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

[ratiocinator]

Why can you not give a rational, stable explanation why certain atheist comedians, those that have won the Richard Dawkins Award, vocally try to do down God every opportunity they get.

More evasion. You're not having a conversation with them, and it wasn't them who you've accused of 'attacking god', it was the people on this thread who have been giving you evidence and reasoning in the face of your baseless assertions.

 

[Apostle John]

More baseless assertions and still not addressing the actual evidence that you've been given. You know that ignoring the content of something and just asserting that it's wrong, doesn't make it go away, don't you? You're like a tiny child stamping its little foot really, really hard and insisting it's right and everybody else is wrong. It's rather sad really.

I haven’t ignored what you call ‘evidence’. I keep telling you it is flawed. It is a problem you have if you cannot weigh up evidence properly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know you haven’t been duped into believing an overly hyped, hypothesised religion? There’s not much repetition to confirm the ‘Lucy’ find, recently spoken about on here, was not a hoax.

Do you have any idea how many different Australopithecus afarensis fossils have been found? Her finding has been confirmed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to be attacking God a lot but seem to have no answer why you do it.

No, I merely "attack" false versions of God. Such as yours. That is not attacking God.

 

[ratiocinator]

I haven’t ignored what you call ‘evidence’. I keep telling you it is flawed.

Exactly - that's all you've done. - just make a baseless, unargued assertion that it's flawed or a lie. Any idiot can just say anything at all is flawed. You've totally ignored what it actually says and made no attempt at all to point out where the supposed flaws are. As I said, just foot stamping.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven’t ignored what you call ‘evidence’. I keep telling you it is flawed. It is a problem you have if you cannot weigh up evidence properly.

This appears to be a bit of projection on your part. Scientific evidence is well defined and yet you seem to avoid learning what it is. That means that you are unable to judge appropriately.

 

[Apostle John]

Do you have any idea how many different Australopithecus afarensis fossils have been found? Her finding has been confirmed.

A variety of bones have been dug up, they could have been deformed or have come from anything, they could even be hoax’s as has been uncovered in the past.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A variety of bones have been dug up, they could have been deformed or have come from anything, they could even be hoax’s as has been uncovered in the past.

Yeah, God is a liar and created the universe last Thursday. It is all a hoax. And you and I will burn in Hell together.

 

[Apostle John]

You must think that your unsupported sock puppet claim needs to be disproven to be rejected. It doesn't. Nor would it matter if you were correct.

Unsupported but it doesn’t matter if I was correct? Lol. What’s this:-

In my Intro to Anthro course, some students would bring in some Bible tracts from fundamentalist sources, so then I would go through and point out the many errors usually found within them. After a short while, it became sortofa joke, and students would go out and hunt for them.

What I found and most of them found disgusting is the amount of utter dishonesty with so many of these sources and doing so in the name of "Jesus"! So, what I had to do was to explain that the Bible and the ToE are not incompatible and that most Christian theologians do accept both.

And now this latest nonsense:-

Yeah, God is a liar and created the universe last Thursday. It is all a hoax. And you and I will burn in Hell together.

You obviously cannot say why you talk such drivel but I know why.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A variety of bones have been dug up, they could have been deformed or have come from anything, they could even be hoax’s as has been uncovered in the past.

Nope, you don't get to claim that without evidence. Deformation can happen, but it does not appear to be the sort of distortion that you need. We have scientific evidence for evolution. If you cannot refute it with more than a "maybe" then you fail. You need evidence that supports you.

 

[Apostle John]

Nope, you don't get to claim that without evidence. Deformation can happen, but it does not appear to be the sort of distortion that you need. We have scientific evidence for evolution. If you cannot refute it with more than a "maybe" then you fail. You need evidence that supports you.

Yes I can. Archaeological digs concerning fossils are not done under the forensic conditions one sees in a police investigation. Also deformation can happen in nature as well as during fossilisation.

Another thing, most scientific papers use words saying the equivalent of “maybe this happened”, if they are open and upfront that is. Sadly that is not evidence admissible in a court of law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I can. Archaeological digs concerning fossils are not done under the forensic conditions one sees in a police investigation. Also deformation can happen in nature as well as during fossilisation.

Another thing, most scientific papers use words saying the equivalent of “maybe this happened”, if they are open and upfront that is. Sadly that is not evidence admissible in a court of law.

There are no archeological digs of fossils. And how do you know what conditions are used or even required? They are not trying to solve the same sort of problems so they are not going to have identical techniques. The burden of proof is still upon you.

You really should try to learn what is and what is not evidence and how we know if evidence is reliable or not.

And what is wrong with the "maybe" wording in papers? It is much more accurate to show that one is open minded than to close one's mind even after one has shown to be wrong. Does that ring any bells for you?

 

[Apostle John]

There are no archeological digs of fossils. And how do you know what conditions are used or even required? They are not trying to solve the same sort of problems so they are not going to have identical techniques. The burden of proof is still upon you.

