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

[YoursTrue]

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.

However it means that Adam came from the dust and Eve came from Adam's rib is not related in video but I will say this -- studies have shown that dates have been overturned in cases where scientists are brave enough to put forth the conclusions, and men and women of the humankind are very closely related to each other. Anyway they cannot interbreed with gorillas. And, of course, that last "common ancestor" just hasn't been found. yet. But too long gone anyway for interbreeding, right? If you believe in evolution and not creation. Not speaking of different skin colors or anything like longer legs in a population.
Since I have found evolution to be vastly wanting in logic, I have come to the conclusion that God created the heavens and the earth and animals, plants, etc. Since I wasn't there I cannot be specific as to how He did it. But it makes more sense now than evolution does.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

Not to get too involved, but for people that see visions and hear voices, what does it mean? That their brains are somehow doing something to invoke that? OR -- might something beyond the brain be involved? Maybe not always, but is that possible? Yes or no, let's be honest.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

What's the observation for the beginning of the universe? Anything?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

So stupid people with a brilliant mind?
Ok.

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

Idd, chasing wild goose is definitely not for me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's the observation for the beginning of the universe? Anything?

If you mean the big bang, there are lots of observations to support it.

First observations themselves, like the expanding universe, gave rise to the idea and the model was born.
The model was developed, while gathering more observations.
The model made a specific prediction about CMB radiation, which was eventually discovered - and it exists exactly like the model expected it to.

So, plenty of confirming observations that support big bang cosmology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

However it means that Adam came from the dust and Eve came from Adam's rib is not related in video but I will say this -- studies have shown that dates have been overturned in cases where scientists are brave enough to put forth the conclusions, and men and women of the humankind are very closely related to each other. Anyway they cannot interbreed with gorillas. And, of course, that last "common ancestor" just hasn't been found. yet. But too long gone anyway for interbreeding, right? If you believe in evolution and not creation. Not speaking of different skin colors or anything like longer legs in a population.
Since I have found evolution to be vastly wanting in logic, I have come to the conclusion that God created the heavens and the earth and animals, plants, etc. Since I wasn't there I cannot be specific as to how He did it. But it makes more sense now than evolution does.

Please, do not just make empty claims without evidence. They are worthless. Quote and link to reliable sources. I do not know of any such dates that were overturned. I know of lies by various creationist organizations, but hopefully you would know better than to use liars knowingly since that would make you a liar too.

You should also understand that being rarely wrong, which can happen, does not harm an idea. Being wrong and finding out that one was wrong,is no advances are made. If you can't support this claim that you definitely need to support then you will have refuted yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's the observation for the beginning of the universe? Anything?

The recession of all galaxies away from each other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not to get too involved, but for people that see visions and hear voices, what does it mean? That their brains are somehow doing something to invoke that? OR -- might something beyond the brain be involved? Maybe not always, but is that possible? Yes or no, let's be honest.

You do not seem to understand. And you are running away from the burden of proof. In effect you have just refuted yourself again.

We do know that crazy people (my apologies to those that work in the field of mental health) have visions quite often. We also know that almost all of them are false. How do we know that? It is because the visions of crazy person number one disagree with the visions of number two, and both disagree with the visions of crazy person number three. Now since all three are locked up for thinking that they are Napoleon is why we can safely assume that they are crazy.

It is not fair to call the religious crazy, but let's see what happens when we compare the visions of three religious people. We can see that the visions Paul, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith will all be quite different. Therefore at most only one of them may be right. Throw in the thousands of others that have had visions and we still have at most only one being right and you will begin to see how unreliable visions are.

 

[nPeace]

Which means natural selection is directed by the environment.

What? Natural selection selects from the variation exiting in the environment. How then can it be directed. It's not.
Making up stuff, just makes your belief more absurd.
In fact, the fact your peers would not agree with you on this, makes it even more absurd.
Produce a paper that verifies your absurd claim.

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

This sounds like something you would find in a book written by a 9 year old, with nothing better to do.

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.

Huh? "It produces results which are directed by the environmental pressures at play, which are in turn determined by the environment."
Lol.
You are making this up, aren't you.
Let me see this in writing... Not your writing.

Thus once again: the environment directs natural selection.

No. That's absurd.

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

No. nothing I said is even close to that nonsense you wrote.

I never said it was.

Yeah. You basically did. Only not in those words.
It's like you took what I was disputing, and claimed it's not natural selection that is doing the work, but the environment... giving some random explanation.

 

[nPeace]

So stupid people with a brilliant mind?
Ok.

Yup. Go figure.

Idd, chasing wild goose is definitely not for me.

Cool.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What? Natural selection selects from the variation exiting in the environment. How then can it be directed. It's not.

