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

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Dang it @ratiocinator are you pretending to be me again? My head is cramped enough as it is.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

None of that seems to matter to the majority of those who believe in the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

It seems that RNA and DNA are always together. Yet it is amazing (not fabulous, but rather dull) that some conjecture that these very important things evolved from, uh, who knows what? Guesses can be and are made -- but -- shining light from a flashlight and seeing light from the sun are two different things. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) are said to perhaps be the most important molecules in cell biology, responsible for the storage and reading of genetic information that underpins all life. To imagine how they came about is an exercise in folly.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Here I thought it was more likely you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of that seems to matter to the majority of those who believe in the theory of evolution.

It was apparently a false claim. You should realize that you cannot find an honest creationist site. If you can find an honest creationist site that would make me consider whether I was wrong. But every single one is just populated by liars and fools.

Please note that when challenged he just ran away from the claim. Do you see anyone on the evolution side ever doing that?

 

[exchemist]

It seems that RNA and DNA are always together. Yet it is amazing (not fabulous, but rather dull) that some conjecture that these very important things evolved from, uh, who knows what? Guesses can be and are made -- but -- shining light from a flashlight and seeing light from the sun are two different things. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA) are said to perhaps be the most important molecules in cell biology, responsible for the storage and reading of genetic information that underpins all life. To imagine how they came about is an exercise in folly.

No more folly than any other avenue of scientific enquiry, surely?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

None of that seems to matter to the majority of those who believe in the theory of evolution.

That, or more probably, they actually understand evolution and dating, and as a result don't have a need or use for strawmanning nonsense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here I thought it was more likely you.

Well, I play with words. That is my style. But no, I have tested it and I am not God in any sense. Even I think, therefore I am is not really true. But then I am a skeptic, so I doubt even that.

 

[ratiocinator]

None of that seems to matter to the majority of those who believe in the theory of evolution.

That's because it's just creationist misinformation.

 

[Apostle John]

Genetic algorithms = practical application of evolution theory.

It works, because the theory is accurate.



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 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.



No.



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

So the essence of your latest rant is that genetics predicted apes would change into humans. Go twisting an answer immediately, you know you want to.

 

[Apostle John]

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



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



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




Nobody said that.



Nobody claims otherwise



Nobody claims otherwise


No.

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."

Agreed. Your point?

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're the creationist.

Do you know why you forensically take every word of mine seriously but always answer with nonsense, even flitting between usernames? I must be a threat to your agenda.

 

[ratiocinator]

So the essence of your latest rant is that genetics predicted apes would change into humans.

One has to wonder what sort of confused, contorted, and bizarre 'thought' process went into reading that into what was actually posted....

 

[exchemist]

None of that seems to matter to the majority of those who believe in the theory of evolution.

That's because it is just lies. There is no wealth of radiometric data that doesn't fit. There may be a few surprises here and there of course, but if there were truly a "wealth" of data that did not fit, it would be the subject of intense public scientific debate.

If you honestly think there is a wealth of data that does not fit, then you must believe in a giant conspiracy to suppress the truth, on the part of science. Is that what you really think? How likely is that? What would be the motive?

It seems to me far more likely that you do not honestly think that at all. I suspect you hope, lazily, it might be so, making sure not to think carefully about it, as that avoids uncomfortable cognitive dissonance on your part.

 

[ratiocinator]

Do you know why you forensically take every word of mine seriously but always answer with nonsense...

Irony.

...even flitting between usernames?

Paranoid delusions?

I must be a threat to your agenda.

I think it's much more comedy value now we know just how clueless you really are (and the distant hope that you might actually learn something, for your own good).

You really couldn't be less of a threat. You're an amateur even amongst clueless creationists.

 

[Apostle John]

None of that seems to matter to the majority of those who believe in the theory of evolution.

They take the dates for ‘Lucy’ etc. as a matter of fact even though the methods are falsifiable. Many hate God so they would accept any slither of ‘evidence’ that has the potential to contradict His existence, the rest are duped by the spinning of lies and nonsense of ToE.

 

[Apostle John]

You really couldn't be less of a threat. You're an amateur even amongst clueless creationists.

Yes you can drown out my voice with sock puppetry and nonsense but I will win in the end.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's because it is just lies. There is no wealth of radiometric data that doesn't fit. There may be a few surprises here and there of course, but if there were truly a "wealth" of data that did not fit, it would be the subject of intense public scientific debate.

If you honestly think there is a wealth of data that does not fit, then you must believe in a giant conspiracy to suppress the truth, on the part of science. Is that what you really think? How likely is that? What would be the motive?

It seems to me far more likely that you do not honestly think that at all. I suspect you hope, lazily, it might be so, making sure not to think carefully about it, as that avoids uncomfortable cognitive dissonance on your part.

The same happens for the hard believers in that hard science is the only science.
There is a physical universe, therefore we ought to...
The first one is hard science, the one after therefore is not. I am just somewhat trained in spotting the 2 and point it out. That gives some people uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

 

[ratiocinator]

They take the dates for ‘Lucy’ etc. as a matter of fact even though the methods are falsifiable.

Yes, of course they are falsifiable, they wouldn't be science otherwise. However, they are backed up by copious evidence and have never been falsified.

Here's a Christian believer explaining: Radiometric Dating.

 

[1213]

It takes millions of years to have such originate.

No intelligent reason to believe it takes millions of years.

Floods don't make continents move like that

By what the Bible tells, there was single continent at the beginning. And under it was vast amount of water. The water for the flood came from that water storage below dry land, when the original continent was broken into the modern continents. Continents have not moved much, they only went down.

There is as good as no genetic variation left if you have a population of just 2.

If what you say is true, bears could not have evolved from their common ancestor.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes you can drown out my voice with sock puppetry and nonsense...

I really would wind back on the unfounded accusations.

...but I will win in the end.