You really should try to learn what is and what is not evidence and how we know if evidence is reliable or not.

Read about the find of “Lucy Australopithecus”, the so called missing link. Anyone can see the dubious conditions just by researching how the ‘scientists’ reportedly stumbled upon on it. They didn’t involve anyone else but all readily believe their honesty and integrity. Others dated her bones by trying to guess the age of volcanic ash beneath where she was reportedly found using a falsifiable, well known dubious radiometric dating method.

It is the likes of you who are burdened with this type of proof, all followers of this manmade ‘evidence’ who dismiss the gospel of Jesus Christ are going to hell.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you able to give a rational, stable explanation as to why you do what you do

This is your response to that post? Did you even read it? There's no evidence that you did. I'll assume that you didn't attempt to rebut any of it because you understood that you couldn't.

I've explained many times before. It's not about your god or your religion. I enjoy thinking critically. I enjoy evaluating arguments for soundness and identifying and naming the fallacies included. I like to argue against the wisdom of holding unjustified belief (belief by faith), and don't limit it to unjustified belief in gods. My reaction to vaccine deniers, flat earthers, election hoax claims believers, climate deniers, and any other faith-based belief.

More broadly, I like to study how people process information, which is what I just commented on as my whole post flew my you without comment. There's a reason for that. You failed to comment on why an alleged ex-chemist didn't seem to understand the basics of a chemical reaction, and you had your reasons, which I don't expect you to share, so I make my best guess according to asking myself what changes in me would be necessary for me to do something like that. It would need to be some intellectual or moral defect or both.

Also, I am interested the effect of religious belief on thought, especially intellectual and moral considerations as I just alluded across the various religions and their denominations. My control group is the atheistic humanists. How do the Dharmics and pagans compare? How do the monotheistic humanists compare? Which seem happy?

Also, I like practicing constructing and refining arguments, and improving writing skills.

Your turn: Are *you* able to give a rational explanation as to why *you* do what you do? Rhetorical question. Reason isn't important to you. What's your "reason" for

attacking religion and specifically God.

I don't attack. I engage in dialectic. Do you feel attacked? Do you think I'm attacking your god?

How do you know you haven’t been duped into believing an overly hyped, hypothesised religion?

Evolution? The theory is correct. It has been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

Now your turn. How do you know that you haven't bought into a false religion? What analogous answer can you produce in defense of creationism, for example? How does your religion outperform other religions that you agree are false? What are it's accomplishments that tell it's god isn't fictitious?

There’s not much repetition to confirm the ‘Lucy’ find, recently spoken about on here, was not a hoax.

Lucy was not a hoax. She's an early representative of the line that broke off from the chimp line, which eventually grew a big brain, stood upright, lost most of its body hair, became an omnivore and a persistence hunter, and saw its proportions change accordingly (taller, longer legs, shorter arms, narrower chest, loss of a muzzle, a change in dentition and the facial musculature, and eventually language and sophisticated tool making). What do you know about Lucy? What did we learn from her? Which of these changes came first?

I haven’t ignored what you call ‘evidence’. I keep telling you it is flawed.

Category error. Evidence cannot be flawed. It can be misunderstood. It can be insufficient to support a claim made about its significance. The reasoning can be flawed and the conclusion unsound, but the evidence cannot be flawed, whatever it signifies. Likewise, evidence also can't be valid

most scientific papers use words saying the equivalent of “maybe this happened”

What's your point? That that makes their conclusions wrong or useless? Go back to the list of accomplishments of the theory of evolution above. Like the rest of science and its laws and scientific theories, it has enjoyed stellar success describing and anticipating the universe. That alone tells you that its methods and assumptions are valid. Like being immune from successful rebuttal, that's the sine qua non of a correct idea.

It is the likes of you who are burdened with this type of proof, all followers of this manmade ‘evidence’ who dismiss the gospel of Jesus Christ are going to hell.

Hell doesn't exist. Notice that I didn't say maybe. You should like that. The concept of hell is for believers like you, not me. There is no hell in atheism.

"To the philosophy of atheism belongs the credit of robbing death of its horror and its terror. It brought about the abolition of Hell." - Joseph Lewis

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read about the find of “Lucy Australopithecus”, the so called missing link. Anyone can see the dubious conditions just by researching how the ‘scientists’ reportedly stumbled upon on it. They didn’t involve anyone else but all readily believe their honesty and integrity. Others dated her bones by trying to guess the age of volcanic ash beneath where she was reportedly found using a falsifiable, well known dubious radiometric dating method.

It is the likes of you who are burdened with this type of proof, all followers of this manmade ‘evidence’ who dismiss the gospel of Jesus Christ are going to hell.

I have read about the find multiple times. You need something a lot stronger than pure speculation.

And do you realize that Lucy was not the only Australopithecus found? She was not the first, she was not the last. You would not only need to explain her but all other finds as well.

