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

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just think sensibly. Quarry doesn’t just materialise through evolution then realise they have a predator and so change by an unknown process in order to be camouflaged.

Well, I still think differently. See you in Hell or Heaven, if those exist.

 

[ratiocinator]

You haven’t shown anything about me being wrong let alone comprehensively.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, all those feelings, right?

 

[exchemist]

I don't think those are reasonable expectations. Because earth is not uniform, global flood would not cause uniform layer.

Nobody said a uniform layer. But there should be a layer, in most places, globally distributed, i.e. not just in one area or one continent, with evidence of silt, remains of drowned animals and plants and so forth. A bit like the iridium layer at the KT boundary, for example: Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary - Wikipedia, but with evidence in far more places, due to it being comparatively recent.

There is no such evidence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yeah, all those feelings, right?

Yeah. It's how you feel when somebody denies something that is clearly evidenced in the preceding conversation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just think sensibly. Quarry doesn’t just materialise through evolution then realise they have a predator and so change by an unknown process in order to be camouflaged.

Correct. The mutations occur naturally and randomly.

Let us simplify this even further. We will take this one step at a time via a series of yes/no questions.

Do you agree:
Sometimes, a rodent with brown fur may produce a baby rodent that has slightly darker or slightly lighter fur?

 

[Apostle John]

Well, I still think differently. See you in Hell or Heaven, if those exist.

They do exist. As a Christian I will be in heaven. If you have a different faith to me you will be in hell. I believe it is up to God if you will see me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah. It's how you feel when somebody denies something that is clearly evidenced in the preceding conversation.

Yeah, that is how I sometimes feel about some non-believers other than them being non-believers and sometimes in regards to some believers. But yes. It is a coping mechanism I also use.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They do exist. As a Christian I will be in heaven. If you have a different faith to me you will be in hell. I believe it is up to God if you will see me.

So you are both God and not.

 

[ratiocinator]

If you have a different faith to me you will be in hell.

So much for a god of justice.

 

[ratiocinator]

Quarry doesn’t just materialise through evolution then realise they have a predator and so change by an unknown process in order to be camouflaged.

Nobody claimed anything remotely like that. The process of evolution isn't unknown. This is why you keep on getting everything comprehensively and comically wrong: you have zero understanding of what you're trying to argue against.

 

[Apostle John]

So much for a god of justice.

You have shunned God at best. What’s wrong with the justice because of that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have shunned God at best. What’s wrong with the justice because of that.

I just use a different God and my certainty is the same as yours as certainty. We are just certain of different Gods.

 

[ratiocinator]

You have shunned God at best.

I can't shun something I have zero reason to think is real. If some god wants something from me it should get off its lazy backside amd make itself known.

What’s wrong with the justice because of that.

Well, you said other religions, so god is going to condemn people for believing in the wrong version of god? Given that most people stick with the religion of their parents, that's hardly justice.

 

[metis]

Well, you said other religions, so god is going to condemn people for believing in the wrong version of god? Given that most people stick with the religion of their parents, that's hardly justice.

And he ignores Jesus' teaching that we are not to judge others.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I doubt your fooling anyone, certainly not me, with empty statement upon empty statement and point blank deflection. Once again how do dumb genes/chemicals acquire the intelligence and capacity to change under the biological processes you have stated. Try to avoid empty rhetoric it is very unconvincing.

The answer is that they don't require intelligence. If you'd paid attention to the answers you've been given so far, you'd know that already.

But you're not really here to learn, are you? Let's be honest here.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

The idea of random mutation is not consistent with the healthy changes we see in nature. There more things that can go wrong with random change on the DNA, than can go right. This is genetics nonsense added to evolutionary theory.

For example, say we have a fully functional automobile. Make random changes; one new tire, hit the radiator with a hammer, and then see if how many of these random changes will make the auto worse and how many will make it better. This theory of random change ends with life going do the tubes, and not getting more advanced.

Any type of genetic therapy or genetic modification that works, requires deterministic change to be accepted as a viable technology or treatment. Why does science not make and sell medicine and GMO, by chosen the next one by rolling dice or picking a card? Roll the dice, splice the DNA here, and sell it on the free market. We should be able be able to evolve humans, right? Would and of Atheist like to be the lab rats, since this is what you seem to believe? Casino science fries your brain.

If the weatherman says there is a 50% chance of rain today. What does that mean? It is fuzzy subjective dice and any outcome can be correlated to any theory, after the fact. This leads to bad theory leading, like random changes on DNA makes no sense unless the cell has a way to filter these like we do in the lab.

For example, there are certain parts the DNA where the DNA changes faster, than other more conservative parts of the DNA that hardly change. How does life know how to make this separation in terms of gaming odds? How does life load the dice differently in different parts of the DNA? That alone is proof that random is not the full answer; card counting also happens. There is also built in determinism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Instead of constant point blank rebuttal provide evidence.

No. YOU provide evidence for your bizarre claim. Give it a shot.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It’s a difficult lie to breakdown because it’s predominantly been driven by egotistical, God hating men and women who are free to lie, fabricate evidence and backfit data, ignoring data that doesn’t fit the theory. It has been spread like a false religion. Their vested interest is fame amongst their peers and elsewhere. Some even write books for financial gain. The few that may be truthful but not capable of weighing up evidence accurately have been swept up in this convincing lie.

Those that speak out, the tiny few on the creationist side quickly get shouted down, ridiculed, called cranks because the other side haughtily think they have facts and have it all sewn up when they don’t.

You know what would really make someone rich and famous?
Disproving the theory of evolution with evidence.
Maybe ask yourself why nobody has been able to do this yet, despite so much time and effort put in by creationists on this matter.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to science. And it shows. It really, really shows.

 

[ratiocinator]

The idea of random mutation is not consistent with the healthy changes we see in nature. There more things that can go wrong with random change on the DNA, than can go right. This is genetics nonsense added to evolutionary theory.

Somebody else who doesn't have the first clue. More things do go wrong with mutation, but they don't survive in the population because 'going wrong' is defined as hindering survival and reproduction, so those changes quickly die out. When things go right, they aid survival and reproduction (that's again what 'going right' means), so they tend to spread through the population. That is natural selection and that is why all the 'good' changes accumulate in the population.