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

[ratiocinator]

No intelligent reason to believe it takes millions of years.

Just evidence and science.

By what the Bible tells...

Is irrelevant. There is no reason to think old books of myths have anything useful to say on this subject.

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

What bizarre 'reasoning' did you use to come up with this nonsense?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I really would wind back on the unfounded accusations.

So many feelings. Now remember what you both do, is physical and part of the physical universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


What bizarre 'reasoning' did you use to come up with this nonsense?

Remember that nonsense is physical and a part of the physical universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

So many feelings. Now remember what you both do, is physical and part of the physical universe.

You really are a master of the irrelevant and a refuter of arguments that have never been made.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You really are a master of the irrelevant and a refuter of arguments that have never been made.

Okay, so it ends here. It is all physical and that it matters differently is for both cases also physical and that is the end of it. It is all physical, end of story. So why do you bother at all. It is all physical and there is no real difference because it is all physical.

 

[ratiocinator]

Okay, so it ends here. It is all physical and that it matters differently is for both cases also physical and that is the end of it. It is all physical, end of story. So why do you bother at all. It is all physical and there is no real difference because it is all physical.

 

[Apostle John]

Here's a Christian believer explaining: Radiometric Dating.

Look how he tried to dismiss the doubters:

“Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.”

Obviously he is randomly guessing going by that statement. Nothing he says is fact. The most accurate methods (they say) use gases. Can anyone with any seriousness say gases don’t leach out from rocks?

 

[exchemist]

No intelligent reason to believe it takes millions of years.

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.

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

This is a misunderstanding on your part. When we speak of ancestral species we do not mean that the later species all came from a single pair of individuals. We are talking of entire sub-populations of organisms here. The ancestor is the ancestral population from which the later species is descended.

As for the notion of vast quantities of water under the continents, you have to be invoking miracles all over the place to believe this, because there is no such quantity of water today, nor any plausible means by which it could have disappeared.

And yes, the continents have moved considerably, as an abundance of geological evidence demonstrates. See for example the "modern evidence" section of this article: Continental drift - Wikipedia

 

[Apostle John]

I really would wind back on the unfounded accusations.

Why?

 

[ratiocinator]

Obviously he is randomly guessing going by that statement.

Desperate straw-clutching. As he goes on to explain - and you even quite him - that lot of research has been done to check.

I mean, seriously, the whole article explains all the different checks and calibration that has been done and all you could come up with is this!?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You find some posts interesting and respond as you do. I find some posts and respond as I do. Now if you don't like this, then don't answer one of my posts. From here on out, I will only give likes to your posts if I like one of them. But if you feel the need to answer one of my posts, then I will answer.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why?

It's more dishonesty (bearing false witness).

 

[exchemist]

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.

Whataboutery is a poor technique in debate.

 

[ratiocinator]

I find some posts and respond as I do.

But you're basically spamming every single thread with the same obsession. Can't you at least stay on topic and not say exactly the same things everywhere?

 

[Apostle John]

It's more dishonesty (bearing false witness).

I have a wealth of personal evidence, God will accept that evidence when I stand in front of Him.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whataboutery is a poor technique in debate.

Well, I really don't care. There are no special unique humans and what you pointed out is not unique to religious believers. Nor is it uniform as such. The same for non-believers. That is all, it is called psychology and can be observed for all groups of humans. Even you and I.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you're basically spamming every single thread with the same obsession. Can't you at least stay on topic and not say exactly the same things everywhere?

I will do the favor for your posts. But if you want me to stop as such, you stop hunting the types of posts you hunt.

 

[ratiocinator]

I have a wealth of personal evidence...

Personal evidence is an oxymoron. How can you even make the claim with regard to your unfounded allegation that people are using multiple user names? Are you claiming to be psychic?

God will accept that evidence when I stand in front of Him.

All the false witness you've posted here - I'd be worried, if I were you and believed in the god of the bible.

 

[Apostle John]

Desperate straw-clutching. As he goes on to explain - and you even quite him - that lot of research has been done to check.

I mean, seriously, the whole article explains all the different checks and calibration that has been done and all you could come up with is this!?

Not really, there is no facts in that argument. Also if they like to think rocks are closed systems, how do they go about extracting the gaseous isotopes that are supposed by them to be the most accurate dating method?

 

[Apostle John]

How can you even make the claim with regard to your unfounded allegation that people are using multiple user names?

As well as my own evidence, the guy doing it is a known slippery liar going by public information about him and has certain interests.