What gets selected from the pool of variation, is determined by environmental pressures. Which is the environment.
So it is directed by it. Creatures in a cold environment will evolve defense mechanisms against said cold.

Making up stuff, just makes your belief more absurd.

Projecting much?
Another thing that makes beliefs absurd is willful ignorance and insisting on arguing strawmen.

In fact, the fact your peers would not agree with you on this, makes it even more absurd.

I'm not aware of any biologist who wouldn't agree that selection pressures are determined by the environment.

Produce a paper that verifies your absurd claim.


This sounds like something you would find in a book written by a 9 year old, with nothing better to do.


Huh? "It produces results which are directed by the environmental pressures at play, which are in turn determined by the environment."
Lol.
You are making this up, aren't you.
Let me see this in writing... Not your writing.

What is it, in your warped understanding of the theory, that determines selection pressures?

It's like you took what I was disputing, and claimed it's not natural selection that is doing the work, but the environment... giving some random explanation.

That's not what I said at all.

What I'm saying is that selection pressures are determined by the environment.
Hence, the environment is the guiding factor here. The environment directs selection pressures and by extension, selection itself.

So do you think that selection pressures are unrelated to the environment?
Where do you think those pressures come from then?

Why / under what circumstances will selection favor trait X over trait Y?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yup. Go figure.

The schoolyard level attempt at ad hominem is noted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? Natural selection selects from the variation exiting in the environment. How then can it be directed. It's not.
Making up stuff, just makes your belief more absurd.
In fact, the fact your peers would not agree with you on this, makes it even more absurd.
Produce a paper that verifies your absurd claim.

There are more than just two, but you need to remember the two main driving forces of evolution. Natural selection and variation. Do you really need a scientific paper that mutations occur? I can post some for you. You have to know this by now. You have been corrected thousands of times on this alone. Variation adds new traits. From good to bad. It is the creative part of evolution. Selection throws away over 90% of variations since they do not work as well.

This sounds like something you would find in a book written by a 9 year old, with nothing better to do.

There goes another irony meter. Did you not read your first claim?

Huh? "It produces results which are directed by the environmental pressures at play, which are in turn determined by the environment."
Lol.
You are making this up, aren't you.
Let me see this in writing... Not your writing.

Why? You would just deny it or at best not understand it.

No. That's absurd.


No. nothing I said is even close to that nonsense you wrote.


Yeah. You basically did. Only not in those words.
It's like you took what I was disputing, and claimed it's not natural selection that is doing the work, but the environment... giving some random explanation.

Yawn, more denial and ignorance. I was hoping for something new. I know, that was foolish of me.

 

[F1fan]

However it means that Adam came from the dust and Eve came from Adam's rib is not related in video but I will say this -- studies have shown that dates have been overturned in cases where scientists are brave enough to put forth the conclusions, and men and women of the humankind are very closely related to each other. Anyway they cannot interbreed with gorillas. And, of course, that last "common ancestor" just hasn't been found. yet. But too long gone anyway for interbreeding, right? If you believe in evolution and not creation. Not speaking of different skin colors or anything like longer legs in a population.
Since I have found evolution to be vastly wanting in logic, I have come to the conclusion that God created the heavens and the earth and animals, plants, etc. Since I wasn't there I cannot be specific as to how He did it. But it makes more sense now than evolution does.

That's because of your extreme religious bias, not because you understand the science.

Not to get too involved, but for people that see visions and hear voices, what does it mean? That their brains are somehow doing something to invoke that? OR -- might something beyond the brain be involved? Maybe not always, but is that possible? Yes or no, let's be honest.

Stable and rational minds don't hear voices. Anyone who claims to hear voices raises some questions, and it isn't that they are divine vessels.

What's the observation for the beginning of the universe? Anything?

There's no need to observe it for models to be built on what is known about physics.

If you are going to stress"observations" as a necessary step do you have any observations of any gods doing things, like creation? No?

 

[nPeace]

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".

We can objectively test the reliability of scripture, regarding historical, scientific, and prophetic accuracy,
Both objective external, and internal evidence, for the Bible's reliability, has been discovered.
For example...
The scientific discovery of the Hezekiah bulla was a sensational find (labeled by Dr. Eilat Mazar as her greatest single discovery - and that’s saying something, given all she has found already), providing further irrefutable evidence for a strong, centralized Judahite government operating from the city of Jerusalem. Alongside this artifact, King Hezekiah has been thoroughly attested to in archaeology. Numerous artifacts bear his name - in particular, pieces belonging to King Sennacherib of Assyria.

Sennacherib, mentioned numerous times throughout the Bible, came close to conquering all of Judah while Hezekiah was king. The artifacts remarkably parallel the biblical account.

