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

[Windwalker]

I’d have to see evidence of the percentage of mutations you’ve been told are ‘beneficial mutations’ as opposed to those having neutral/negative effects before I can see if that is the reason.

Nevermind the actual science? You have to decide for yourself if it's scientifically valid or not? How does that work exactly? Like this?

 

[Apostle John]

Nevermind the actual science? You have to decide for yourself if it's scientifically valid or not? How does that work exactly? Like this?
View attachment 76212

Pythagoras theorem is absolute, a theorem has been proved, note proved not proven beyond doubt- the latter is a legal term open to be proven wrong.

 

[ratiocinator]

I’d have to see evidence of the percentage of mutations you’ve been told are ‘beneficial mutations’ as opposed to those having neutral/negative effects before I can see if that is a reason that you believe in it.

Which just shows you haven't understood (again). The point is that natural selection means that the ratio you asked for is irrelevant. Beneficial mutations survive, detrimental ones die out, and neutral ones don't matter very much.

You really are like the personification of every single misunderstanding everyone has ever fallen into about evolution. I don't know how you do it. Even if you were basically posting random nonsense, I'd expect you to get some things right some of the time, just by chance. But no.

 

[Apostle John]

Which just shows you haven't understood (again). The point is that natural selection means that the ratio you asked for is irrelevant. Beneficial mutations survive, detrimental ones die out, and neutral ones don't matter very much.

You really are like the personification of every single misunderstanding everyone has ever fallen into about evolution. I don't know how you do it. Even if you were basically posting random nonsense, I'd expect you to get some things right some of the time, just by chance. But no.

This is what I anticipated, a distinct lack of evidence and only amateur opinion to spread a doctrine.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is what I anticipated, a distinct lack of evidence and only amateur opinion to spread a doctrine.

What doctrine would that be, exactly?

 

[ratiocinator]

This is what I anticipated, a distinct lack of evidence and only amateur opinion to spread a their own doctrine.

More comedy gold. This whole subject is going way, way over your head, and it's really obvious. You are looking for evidence for the wrong things because you don't understand what the theory of evolution is proposing and you refuse to even try to understand it when it's explained to you. You seem to be terrified of seeing the truth.

 

[Apostle John]

What doctrine would that be, exactly?

False. Btw I did answer you on this:-

Oops, that doesn't address it either.
Maybe you should go back and re-read it, to refresh your memory.

Try reading it again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

False. Btw I did answer you on this:-

The question posed to you was:
What doctrine would that be, exactly?

So, your answer is "false" ... ??

Try reading it again.

Nah, you just Gish Galloped to some other outdated creationist talking point.

 

[Apostle John]

The question posed to you was:
What doctrine would that be, exactly?

So, your answer is "false" ... ??

It was opinion, no evidence when you are the proponents of evidence. It’s sad when you’re found out for what you are.

 

[ratiocinator]

It was opinion, no evidence when you are the proponents of evidence. It’s sad when you’re found out for what you are.

Best comedy poster on the forum!

You have posted nothing but unsupported assertions, opinions, and laughable misunderstandings. You wouldn't know evidence if it slapped you in the face (and if it had hands, it probably would).

 

[Apostle John]

Best comedy poster on the forum!

You have posted nothing but unsupported assertions, opinions, and laughable misunderstandings. You wouldn't know evidence if it slapped you in the face (and if it had hands, it probably would).

Have you managed to get Dr Eugenie Scott to participate in this project? I don’t know much about her debating days but would be a gentleman if I knew which username she used.

 

[ratiocinator]

Have you managed to get Dr Eugenie Scott to participate in this project?

This one?

Eugenie Carol Scott (born October 24, 1945) is an American physical anthropologist, a former university professor and educator who has been active in opposing the teaching of young Earth creationism and intelligent design in schools. She coined the term "Gish gallop" to describe a fallacious rhetorical technique which consists in overwhelming an interlocutor with as many individually weak arguments as possible, in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument.​

-- Eugenie Scott​

Don't know what she'd make of you, you don't even have weak arguments. Guess it's basically the same tactic but using baseless assertions, misunderstanding, and frequent changes of subject when you're cornered.

 

[Apostle John]

This one?

Eugenie Carol Scott (born October 24, 1945) is an American physical anthropologist, a former university professor and educator who has been active in opposing the teaching of young Earth creationism and intelligent design in schools. She coined the term "Gish gallop" to describe a fallacious rhetorical technique which consists in overwhelming an interlocutor with as many individually weak arguments as possible, in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument.​

-- Eugenie Scott​

Don't know what she'd make of you, you don't even have weak arguments. Guess it's basically the same tactic but using baseless assertions, misunderstanding, and frequent changes of subject when you're cornered.

Yes that one. It would be so sad if you Richard Dawkins Award recipients didn’t have a reunion somewhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’d have to see evidence of the percentage of mutations you’ve been told are ‘beneficial mutations’ as opposed to those having neutral/negative effects before I can see if that is a reason that you believe in it.

Why? Are you able to calculate the percentage of beneficial mutations needed for evolution to advance? When did you get that training?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that one. It would be so sad if you Richard Dawkins Award recipients didn’t have a reunion somewhere.

Making such claims about others not only tells us that you cannot refute any of the arguments presented. It may also be violation of the rules here. No one has called you nasty names. No one has claimed that you received medals from well known creationist liars. Why not just debate the topic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is what I anticipated, a distinct lack of evidence and only amateur opinion to spread a doctrine.

I do not think that you even know what evidence is. In the sciences evidence is a an observation that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. The finds of Lucy and other Australopithecus afarensis are very strong evidence for human evolution. If you deny that then you are only admitting not to understanding what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Apostle John]

Making such claims about others not only tells us that you cannot refute any of the arguments presented. It may also be violation of the rules here. No one has called you nasty names. No one has claimed that you received medals from well known creationist liars. Why not just debate the topic

I’ve tried to debate the topic, haven’t called anyone nasty names for you to give me nasty names? I would just like (and expect) the evidence asked for. Your rules are your rules, I have no control of what goes on on your forum.

 

[Apostle John]

Why? Are you able to calculate the percentage of beneficial mutations needed for evolution to advance? When did you get that training?

I haven’t looked into it. You (or other atheist) should be able to give me the percentage. Why cant you?

 

[Apostle John]

I do not think that you even know what evidence is. In the sciences evidence is a an observation that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. The finds of Lucy and other Australopithecus afarensis are very strong evidence for human evolution. If you deny that then you are only admitting not to understanding what is and what is not evidence.

Lucy is what I call fabricated evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ve tried to debate the topic, haven’t called anyone nasty names for you to give me nasty names? I would just like (and expect) the evidence asked for. Your rules are your rules, I have no control of what goes on on your forum.

I have not seen a proper attempt to discuss this from you.