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

[Aupmanyav]

The wife is on chemo and hard hit. I am trying not to transfer and be combative just for being combative and you are one of the nicer posters, so I stopped myself.

Sorry to know that, Mikkel. Hope she wins against it.

 

[ratiocinator]

How do you explain how and why bad mutations die out quickly?

A "bad mutation" is one that hinders survival and reproduction, by definition in this context. Individuals that are at a disadvantage with respect to survival and reproduction, tend to survive and reproduce less (surprising, eh?), hence there are fewer in each generation. This really isn't rocket science

Yet again, you show no understanding of the theory.

 

[ratiocinator]

The wife is on chemo and hard hit.

Very sorry to hear that Mikkel. Wishing for the best for you both.

 

[Aupmanyav]

4500 years ago. Your dating methods have too many inerrancies within them to list.

Very funny, van Winkle. You missed a few centuries of science.

 

[metis]

I am not saying religion; Creationism, has a more detailed logical explanation for life and evolution. However, I am saying fuzzy dice science is not the final frontier. It was useful, but it is now an obsolete stepping stone.

"Creationism" is not science, nor is there anything called "fuzzy dice science" because "fuzzy dice" isn't compatible with "science". Either one is using the "scientific method" or they're not. "Creationism" is not science as there's no objective evidence for it. IMO, the Creation accounts are likely based on an oral tradition to counter the earlier and much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian narratives, and the same I believe holds true with the Flood accounts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm sorry to hear that. I wish her the best. And you.

Thanks.

 

[metis]

The wife is on chemo and hard hit. I am trying not to transfer and be combative just for being combative and you are one of the nicer posters, so I stopped myself.

So sorry to read this, and I hope she does well with chemo and that it does the trick. My prayers are with you & her.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry to know that, Mikkel. Hope she wins against it.

Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So sorry to read this, and I hope she does well with chemo and that it does the trick. My prayers are with you & her.

Thanks

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Very sorry to hear that Mikkel. Wishing for the best for you both.

Thanks.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

By what the Bible tells, there was single continent at the beginning. And under it was vast amount of water.

Science doesn't consult the Bible. What do you mean by water "under it"? If you mean that the continent was floating, that is incorrect. There may be pockets of water encased in rock or magma below the surface, but such water is surrounded and sealed off, and has no way to reach the surface to participate in a global flood and no way to return to segregated spaces in deep earth.

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

No, it doesn't. What he said was, "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." He knows the rules when dealing with critical thinkers, or should by now. "Pictures, or it didn't happen." Claims need to be supported according to the rules of inference applied to evidence or they are rejected.

To imagine how they [RNA and DNA] came about is an exercise in folly.

Unless you imagine a god did it, right? The success enjoyed thus far in abiogenesis research is encouraging.

And how is creationism not an exercise in folly, especially in the light of the success of evolutionary theory? It's a sterile hypothesis that generates no usable ideas like all other faith-based systems of thought - like alchemy and astrology and Ouija boards.

No amount of theory or rhetoric can show how DNA and RNA developed or first started.

To you, perhaps. Creationists tend to set themselves up as the standards for what is known or knowable. If they don't know something, nobody does. We actually have a lot of good information on the chemical evolution of nucleic acids leading to the first life and of their biological evolution thereafter, albeit with large gaps remaining. Creationists like to argue that incompleteness is evidence that an idea is incorrect. It's not. Unknowns don't falsify hypotheses.

All genetic studies of the species show is mutations

To you, perhaps. To the prepared mind, they show evidence of evolution. Won't you join us? All you need do to do that is to learn critical thinking and the relevant science, and you can learn them together in a university course on evolution. It would open up a whole new, exciting, and powerful world to you.

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

You don't seem to understand what falsifiable means. It doesn't mean "can be falsified." It means that if a hypothesis is wrong, one can conceive of a physical finding that demonstrates that, not that such a thing exists. This is to distinguish such statements from "not even wrong" metaphysical claims such as those about undetectable gods and afterlives.

Obviously he is randomly guessing going by that statement.