There is, you see, a way to verify much of the Biblical accounts. When we have pieces of evidence that are verified to be true, there is no need to have every single dot in the Bible, verified. We only need some hard solid evidence for what most critics deny... including the ones who call themselves Christian... but are not.
Jesus - the backbone of the Christian, supports these accounts. that's the main point.

Here is where I see the blatant hypocrisy of the so-called or self proclaimed "Christians"... especially those who clamor to the side of the heathen belief in the theory of evolution.
Take this example...

This is Lucy... they call it.
Is this what was actually discovered? No.
They found fossilized bones - "slightly less than 3.18 million years old"... they claim. You believe it. Have you verified it?

Consider...
How did they go from this to this?

How did you verified this? From the eyes, nose, mouth, ears, jawline, oh dear... breast and all.
Riiiiiiiiight. What else did you verify? 3.2 million years ago, poor Lucy fell from a tree.

Perhaps Lucy was spooked by a predator, or perhaps she was asleep or settling in for the night. Maybe she spied some fruit and wanted to forage. Either way, this is what Kappelman believes happened next.

From 46 feet in the air, Lucy fell out of her tree, fully conscious. She fell toward the ground rapidly at 35 mph and hit feet-first, sending an impact punching through her body that created fractures in her ankles, knees, hip and shoulder. Internal organs were probably punctured by this “hydraulic ram effect.” Lucy pitched forward and instinctively put out her arms to break the fall, creating fractures in the bone there as well. It would probably be her final conscious act.


Does the so called Christian have a problem with any of this "evidence" that we cannot verify according to the claims from people living over 3 million years from when these things are alleged to have happened? No.
Do you have a problem with it metis? ...but you have a problem with authors of the Bible, writing on the history of the founder of Christianity only about a decade or so, after Christ's death... claimed by heathens to be written much later.

You know... The Gospel writers never said "Maybe"; "Probably". Neither does the Christian - the true followers of Christ.
In fact, in the account of Luke - a careful historian - who said, "[I have] traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order" (Luke 1:3), Luke wrote these details...
In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod was district ruler of Galilee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was district ruler of Abilene, in the days of chief priest Annas and of Caiaphas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. Luke 3:1, 2

Not only can we trace all these people by name to that time period, but we also have verified that John the baptist did exist.

We can objectively observe the results - the effect - upon those applying Bible principles.
Yes. Living by Bible standards improves ones life for the better, in areas the world has significant problems with.
All of this is objective evidence. Not subjective.

 

[nPeace]

What gets selected from the pool of variation, is determined by environmental pressures. Which is the environment.
So it is directed by it. Creatures in a cold environment will evolve defense mechanisms against said cold.


Projecting much?
Another thing that makes beliefs absurd is willful ignorance and insisting on arguing strawmen.




I'm not aware of any biologist who wouldn't agree that selection pressures are determined by the environment.



What is it, in your warped understanding of the theory, that determines selection pressures?



That's not what I said at all.

What I'm saying is that selection pressures are determined by the environment.
Hence, the environment is the guiding factor here. The environment directs selection pressures and by extension, selection itself.

So do you think that selection pressures are unrelated to the environment?
Where do you think those pressures come from then?

Why / under what circumstances will selection favor trait X over trait Y?

What we are talking about is your claim that natural selection is directed. You have not provided any paper of biologists agreeing with that claim.
You're just repeating the claim.

 

[metis]

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

Mass suicide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep, and thanks for the link.

 

[Windwalker]

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

Because storytelling is part of what human societies do, and we can look at what makes humans human through the eyes of science, as well as through our stories we tell ourselves about ourselves. I think both sets of eyes are informative.

So the question should be, what does the story of Adam and Eve tell us about ourselves that we should find truth in it? It's obviously more than just telling us about history, isn't it? Wouldn't you think its primary focus is on human nature, and not a scientific explanation of how things came to be? Isn't it more about our view of the Divine and about ourselves in relation to the Divine, than it is about science and history?

 

[metis]

We can objectively test the reliability of scripture, regarding historical, scientific, and prophetic accuracy,
Both objective external, and internal evidence, for the Bible's reliability, has been discovered.
For example...
The scientific discovery of the Hezekiah bulla was a sensational find (labeled by Dr. Eilat Mazar as her greatest single discovery - and that’s saying something, given all she has found already), providing further irrefutable evidence for a strong, centralized Judahite government operating from the city of Jerusalem. Alongside this artifact, King Hezekiah has been thoroughly attested to in archaeology. Numerous artifacts bear his name - in particular, pieces belonging to King Sennacherib of Assyria.

Sennacherib, mentioned numerous times throughout the Bible, came close to conquering all of Judah while Hezekiah was king. The artifacts remarkably parallel the biblical account.

