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

[Subduction Zone]

I forgot to mention, a lot of data that doesn’t fit with the theory gets thrown out and discarded .

And yet you cannot seem to ever supply any It is hard to take anyone seriously that makes endless claims but never even tries to support them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They have found bones that’s all, they want them to be the right age and if they are being truthful with the find, they guess the age and asked someone else to date the rocks, using a falsifiable method, where the bones were supposedly found, all collusion.

No, the dating is like any other scientific observation. The evidence can be observed and challenged by anyone. Why hasn't anyone done that successfully?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I’m not bothering with that nonsense google link babbling about the reasons for homosexuality, the link didn’t open anyway saving me time. As mentioned before I can see all the holes in reasoning in the number of science papers I have bothered to read finding all explanations fanciful. Homosexuality rubbishes your theory.

Tell us you're averse to learning new things and challenging your preconceived (erroneous) notions without telling us you're averse to learning new things and challenging your preconceived (erroneous) notions.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Why are you comparing spiders to humans? Absurd, spiders don't think.

I dunno. They look like they are plotting my demise to me lol.

 

[Apostle John]

No, the dating is like any other scientific observation. The evidence can be observed and challenged by anyone. Why hasn't anyone done that successfully?

The radiometric dating is done on several samples not just one and it obviously isn’t observed when they through a wealth of data out that doesn’t fit.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The radiometric dating is done on several samples not just one and it obviously isn’t observed when they through a wealth of data out that doesn’t fit.

So you say something you don't know unless you are there. That means you are God. OMG you are God.

 

[Apostle John]

Tell us you're averse to learning new things and challenging your preconceived (erroneous) notions without telling us you're averse to learning new things and challenging your preconceived (erroneous) notions.

You don't teach anything of any value.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't teach anything of any value.

But I know that you are God. You are all knowing and know all the lying going on in the science. That is the evidence that you are God. I see it now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Some aspects of evolution like mutations and observed changes within a species are indeed fact but that does not prove other theory and importantly confirm the made up evolutionary tree of life by arranging random fossils found in the ground into a line.

Nor need it. Why do you think the theory needs to be "proven" more than it already is? It works well. That's evidence enough that it is correct and reliable.

DNA structures are made up of billions of elements from the periodic table

More than that, just like everything else big enough to see. Of course, you mean a billion tokens (individual atoms), not types (different elements).

they do not have the ability to make themselves from scratch, arranging themselves into these giant structures.

It looks like you may be wrong about that.

It all points to design and a designer.

What would an intelligence be needed for? Unconscious nature appears to be up to the task.

Why isn’t that an example of ‘begging the question’.

You asked, "What is the ‘obvious vested interest’ of Bible believers" and I replied "They're trying to get into heaven. Also, many earn a living from religion."

"Begging the question," or circular argumentation, refers to arguments that assume their conclusions, although it seems to have taken on another unrelated meaning: A statement that leads us to ask a question, as in "That begs the question of why they were there in the first place." Lexical prescriptivists won't like that newfangled usage.

Where do you see an argument that assumes it's own conclusion in my answer?

And also your next comment beneath that?

That comment - "How do you think they fabricated her? 3D printer?" in response to you calling A. afarensis fossils fabricated - was a question, not an argument.

If you read my quote at all I never said that or inferred it

Implied, not inferred. The speaker or writer infers and the listener or reader infers.

I wrote, "999/1000 is not 0.001%."

Which quote did you mean? This one? "999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial.” I thought 0.001% was ridiculously low." Is that the one that doesn't imply that you thought 999/1000 was the same as 0.001%?

You obviously ignore the build up of faith in the Bible

I don't know what that means, but I ignore the entire Bible, so probably, whatever that says. Is this your way of saying that the biblical prophecy is older than mine? If so, so what?

Impressive after 2000 years

Not impressive. Biblical prophecy is low quality, meaning that it is either vague enough that multiple things can be called its fulfillment, or it predicts mundane things, like new religions being rejected. And some are self-fulfilling, and others written after the fact. For impressive (high quality) prophecy, look to science, which is none of those things. Also notice that as much better as that prophecy is, nobody is claiming that it is evidence of divine prescience. It's very human, just like biblical prophecy, but more impressive.

What is ‘survival’, where does that come from. What about ‘fittest’, what is that if not observing these phenomena without explaining. I would require these terms explaining and not someone saying “oh they just happen”.

That's on you. I showed you what Google is. Your education is your responsibility. Others will be glad to help, but you would need to show a little initiative before I would believe that your interest was sincere. If you were to search these terms and read, it would answer your questions, although it might raise more, which you could bring to these threads and get answered. But we both know that you have no intention of doing that and no interest in what you might find. You're posturing as somebody who wants to learn, but that's not your purpose here at all, is it?