And here you are setting yourself up as an arbiter of what can be known, thinking that the limits of YOUR knowledge also limit others. A cardinal sign of Dunning-Kruger syndrome is the unawareness of what critical thinking is and does, which includes deriving sound (correct) conclusions that can be considered fact. If you aren't aware of this other and better way of knowing, you would think that all opinions are arrived at by faith, because all belief is justified and unjustified belief, and if you don't have a method like critical thought to evaluate evidence, you're forced to guess and assume that everybody else is doing the same.

I had an insight one day here on RF two years ago when we were discussing Covid vaccines, and I presented the morbidity and mortality data for vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, and was told, "That's just your opinion." This other poster could not interpret the simplest data, didn't understand that others could, and thought that his opinion, a guess, was as good as any other opinion. That's Dunning-Kruger.

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

Now who's guessing?

You’re ignoring the cataclysmic event of the flood of Noah

That's a myth. You're still guessing. Evidence confirms that the story is impossible on multiple fronts - insufficient water, the logistics of building a seaworthy ark, and the logistic of collecting, housing, then disseminating the terrestrial life to be spared. Here's some of it from an earlier post:

"The problem with this idea is that you'd need a way to get this water to the surface, have it remain there for at least several weeks while the rain was also coming down, and then have it return to its cisterns and aquifers and never reappear. What brings the water up? What keeps it up on the surface and then relaxes to allow it to fall back into the earth never to be seen again?​

​

"The amount of water needed to cover Everest is about 1,085,166,768 miles³ of water less whatever volume the mountains themselves occupy - maybe 5-10% of that volume - whether falling from unseen canopies above or upwelling from unseen ground water sources below. All the known water on earth adds up to about 332,500,000 miles³. You're going to need about triple the volumes of the oceans to come up from unseen sources for a while and then go back there to remain. The biblical story depends on miracles. Physics and earth science say it never happened because it couldn't.​

​

"Have you thought about the rainfall if it were the principal source of the floodwaters? 30,000 feet of water over 40 days is about 750 feet of rain a day, assuming the whole earth was being rained on at once the entire time. That's about 30 feet per hour, or enough to flood a three-story building every hour for about six weeks. You've seen how homes and businesses do with about 2 feet of rainfall total lately.​

​

A point many miss is what it took to build the Ark Encounters exhibit, a scale replica of the ark. Thousands of tons of milled timber was trucked in in thousands of trucks by thousands of men. Cranes were used, as well as metal nails and braces. Noah and his family didn't do that, especially with a few out gathering kangaroos and emperor penguins from the far reaches of the world - much more than a day's ride away on camels and their other ships."​

.

 

[metis]

Science doesn't consult the Bible. What do you mean by water "under it"? If you mean that the continent was floating, that is incorrect. There may be pockets of water encased in rock or magma below the surface, but such water is surrounded and sealed off, and has no way to reach the surface to participate in a global flood and no way to return to segregated spaces in deep earth.

No, it doesn't. What he said was, "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." He knows the rules when dealing with critical thinkers, or should by now. "Pictures, or it didn't happen." Claims need to be supported according to the rules of inference applied to evidence or they are rejected.

Unless you imagine a god did it, right? The success enjoyed thus far in abiogenesis research is encouraging.

And how is creationism not an exercise in folly, especially in the light of the success of evolutionary theory? It's a sterile hypothesis that generates no usable ideas like all other faith-based systems of thought - like alchemy and astrology and Ouija boards.

To you, perhaps. Creationists tend to set themselves up as the standards for what is known or knowable. If they don't know something, nobody does. We actually have a lot of good information on the chemical evolution of nucleic acids leading to the first life and of their biological evolution thereafter, albeit with large gaps remaining. Creationists like to argue that incompleteness is evidence that an idea is incorrect. It's not. Unknowns don't falsify hypotheses.

Yesterday, on this thread:

You: If you read my quote at all I never said that or inferred it
Me: Implied, not inferred. The speaker or writer infers and the listener or reader infers.

To you, perhaps. To the prepared mind, they show evidence of evolution. Won't you join us? All you need do to do that is to learn critical thinking and the relevant science, and you can learn them together in a university course on evolution. It would open up a whole new, exciting, and powerful world to you.