There is, you see, a way to verify much of the Biblical accounts. When we have pieces of evidence that are verified to be true, there is no need to have every single dot in the Bible, verified. We only need some hard solid evidence for what most critics deny... including the ones who call themselves Christian... but are not.
Jesus - the backbone of the Christian, supports these accounts. that's the main point.

Here is where I see the blatant hypocrisy of the so-called or self proclaimed "Christians"... especially those who clamor to the side of the heathen belief in the theory of evolution.
Take this example...

This is Lucy... they call it.
Is this what was actually discovered? No.
They found fossilized bones - "slightly less than 3.18 million years old"... they claim. You believe it. Have you verified it?

Consider...
How did they go from this to this?

How did you verified this? From the eyes, nose, mouth, ears, jawline, oh dear... breast and all.
Riiiiiiiiight. What else did you verify? 3.2 million years ago, poor Lucy fell from a tree.

Perhaps Lucy was spooked by a predator, or perhaps she was asleep or settling in for the night. Maybe she spied some fruit and wanted to forage. Either way, this is what Kappelman believes happened next.

From 46 feet in the air, Lucy fell out of her tree, fully conscious. She fell toward the ground rapidly at 35 mph and hit feet-first, sending an impact punching through her body that created fractures in her ankles, knees, hip and shoulder. Internal organs were probably punctured by this “hydraulic ram effect.” Lucy pitched forward and instinctively put out her arms to break the fall, creating fractures in the bone there as well. It would probably be her final conscious act.


Does the so called Christian have a problem with any of this "evidence" that we cannot verify according to the claims from people living over 3 million years from when these things are alleged to have happened? No.
Do you have a problem with it metis? ...but you have a problem with authors of the Bible, writing on the history of the founder of Christianity only about a decade or so, after Christ's death... claimed by heathens to be written much later.

You know... The Gospel writers never said "Maybe"; "Probably". Neither does the Christian - the true followers of Christ.
In fact, in the account of Luke - a careful historian - who said, "[I have] traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order" (Luke 1:3), Luke wrote these details...
In the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod was district ruler of Galilee, Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was district ruler of Abilene, in the days of chief priest Annas and of Caiaphas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. Luke 3:1, 2

Not only can we trace all these people by name to that time period, but we also have verified that John the baptist did exist.

We can objectively observe the results - the effect - upon those applying Bible principles.
Yes. Living by Bible standards improves ones life for the better, in areas the world has significant problems with.
All of this is objective evidence. Not subjective.

Simply put, your "theology" is merely your own speculation as it's obvious you've never spent time discussing this with actual theologians.

Secondly, your "science" isn't that at all, including with your links above. Lucy was not a "stand-alone" individual, and she clearly was human if you knew what to look for, such as with her dentition and numerous other features, Even your own link says this!

Anyone who cannot see the obvious, namely that all material objects appear to change over time and that this includes all animals, including us, simply is operating out of blind faith. And your "theology" falls into that same category as well, so there's no where else to go with this conversation.
Have a good day.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We can objectively test the reliability of scripture, regarding historical, scientific, and prophetic accuracy,
Both objective external, and internal evidence, for the Bible's reliability, has been discovered.
For example...
The scientific discovery of the Hezekiah bulla was a sensational find (labeled by Dr. Eilat Mazar as her greatest single discovery - and that’s saying something, given all she has found already), providing further irrefutable evidence for a strong, centralized Judahite government operating from the city of Jerusalem. Alongside this artifact, King Hezekiah has been thoroughly attested to in archaeology. Numerous artifacts bear his name - in particular, pieces belonging to King Sennacherib of Assyria.

Sennacherib, mentioned numerous times throughout the Bible, came close to conquering all of Judah while Hezekiah was king. The artifacts remarkably parallel the biblical account.

There is, you see, a way to verify much of the Biblical accounts.

Marvel lore mentions and discusses numerous events that actually took place and get names right and everything.
Therefor Thor and the other super heroes exists.

When we have pieces of evidence that are verified to be true, there is no need to have every single dot in the Bible, verified.

Then you should believe that Julius Ceasar was an actual god.

Here is where I see the blatant hypocrisy of the so-called or self proclaimed "Christians"... especially those who clamor to the side of the heathen belief in the theory of evolution.
Take this example...

This is Lucy... they call it.
Is this what was actually discovered? No.
They found fossilized bones - "slightly less than 3.18 million years old"... they claim. You believe it. Have you verified it?

Consider...
How did they go from this to this?

How did you verified this? From the eyes, nose, mouth, ears, jawline, oh dear... breast and all.
Riiiiiiiiight. What else did you verify? 3.2 million years ago, poor Lucy fell from a tree.

It's like you are not aware that there are fossils of over 300 individuals of that species.
Did you think Lucy was the only one? She's the most famous. Not the only one, nor the most complete.
Meet Little Foot, for example: Analysis of famed fossil helps unlock when humans and apes diverged