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

[ratiocinator]

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.

Hand-waving evasion. The origin of DNA is totally irrelevant. It gives absolutely specific instances of broken genes shared between different species in such a way that shows their relatedness. What is your alternative explanation? Apart from those, why have humans got the remains of an egg yoke production gene?

If these species are individual creations, the creator has gone to a great deal of trouble to make it look exactly like they evolved from a common ancestor. You are calling your god a liar again.

 

[Apostle John]

Hand-waving evasion. The origin of DNA is totally irrelevant. It gives absolutely specific instances of broken genes shared between different species in such a way that shows their relatedness. What is your alternative explanation? Apart from those, why have humans got the remains of an egg yoke production gene?

If these species are individual creations, the creator has gone to a great deal of trouble to make it look exactly like they evolved from a common ancestor. You are calling your god a liar again.

It’s an assertion on your part ToE is right. Humans haven’t got the remains of an egg production gene, this part of human DNA is just different that’s all. The origin of DNA is of fundamental importance to understanding where life comes from. It is mathematically impossible for DNA to make itself over billions of years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s an assertion on your part ToE is right. Humans haven’t got the remains of an egg production gene, this part of human DNA is just different that’s all. The origin of DNA is of fundamental importance to understanding where life comes from. It is mathematically impossible for DNA to make itself over billions of years.

Really? And how are you going to prove that claim? As far as DNA changing and new genes arising we do have a very good explanation for that. If you are claiming that DNA could not make itself to start with that would be correct. But that is now how scientists claim that life arose. You may want to Google the "RNA world hypothesis". It is most likely that the original genetic code was in RNA. RNA can arise naturally. And RNA can make DNA.

 

[Apostle John]

If you are claiming that DNA could not make itself to start with that would be correct.

I’d love to see that demonstrated lol.

 

[ratiocinator]

It’s an assertion on your part ToE is right.

Nope, there is endless evidence that you're just ignoring.

Humans haven’t got the remains of an egg production gene, this part of human DNA is just different that’s all.

So this (and all the thousands of other examples) and the fact that the broken olfactory receptor genes indicate exactly the same evolutionary relationships between species that we deduced from other, independent evidence, are huge coincidenceses?

Sorry but that lacks all credibility. You latch on to the tiniest perceived or simply made up 'flaw' in any of the evidence for evolution and then expect us to swallow this garbage without question?

The origin of DNA is of fundamental importance to understanding where life comes from.

And is still irrelevant to the evidence for subsequent evolution.

 

[Apostle John]

So this (and all the thousands of other examples) and the fact that the broken olfactory receptor genes indicate exactly the same evolutionary relationships between species that we deduced from other, independent evidence, are huge coincidenceses?

Yes and point to design and a Creator.

 

[Apostle John]

RNA can arise naturally.

No it does not and never has.

 

[Apostle John]

You may want to Google the "RNA world hypothesis". It is most likely that the original genetic code was in RNA. RNA can arise naturally. And RNA can make DNA.

Organic synthesis is something I know about. It is amazing the number of academics that actually (may) believe this can happen randomly in nature. I read one worked on one of the smaller molecules a year after I left the same department in Manchester. Thankfully I found God later having left that collective thinking that ‘nature can make itself’ madness behind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Organic synthesis is something I know about. It is amazing the number of academics that actually (may) believe this can happen randomly in nature. I read one worked on one of the smaller molecules a year after I left the same department in Manchester. Thankfully I found God later having left that collective thinking that ‘nature can make itself’ madness behind.

I doubt if you know much about it at all since no one believes that it happened "randomly. A strawman argument is the first sign that a person does not understand what he is arguing against.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Organic synthesis is something I know about. It is amazing the number of academics that actually (may) believe this can happen randomly in nature. I read one worked on one of the smaller molecules a year after I left the same department in Manchester. Thankfully I found God later having left that collective thinking that ‘nature can make itself’ madness behind.

And neither the theory of evolution, nor the fact of evolution, rely on natural abiogenesis. What you just did was a Moving the Goalposts Fallacy. It is a tacit admission that the points that you were arguing against earlier were right. Evolution deals with life after it first existed. Evolution happened regardless if the cause of life was natural abiogenesis, aliens from outer space seeding the planet. or even a magical sky daddy poofing the first life into existence. It is a bad strategy to bring up abiogenesis if one is arguing evolution unless one wants to concede the argument.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes and point to design and a Creator.

