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

[1213]

... As said, the story makes predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in terms of physical evidence. ...

Would be nice to see what was the expected evidence. Didn't have a good idea of the flood, if they didn't find any evidence for the flood.

 

[1213]

The science is clear in that the evidence is that a world-wide flood never happened. This is accepted by most religious scientists. It is only the tiny cult of literalists (with an obvious vested interest, and hence bias) who disagree,

That is like saying, the matter is clear, God is real, because Bible and many priests say so.

 

[ratiocinator]

That is like saying, the matter is clear, God is real, because Bible and many priests say so.

Quite the opposite. You're siding with the vested interest group in both cases. The scientists who study the relevant subjects that contradict the literal bible account (and there are many, including biology, geology, palaeontology, genetics, archaeology, astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, and physics) are a diverse group consisting of many religious viewpoints. Your branding them as 'atheist' is simply false.

Those who pretend that science matches the literal bible account are pretty much all from a tiny literalist cult (with an obvious vested interest).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Once again how do dumb genes/chemicals acquire the intelligence and capacity to change under the biological processes you have stated.

Your question is loaded with false assumption about how evolution works.
Your question has no answer because the question itself is invalid.

It's like asking "how does purple taste like?".
It makes false assumptions about what colors are.


This is why I informed you that all you do constantly is argue strawmen.

But clearly, as you have once again proven by simply repeating this invalid question, you don't care about that at all.

Try to avoid empty rhetoric it is very unconvincing.

What's unconvincing, is thinking you are actually serious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I keep asking how mutations of genes gain in information and more importantly intelligence because I never get a satisfactory answer.

Again: it's an invalid question. It makes false assumptions of how evolution works.
Genes aren't "intelligent". "intelligent" is not a word that applies to genes.
Just like "taste" is not a word that applies to colors.
So asking "what does purple taste like" is an equally invalid question.

This must happen if evolution theory is correct.

No. Again: learn what evolution theory actually is about.... stop arguing these strawmen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Genes are chemicals that degrade overtime through mutation in any species.

No.

Survival isn’t something that makes an organism change and ascend to another organism regardless of environment.

That is indeed NOT how evolution actually works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Genes are made purely of chemical elements from the periodic table, nothing else.

Literally every physical thing is made up of elements from the periodic table.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's clear who is the one doing their best to avoid acknowledging anything.

Quote
The article also says this:
but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don’t. Natural selection is NOT random!
Unquote

How does that contradict anything I've said?

So what? What does that have to do with what was said. Nothing.
Just another of your distractions - strawman.
The point is, natural selection is not directed.

Except that it is. It's directed by the environment.
The environment dictates selection pressures.
Selection follows those pressures.
Hence, the environment directs selection / evolution

Derp-di-derp-derp

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Independently verifiable evidence.

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

As you have been informed of multiple times now, and as usual you ignored it every time, Lucy is just 1 individual of the species Australopithecus Afaransis.
We have fossils of over 300 such individuals. And Lucy isn't even the most complete of them at all.

But clearly you don't actually care. You have no problem doubling down on willful ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I can. Archaeological digs concerning fossils are not done under the forensic conditions one sees in a police investigation.

Indeed. Instead, it's even stricter.

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

Yes, it's called "intellectual honesty". You should try it sometime.

if they are open and upfront that is. Sadly that is not evidence admissible in a court of law.

A single piece of scientific evidence in a courtroom will instantly overturn 1000 "eyewitness testimonies" saying otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would be nice to see what was the expected evidence.

A global layer of flood sediments
A universal genetic bottleneck in all species
The dating of both should point to the same period.


Neither exists.

 

[Apostle John]

Quite the opposite. You're siding with the vested interest group in both cases. The scientists who study the relevant subjects that contradict the literal bible account (and there are many, including biology, geology, palaeontology, genetics, archaeology, astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, and physics) are a diverse group consisting of many religious viewpoints. Your branding them as 'atheist' is simply false.

Those who pretend that science matches the literal bible account are pretty much all from a tiny literalist cult (with an obvious vested interest).

What is the ‘obvious vested interest’ of Bible believers as opposed to the financial gain and fame that drives scientists. Many I know are driven by greed, write eulogies about each other, self announce they’re world renown, when the general public knows nothing of them. Aside of that there’s also been a lot of dishonesty exposed with supposed fossil finds trying to prove ToE.

 

[ratiocinator]

What is the ‘obvious vested interest’ of Bible believers as opposed to the financial gain and fame that drives scientists.

Is this even serious? If somebody is motivated by fame and financial gain, they'd be stupid to become a scientist. The religious vested interest when somebody belongs to an extremist, science-denying cult, is obvious.