You don't seem to understand what falsifiable means. It doesn't mean "can be falsified." It means that if a hypothesis is wrong, one can conceive of a physical finding that demonstrates that, not that such a thing exists. This is to distinguish such statements from "not even wrong" metaphysical claims such as those about undetectable gods and afterlives.

And here you are setting yourself up as an arbiter of what can be known, thinking that the limits of YOUR knowledge also limit others. A cardinal sign of Dunning-Kruger syndrome is the unawareness of what critical thinking is and does, which includes deriving sound (correct) conclusions that can be considered fact. If you aren't aware of this other and better way of knowing, you would think that all opinions are arrived at by faith, because all belief is justified and unjustified belief, and if you don't have a method like critical thought to evaluate evidence, you're forced to guess and assume that everybody else is doing the same.

I had an insight one day here on RF two years ago when we were discussing Covid vaccines, and I presented the morbidity and mortality data for vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, and was told, "That's just your opinion." This other poster could not interpret the simplest data, didn't understand that others could, and thought that his opinion, a guess, was as good as any other opinion. That's Dunning-Kruger.

Now who's guessing?

That's a myth. You're still guessing. Evidence confirms that the story is impossible on multiple fronts - insufficient water, the logistics of building a seaworthy ark, and the logistic of collecting, housing, then disseminating the terrestrial life to be spared. Here's some of it from an earlier post:

"The problem with this idea is that you'd need a way to get this water to the surface, have it remain there for at least several weeks while the rain was also coming down, and then have it return to its cisterns and aquifers and never reappear. What brings the water up? What keeps it up on the surface and then relaxes to allow it to fall back into the earth never to be seen again?​

​

"The amount of water needed to cover Everest is about 1,085,166,768 miles³ of water less whatever volume the mountains themselves occupy - maybe 5-10% of that volume - whether falling from unseen canopies above or upwelling from unseen ground water sources below. All the known water on earth adds up to about 332,500,000 miles³. You're going to need about triple the volumes of the oceans to come up from unseen sources for a while and then go back there to remain. The biblical story depends on miracles. Physics and earth science say it never happened because it couldn't.​

​

"Have you thought about the rainfall if it were the principal source of the floodwaters? 30,000 feet of water over 40 days is about 750 feet of rain a day, assuming the whole earth was being rained on at once the entire time. That's about 30 feet per hour, or enough to flood a three-story building every hour for about six weeks. You've seen how homes and businesses do with about 2 feet of rainfall total lately.​

​

A point many miss is what it took to build the Ark Encounters exhibit, a scale replica of the ark. Thousands of tons of milled timber was trucked in in thousands of trucks by thousands of men. Cranes were used, as well as metal nails and braces. Noah and his family didn't do that, especially with a few out gathering kangaroos and emperor penguins from the far reaches of the world - much more than a day's ride away on camels and their other ships."​

.

And I think you fully understand why I would leave the fundamentalist church I grew up in when in my mid-20's.

 

[Apostle John]

A "bad mutation" is one that hinders survival and reproduction, by definition in this context. Individuals that are at a disadvantage with respect to survival and reproduction, tend to survive and reproduce less (surprising, eh?), hence there are fewer in each generation. This really isn't rocket science

Yet again, you show no understanding of the theory.

The question was why do bad mutations die out quickly. Figures bandied around on here suggest there are 99.999% bad mutations compared with 0.001% being described as beneficial. Looking at those figures they won’t die out quickly by having ‘fewer in each generation’ and would affect ‘survival’ especially in the example of humans. It is a nonsense theory.