Calling your god a liar again!

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it does not and never has.

Another claim of yours that you need to substantiate. You have to learn how to debate. At this point I can say "prove it" and when you fail you lose. Your argument only looks like so much hot air. But I feel generous since you have not learned from your errors yet.

You are, as usual, wrong:

Scientists announce a breakthrough in determining life's origin on Earth—and maybe Mars

Scientists at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution announced today that ribonucleic acid (RNA), an analog of DNA that was likely the first genetic material for life, spontaneously forms on basalt lava glass. Such glass was abundant on Earth 4.35 billion years ago. Similar basalts of...

phys.org

 

[Apostle John]

Another claim of yours that you need to substantiate. You have to learn how to debate. At this point I can say "prove it" and when you fail you lose. Your argument only looks like so much hot air. But I feel generous since you have not learned from your errors yet.

You are, as usual, wrong:

Scientists announce a breakthrough in determining life's origin on Earth—and maybe Mars

Scientists at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution announced today that ribonucleic acid (RNA), an analog of DNA that was likely the first genetic material for life, spontaneously forms on basalt lava glass. Such glass was abundant on Earth 4.35 billion years ago. Similar basalts of...

phys.org

Small molecules are inanimate, as inanimate as Lego pieces. Have Lego pieces ever been observed to self assemble, even ‘mix‘ under their own volition? Try spending some considerable time critically thinking about that.

 

[Apostle John]

Another claim of yours that you need to substantiate. You have to learn how to debate. At this point I can say "prove it" and when you fail you lose. Your argument only looks like so much hot air. But I feel generous since you have not learned from your errors yet.

You are, as usual, wrong:

Scientists announce a breakthrough in determining life's origin on Earth—and maybe Mars

Scientists at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution announced today that ribonucleic acid (RNA), an analog of DNA that was likely the first genetic material for life, spontaneously forms on basalt lava glass. Such glass was abundant on Earth 4.35 billion years ago. Similar basalts of...

phys.org

Furthermore the article ends with this:

"If life emerged on Earth via this simple path, then it also likely emerged on Mars," said Benner. "This makes it even more important to seek life on Mars as soon as we can."

Is it genuine or bogus. They sound mentally ill also.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Small molecules are inanimate, as inanimate as Lego pieces. Have Lego pieces ever been observed to self assemble, even ‘mix‘ under their own volition? Try spending some considerable time critically thinking about that.

Sorry, you need to address your failures before asking questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Furthermore the article ends with this:

"If life emerged on Earth via this simple path, then it also likely emerged on Mars," said Benner. "This makes it even more important to seek life on Mars as soon as we can."

Is it genuine or bogus. They sound mentally ill also.

Why? What is wrong with that claim? The evidence does indicate that life began naturally. There is no evidence for a magical sky daddy starting off life.

Once again you need more than empty claims. You may have been able to work on chemistry a bit at one time in your life, but that ability is likely gone now.

 

[Apostle John]

Why? What is wrong with that claim? The evidence does indicate that life began naturally. There is no evidence for a magical sky daddy starting off life.

Once again you need more than empty claims. You may have been able to work on chemistry a bit at one time in your life, but that ability is likely gone now.

I wondered if it was bogus because of how the whole thing read but then noticed the links leading to more information. There’s major caveats with it not least the issue of homochirality which is big let alone the lifelessness of the precise small molecules needed to begin with. It is a very abstract idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wondered if it was bogus because of how the whole thing read but then noticed the links leading to more information. There’s major caveats with it not least the issue of homochirality which is big let alone the lifelessness of the precise small molecules needed to begin with. It is a very abstract idea.

Once again we were only discussing RNA. Until you deal with your earlier failures and own up to them I am not discussing other aspects of abiogenesis that you are ignorant about.

 

[Apostle John]

Once again we were only discussing RNA. Until you deal with your earlier failures and own up to them I am not discussing other aspects of abiogenesis that you are ignorant about.

It’s funny how God has got atheists looking back retrospectively from what He has made for their supposed natural answers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You haven’t added to anything to my responses.

Your responses are irrelevant to the posts you are replying to.
As said, all I can do is repeat myself until it sinks in.

But I predict it will never sink in. Your psychological defenses don't allow for that to happen.