Aside of that there’s also been a lot of dishonesty exposed with supposed fossil finds trying to prove ToE.

Another joke, I guess. Pretty much everything you read on creationist sites is dishonest in one way or another. I used to spend time on them cataloguing falsehoods but it's too depressing. Came away feeling like I needed five showers and a course of antibiotics.

You have demonstrated here that you are prepared to confidently criticise a theory that you quite clearly know nothing at all about and question evidence that you don't understand. Not exactly a shining example of honesty.

 

[Apostle John]

Is this even serious? If somebody is motivated by fame and financial gain, they'd be stupid to become a scientist. The religious vested interest when somebody belongs to an extremist, science-denying cult, is obvious.


Another joke, I guess. Pretty much everything you read on creationist sites is dishonest in one way or another. I used to spend time on them cataloguing falsehoods but it's too depressing. Came away feeling like I needed five showers and a course of antibiotics.

You have demonstrated here that you are prepared to confidently criticise a theory that you quite clearly know nothing at all about and question evidence that you don't understand. Not exactly a shining example of honesty.

What has challenging the atheist liars and science got to do with a vested interest.

 

[ratiocinator]

What has challenging the atheist liars and science got to do with a vested interest.

You really are hilarious.

You talk about honesty and lairs and then go straight on to misrepresent those who believe evolution as atheists. Of course some of them are but it's not an atheist theory. It was developed and it is worked on today and accepted by theists in far greater numbers than those in the tiny literalist, science-denying cult that you belong to.

The fact that your cult feels threatened by evidence-based science, is the vested interest that causes them to lie about it and misrepresent both the theory itself and the supporting evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is the ‘obvious vested interest’ of Bible believers

The dogmatic belief in the bible, obviously.

as opposed to the financial gain and fame that drives scientists.

You might want to look into how a scientist achieves fame, glory and wealth.
It's not by upholding the status quo. Fame, glory and Nobel prizes are reserved for those scientists who prove all their colleagues wrong. Those who turn their field upside down.

You don't get statues and streets, schools or buildings named after you just by conducting study 12354663274 merely confirming what was already known.

If you think your average biologist makes big money merely by conducting a study that confirms evolution for the upteenth time.... think again.

Many I know are driven by greed, write eulogies about each other, self announce they’re world renown, when the general public knows nothing of them. Aside of that there’s also been a lot of dishonesty exposed with supposed fossil finds trying to prove ToE.

Funny.

I know of no biologist, paleontologist, or what-have-you who for example owns a private jet.
But ironically, I know plenty of creationist pastors / ministries who literally swim in the millions that they made by "donations" from their zombie flock or by selling their sheep their "seminars" and "videos" filled with pure disinformation.

It's quite funny how your silly accusation of "greed" applies not at all to scientists, but in effect applies perfectly to the creationist con-man that people like YOU listen to.

 

[Apostle John]

You really are hilarious.

You talk about honesty and lairs and then go straight on to misrepresent those who believe evolution as atheists. Of course some of them are but it's not an atheist theory. It was developed and it is worked on today and accepted by theists in far greater numbers than those in the tiny literalist, science-denying cult that you belong to.

The fact that your cult feels threatened by evidence-based science, is the vested interest that causes them to lie about it and misrepresent both the theory itself and the supporting evidence.

Twisting the truth is noted there again by you but that’s to be expected. I clearly wrote ‘challenging the atheist liars and science’, two separate articles. Knowledgeable Bible believers know that unbelievers and scoffers will increase in the end times, Christians have absolutely no motivation by feeling threatened by that, it’s actually a positive sign.

 

[Apostle John]

That is indeed NOT how evolution actually works.

No one knows how evolution works. They say mutations are random and something about the environment ‘drives’ changes by way of survival and reproduction. Not a very exact science.

 

[ratiocinator]

I clearly wrote ‘challenging the atheist liars and science’, two separate articles.

Given what you've said before, the association seemed obvious. However, if you're now separating them, then you have an even bigger in that mony of those who support evolution are theists, many of them Christians who regard the bible as important but are not literalist cultists.

What's more, creationists don't challenge the science, they dishonestly pretend to. They simply have nothing that can seriously challenge the overwhelming evidence for evolution, so they misrepresent both the theory and the evidence and lie about them.

No one knows how evolution works.

False.

They say mutations are random...

They are effectively random, yes.

...and something about the environment ‘drives’ changes by way of survival and reproduction.

Misrepresentation. I explained the exact why in which this works to you in just yesterday, here: Do you think there is a God? If so, why? #220.