 

[Apostle John]

Evidence confirms that the story is impossible on multiple fronts - insufficient water, the logistics of building a seaworthy ark, and the logistic of collecting, housing, then disseminating the terrestrial life to be spared. Here's some of it from an earlier post:

"The problem with this idea is that you'd need a way to get this water to the surface, have it remain there for at least several weeks while the rain was also coming down, and then have it return to its cisterns and aquifers and never reappear. What brings the water up? What keeps it up on the surface and then relaxes to allow it to fall back into the earth never to be seen again?​

​

"The amount of water needed to cover Everest is about 1,085,166,768 miles³ of water less whatever volume the mountains themselves occupy - maybe 5-10% of that volume - whether falling from unseen canopies above or upwelling from unseen ground water sources below. All the known water on earth adds up to about 332,500,000 miles³. You're going to need about triple the volumes of the oceans to come up from unseen sources for a while and then go back there to remain. The biblical story depends on miracles. Physics and earth science say it never happened because it couldn't.​

​

"Have you thought about the rainfall if it were the principal source of the floodwaters? 30,000 feet of water over 40 days is about 750 feet of rain a day, assuming the whole earth was being rained on at once the entire time. That's about 30 feet per hour, or enough to flood a three-story building every hour for about six weeks. You've seen how homes and businesses do with about 2 feet of rainfall total lately.​

​

A point many miss is what it took to build the Ark Encounters exhibit, a scale replica of the ark. Thousands of tons of milled timber was trucked in in thousands of trucks by thousands of men. Cranes were used, as well as metal nails and braces. Noah and his family didn't do that, especially with a few out gathering kangaroos and emperor penguins from the far reaches of the world - much more than a day's ride away on camels and their other ships."​

.

You haven’t read the Biblical narrative carefully, clearly have no idea what the earth was like before the flood, was there an ‘everest’ or a Mariana Trench? The Bible infers the earth was reshaped. You have no idea how long it took Noah to build the ark or what help he had. The ingathering of the animals was supernatural, again, as described in the Bible.

 

[ratiocinator]

Figures bandied around on here suggest there are 99.999% bad mutations compared with 0.001% being described as beneficial. Looking at those figures they won’t die out quickly by having ‘fewer in each generation’ and would affect ‘survival’ especially in the example of humans. It is a nonsense theory.

Yet again for the hard-of-thinking. Almost all mutations are actually neutral with respect to fitness. Beneficial and deleterious ones are much rarer and affect differential reproduction in the way described.

Your unsupported incredulity is worthless.

I notice you continue to ignore the solid evidence in #1,216.

 

[ratiocinator]

You haven’t read the Biblical narrative carefully, clearly have no idea what the earth was like before the flood, was there an ‘everest’ or a Mariana Trench? The Bible infers the earth was reshaped. You have no idea how long it took Noah to build the ark or what help he had. The ingathering of the animals was supernatural, again, as described in the Bible.

Given your repeated demands for evidence from everybody else and you latching to any old, irrelevant detail to avoid facing up to it when it's given. This kind of totally evidence-free, blind faith, hand-waving myth-peddling is staggeringly hypocritical.

Matthew 7:5

 

[Apostle John]

Yet again for the hard-of-thinking. Almost all mutations are actually neutral with respect to fitness. Beneficial and deleterious ones are much rarer and affect differential reproduction in the way described.

Your unsupported incredulity is worthless.

The figures I gave between harmful (99.999%) and so called beneficial (0.001%) were accurate calculations based on theotretical evidence from an ’expert’ in the field posted by another. Your theory is ridiculous comparing those figures.

 

[ratiocinator]

The figures I gave between harmful (99.999%) and so called beneficial (0.001%) were accurate calculations based on theotretical evidence from an ’expert’ in the field posted by another. Your theory is ridiculous comparing those figures.

If you read the source, it misses out mutations that have no effect, so just quoting that figure is misleading and you are still ignoring the differential reproduction rates that necessarily follow from beneficial and deleterious mutations (obviously some deleterious mutations are fatal, and don't get reproduced at all, many others will drastically reduce reproduction).

Your claim "Your theory is ridiculous comparing those figures." is just an assertion. If you think the figures support it, show your working.

Still waiting for you to address evidence in #1,216.

 

[Apostle John]

I notice you continue to ignore the solid evidence in #1,216.

Every living creature here on earth has DNA. You have no idea where that came from thus your evidence is no good. Comparing the DNA differences between creatures is an in exact science and doesn’t disprove the Creator God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Every living creature here on earth has DNA. You have no idea where that came from thus your evidence is no good. Comparing the DNA differences between creatures is an in exact science and doesn’t disprove the Creator God.

Yeah, it shows that God used biological evolution.