 

[Apostle John]

I have read about the find multiple times. You need something a lot stronger than pure speculation.

And do you realize that Lucy was not the only Australopithecus found? She was not the first, she was not the last. You would not only need to explain her but all other finds as well.

What is an Australopithecus but a fancy made up name. Have you seen/considered the skeletal deviation in the current human race and that of primates today?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is an Australopithecus but a fancy made up name. Have you seen/considered the skeletal deviation in the current human race and that of primates today?

I haven't but experts in the field have. They can measure brain case volume. They can observe hips and knees. It is clearly significantly different. And remember, the burden of proof is upon you to show that the experts are wrong. The experts have already supplied evidence for their claims and you do not have anything.

 

[Apostle John]

I haven't but experts in the field have. They can measure brain case volume. They can observe hips and knees. It is clearly significantly different. And remember, the burden of proof is upon you to show that the experts are wrong. The experts have already supplied evidence for their claims and you do not have anything.

You trust what you call ‘experts in the field’ and their honesty/integrity which I would always question. I have no burden of proof, as a Christian my ‘burden’ is very light. Using my discretion I don’t have to give anybody anything other than mention the Gospel of Jesus now and again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You trust what you call ‘experts in the field’ and their honesty/integrity which I would always question. I have no burden of proof, as a Christian my ‘burden’ is very light. Using my discretion I don’t have to give anybody anything other than mention the Gospel of Jesus now and again.

I trust the experts because there work can be checked and confirmed and it has been. And yes, when you make a claim, especially when you make a claim about others you do have a burden of proof. Not just logically, but as a Christian too. Many people misinterpret the Ninth Commandment. It is not just an order not to lie. It is an order not to make false claims about others. That means that even if you believe what you say, and if it is a comment about others, you would still be breaking the Ninth Commandment if you made an error in what you said about others. In other words, you are responsible what you say. Stating that you really believed the false claims that you made is not an excuse that God will accept.

 

[wellwisher]

I was both spiritual and a scientist growing up. This was like a mixed marriage seen as taboo by many people. However, my balancing of knowledge and faith made me perfect for science development work; can live outside the box. To me, it was not science or religion. Instead I used my skills as a scientist and as a spiritual person, to figure out how to build a bridge between the two so they could merge. This was more 3-D, instead of 2-D, with the bridge offering a third alternative; z-axis.

My own proof of the marriage was connected to unconscious mind experiments I did on myself; new science, and now the layout of the brain's operating system, parallels religion. Religion is the IT of the brain's operating system. This is easier to see in Eastern religions where techniques were developed to slow the heart; mind over matter using the brain's operating system.

Adam and Eve are compatible with science, if you assume Adam and Eve were connected to consciousness and a major change in the human brain's operating system. Human DNA only tells us about the surface shell, but not about what people thought and felt, at any given time in human history.

As an analogy, we live in the year 2023. If we count the years backwards to year=0, like the BB theory does with the universe, what begin 2023 years ago, since this is when the modern western clock started? Why was that point in time chosen and why do we still use it? Why do the Jews and the Chinese have different calendars with different time=0. Why don't we just re-zero the clock, instead of making that the transition point, in the West, between AD and BC; ancient and modern worlds?

Does this point in time have anything to do with rise of human DNA? The answer is no, since we can show that human DNA is older than 2023 years. Does that then mean that the chosen t=0, was a willfully chosen point in time, connected to the start of a new age in terms of the human mind and consciousness? This makes the most sense based on the evidence; calendars.

This analogy is Adam and Eve in a nutshell. The were connected to consciousness spirit of a unique point in time about 6000 years ago. Adam and Eve symbolizes a major change; human neural awakening. They were connected to that calendar's time=0, just as the modern time=0 is connected to two humans Caesar and Jesus, both with human DNA.

The idea of God giving human will and choice, that is described at that time in the Bible, implies a new ability for humans to leave their natural programming, connected to the evolution of human instincts within our human DNA. It also meant the ability to rewrite the script for a new age; modern human appears, with a more advance neural operating system; willful.

Another analogy is all humans on earth have human DNA, so why do they speak 7100 different languages? One answer is each specific language is more connected to the needs of the brain, than it is to the DNA; food for thought. Language is acquired through language and learning. Just knowing that one has human DNA, will not allow one to infer which language they speak.

However, if we look at consciousness and the types of data it has absorbed, from childhood, in terms of location, place in time, and culture, we can infer which language is yours. Human DNA may have an impact on the need to communicate, but after that it is more about, forced/desired will and choice, based on internal and external pressures on the brain and consciousness.

Adam and Eve's time=0, coordinate with the rise of civilization and the invention of written language; new spirit of those times. They could be both real, as well as a metaphor, just as Caesar and Jesus are connected to BC to AD. Rome was the pinnacle of the ancient time and ushered in a new era. If you look at it that way, Genesis tells us what was happening in that new POV and how human will and choice was not all sunshine and roses.