk. The "empirical evidence" that you tout allows Sam to have a meaningful discussion with Napoleon. Who coincidentally also happens to be Sam.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find actual trustworthy empirical data strongly supports the Bible.

Well, that's just ridiculous.
Off course, if you insist on misrepresenting or simply downright ignoring / rejecting all empirical data demonstrating the contrary, then yeah ... you won't be aware of said data.

But as I said, I wonder what you hope to accomplish with such ridiculous behavior.

I don’t trust dates proposed that go beyond 6000 years ago.

For the sole reason that they don't fit your a priori religious beliefs.
Not because there is actually anything wrong with dating methods.
If the exact same methods tell us something that you feel agrees with your biblical beliefs, you'll be very quick to hold it up as evidence of your beliefs.
That's the kind of hypocrisy we see of creationists all the time. Especially YECs.

This is why people say that creationists are dishonest.

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

If a just god exists, I don't think he'll value irrational hypocritical intellectual dishonesty over the opposite.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no general agreement on how the terms evidence and empirical are to be defined.

There is. You might be confusing the scientific community with the intellectually dishonest YEC community, which can only argue their case by lying about / misrepresenting the actual science.

Off course, it matters not what YECs have to say.

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.

Disembodies voices = auditory hallucination.
It's a symptom of mental disorders like psychosis.

The voices tend to go away with proper therapy (= medication... not the "...the power of christ compells you..." ceremonial junk).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you’re talking about isn’t the definition of empirical evidence I go by

It's literally what the "empirical" part means....................................................

. 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.

Which is the same kind of evidence that "justifies" beliefs like bigfoot, loch ness monsters, leprechauns, fairies, alien abduction, scientology, horroscopes, etc etc etc.

You aren't in the best of company there.

 

[Apostle John]

Well, that's just ridiculous.
Off course, if you insist on misrepresenting or simply downright ignoring / rejecting all empirical data demonstrating the contrary, then yeah ... you won't be aware of said data.

But as I said, I wonder what you hope to accomplish with such ridiculous behavior.




For the sole reason that they don't fit your a priori religious beliefs.
Not because there is actually anything wrong with dating methods.
If the exact same methods tell us something that you feel agrees with your biblical beliefs, you'll be very quick to hold it up as evidence of your beliefs.
That's the kind of hypocrisy we see of creationists all the time. Especially YECs.

This is why people say that creationists are dishonest.


If a just god exists, I don't think he'll value irrational hypocritical intellectual dishonesty over the opposite.

This is classic antichrist hysterics the well known atheist Stephen Fry uses who happens to suffer with mental illness. He will espouse science as being great, having all the answers on creation while also constantly bending the truth, then, as the true atheist he is, never forgets to mention some nonsense about God, usually how cruel He is.
Fry also writes using sock puppet accounts on a number of platforms. An honest person cannot debate this nonsense. Goodbye.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is classic antichrist hysterics the well known atheist Stephen Fry uses who happens to suffer with mental illness. He will espouse science as being great, having all the answers on creation while also constantly bending the truth, then, as the true atheist he is, never forgets to mention some nonsense about God, usually how cruel He is.
Fry also writes using sock puppet accounts on a number of platforms. An honest person cannot debate this nonsense. Goodbye.

Are you capable of staying on-point?
Another thing YECs excel at.... deflection and derailment.

 

[Apostle John]

Are you capable of staying on-point?
Another thing YECs excel at.... deflection and derailment.

Of course. I will keep watch instead of wasting time with the sickest of religious atheists. They have contact numbers at the end of their Bible, The God delusion, so I believe- I never got that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course. I will keep watch instead of wasting time with the sickest of religious atheists. They have contact numbers at the end of their Bible, The God delusion, so I believe- I never got that.

And here we are, end of the line: the ad hominem.

Yawn

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is classic antichrist hysterics the well known atheist Stephen Fry uses who happens to suffer with mental illness. He will espouse science as being great, having all the answers on creation while also constantly bending the truth, then, as the true atheist he is, never forgets to mention some nonsense about God, usually how cruel He is.
Fry also writes using sock puppet accounts on a number of platforms. An honest person cannot debate this nonsense. Goodbye.

Stephen Frye uses sock puppet accounts on a number of platforms? Suuuuuure. Is there anyone you don't claim that about?
What this has to do with anything, who knows.

 

[nPeace]

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.

Nope?

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

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

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

You mean like you have done? Nope.

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.

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.

Nope.

 

[nPeace]

Why can't you simply answer his question?

I did.
You want it in different words?
How should I break it down for you... 1st, 2nd, or 3rd grade?

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

You don't? I don't think you have trouble seeing.
Could it be what you are choosing to focus on, or...

Perhaps we are all just too dumb to understand your superior logic in that post.

It's not superior logic. It has nothing to do with logic.
It's basic reading... one sentence.

So in that case, cut us some slack and just answer the question in simpler terms that even we stupid atheists can understand.

Tnx

A stupid atheist would not understand the most basic thing. Can you guess why?
They are too busy listening to their brilliant mind on how to deny the most basic truth.

You are free to try again... Or, just leave it.
Maybe it's not for you.

 

[metis]

Nope?

Do you remember what that was in response to? So, let me be very simple and to the point: there is no way possible to verify the veracity of the accounts dealing with Jesus because all what is written was done decades later by authors we are unsure of. Much like many of Gandhi's followers felt he was a human manifestation of Brahman, fortunately Gandhi had written that he was not.

Therefore, to which extent if any was Jesus basically deified? To which extent are his words remembered and posted correctly? Did Jesus actually ascend into heaven and is going to judge others some day? The answer is that there's no way of knowing the answers to these and some other questions with any certainty of being correct. Just because some think they know still doesn't miraculously make it so.

But, otoh, something about what Jesus said and did resonated so well with those that knew him that many were willing to give up their life for him! Thus, like the saying goes, "If there's smoke, there must be some fire".

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is classic antichrist hysterics the well known atheist Stephen Fry uses who happens to suffer with mental illness. He will espouse science as being great, having all the answers on creation while also constantly bending the truth, then, as the true atheist he is, never forgets to mention some nonsense about God, usually how cruel He is.
Fry also writes using sock puppet accounts on a number of platforms. An honest person cannot debate this nonsense. Goodbye.

If you do not thin that the God of the Bible is cruel and rather evil at times then you have either not read or you do not understand the Christian Bible.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But, otoh, something about what Jesus said and did resonated so well with those that knew him that many were willing to give up their life for him! Thus, like the saying goes, "If there's smoke, there must be some fire".

Talking of smoke and fire, see below (Religiously motivated mass suicides)

Mass suicide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org