 

[Apostle John]

Of course, you mean a billion tokens (individual atoms), not types (different elements).

It looks like you may be wrong about that.

Tokens? You clearly cannot be debated appearing to be using delusional terminology.

You and no one else has seen DNA being made from scratch, it can never happen on its own if you know anything about chemistry, you are clearly delusional about that.

 

[ratiocinator]

You and no one else has seen DNA being made from scratch, it can never happen on its own if you know anything about chemistry, you are clearly delusional about that.

There you go changing the subject again....

Comedy gold.

Some 'educational' establishment somewhere has a lot to answer for.

 

[Apostle John]

There you go changing the subject again....

Comedy gold.

Some 'educational' establishment somewhere has a lot to answer for.

Flitting between usernames, giving yourself frubals only shows you as the great deceiver on here. To think you’ve been doing this for 20 years, is weird.

 

[ratiocinator]

Flitting between usernames, giving yourself frubals only shows you as the great deceiver on here.

More wild accusations. You really are getting desperate. I only have one user name.

To think you’ve been doing this for 20 years, is weird.

Where on earth did you get that from?

Perhaps go and have a little lie down for a while?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see you’ve repeated this which must make you think it is important.

Genetic algorithms = practical application of evolution theory.

It works, because the theory is accurate.

I suspect it is a load of inconsequential nonsense not related to ToE.

As usual, you are completely incorrect. I bet you didn't even know about GA's. And I bet even more you didn't bother to look it up.

psssst: I'm a software engineer who actually worked on such algorithms.
I can assure you it is not inconsequential, nor is it nonsense.

It literally models the process of evolution and, unsurprisingly, achieves amazing results.

Genetics hasn’t proven ToE

Genetics provides the exact stuff Darwin predicted: a mechanism that introduces change + a method of inheriting those changes.
Genetics also makes common ancestry of species a fact.

Genetics matches the predictions of evolution like a glove.
As such, it comes as close to "proving" the theory as is possible in science.

, it has all been retrospection and a lot of assumption.

No.

I laughed at your signature: "Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal." ~Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Have you managed to get that other Richard Dawkins Award recipient on here to push your project? Where’s Eugenie Scott? It’s been comedic so far. Who is up for the 2023 handout?

Whenever you are done with your childish schoolyard nonsense and ready to have a discussion like an adult...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That’s just collusion helping spread a lie. Some aspects of evolution like mutations and observed changes within a species are indeed fact but that does not prove other theory and importantly confirm the made up evolutionary tree of life by arranging random fossils found in the ground into a line. That is just circular reasoning. ToE is all one big wonderful lie.

You literally managed to get everything wrong in those 3 sentences.

DNA structures are made up of billions of elements from the periodic table,

There aren't "billions of elements" on the periodic table.

they do not have the ability to make themselves from scratch

Only creationists believe in things being made "from scratch".

, arranging themselves into these giant structures.

Nobody said that.

Importantly they have no consciousness

Nobody claims otherwise

, no atom or molecule does.

Nobody claims otherwise

It all points to design and a designer.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, other finds have been proven hoaxes in this field. It is easy to find bones in many digs and come up with a ‘being’ in skeletal form.

I challenge you to do it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You obviously ignore the build up of faith in the Bible, required before the Bible predicted there would be a falling away from the faith. Impressive after 2000 years which was also predicted but I will leave you in the dark about that.

"faith" can always be ignored.

At least when the object is to get accurate answers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I forgot to mention, a lot of data that doesn’t fit with the theory gets thrown out and discarded .

Such as?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Tokens? You clearly cannot be debated appearing to be using delusional terminology.

Learn something:

"The type–token distinction is the difference between naming a class (type) of objects and naming the individual instances (tokens) of that class. Since each type may be exemplified by multiple tokens, there are generally more tokens than types of an object."

You and no one else has seen DNA being made from scratch

Agreed. Your point?

it can never happen on its own if you know anything about chemistry

I know a fair amount about chemistry and DNA. I have degrees in biochemistry and medicine, and I know of no reason why intelligent oversight would be required for nucleic acids to exist. Neither do you.

you are clearly delusional about that.

You're the creationist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The radiometric dating is done on several samples not just one and it obviously isn’t observed when they through a wealth of data out that doesn’t fit.

Please give valid examples. You may believe this, but it looks like a lie You are probably listening to liars again. To the uneducated the lies of people that know better sound good because they appeal to your prejudices.