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

[ratiocinator]

Is this "family tree" fictional...

Doesn't look obviously so (I don't keep the entire tree of life in my head all the time). Where did it come from?

...was there not for example Ursus minimus?

Yes.

So what has this got to do with your glaring non sequitur?

 

[exchemist]

So, at some point there appeared multiple bears at the same time? Or should I bear in mind that we can't define any species accurately and clearly?


What say you about this:

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth

Scans of Earth's deep interior reveal a vast water reservoir beneath Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

www.livescience.com

It is fascinating how you can believe they have moved.

Me? That's what any modern, scientifically literate person accepts, because of the evidence I referred you to. We see them continuing to move as we speak, by several cm/yr.

A population of creatures increasingly resembling bears appeared over time, from a population of bear-like ancestors.

As for water inside the Earth, yes we know, but it is not free water. I'm a chemist. The water referred to is present as hydrated minerals. Water from the oceans is entrained with subducted crust at the ocean trenches and this water becomes chemically combined with the minerals to form new minerals. This leads to altered mechanical properties of the rocks, hence the effect on seismic waves mentioned in your link, and also tends to lead to minerals with lower melting pints. The lower meltiong point is what explains the volcanies we see behind ocean trenches. Japan is an example. What is interesting in this article is the presence of hydrated minerals relatively far from subduction zones. Later work confirms this is quite general, for example here: There’s as much water in Earth’s mantle as in all the oceans. leading to a reappraisal of the amount ot water locked up in the earth's mantle.

But do not delude yourself that this is free water. It is not. The minerals in which it is present are solid and hard, just not as hard and not as difficult to deform as related anhydrous minerals. Perhaps you remember blue copper sulphate from school. That is CuSO4.5H2O, a hydrated form. You can heat it to drive off some of the water, generating white CuSO4. H2O. But blue copper sulphate is itself a hard solid. The same thing is going on here.

There is no mechanism that can suddenly release all this bound water and then suddenly absorb it all again, if that's what you are thinking. Of course, if you are into miracles, anything is possible - but then why bother with looking for the water in the Earth? God could have poofed the extra water into existence and then poofed it away again.

 

[Apostle John]

Why? What is wrong with that claim? The evidence does indicate that life began naturally.

The science of today has excluded any possibility of there being any life on Mars because only Earth is in the Goldilocks zone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The science of today has excluded any possibility of there being any life on Mars because only Earth is in the Goldilocks zone.

The Goldilocks zone is much larger than you seem to think that it is. And atmospheric carbon plays a huge role. In the past, before Mars's core froze, it would have had a magnetic field and as a result a larger atmosphere.

Don't compare the Mars of today to the Mars in the past. There probably is no life today, but that does not mean that there was not life in the past.

 

[metis]

It is fascinating how you can believe they have moved.

It's a fact that is even common sense as it is a major cause of earthquakes and tsunamis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a fact that is even common sense as it is a major cause of earthquakes and tsunamis.

Well when it comes to earthquakes those are caused by cleavage:

Boobquake - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[metis]

Well when it comes to earthquakes those are caused by cleavage:

Boobquake - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh, and I've seen some killer boobs over the years!

 

[Apostle John]

The Goldilocks zone is much larger than you seem to think that it is. And atmospheric carbon plays a huge role. In the past, before Mars's core froze, it would have had a magnetic field and as a result a larger atmosphere.

Don't compare the Mars of today to the Mars in the past. There probably is no life today, but that does not mean that there was not life in the past.

The definition I use for the Goldilocks Zone is where the temperature of a planet is just right for water in liquid form to be present making it habitable all over it, not your definition. The rest of your post is pure conjecture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The definition I use for the Goldilocks Zone is where the temperature of a planet is just right for water in liquid form to be present making it habitable all over it, not your definition. The rest of your post is pure conjecture.

Really? What part of my post was conjecture? Do you not understand the Ninth Commandment? The Ninth Commandment tells you not to bear false witness against your neighbor. That means if you say something about someone else that is false you have broken that commandment. And it appears that your claim is very false since none of what I posted was conjecture. Now you may not understand the evidence. That is fine. There is no biblical law that says that you have to be scientifically literate. But it does tell you that you need to be able to support your claims when you attack others. What part of my post did you not understand? Do you not understand the effect of carbon dioxide and how it can trap heat? We have a massive example of it in your Solar System. Venus has a much higher average temperature than Mercury, yet Mercury is much closer to the Sun. It is explained perfectly but the Greenhouse Effect. Do you not know that the Solar System is billions of years old? I can explain how we know that. Again, you may not understand the concepts because you do appear to be rather scientifically illiterate. but that does not mean that they are wrong. Worse yet the fact that I can support and explain my claims means that by definition they are not "conjecture".

It is foolish to accuse others in a way that puts the burden of proof upon you. You do that quite often. But as a Christian it is even worse to regularly break on of the Ten Commandments. Many Christians that do not understand their own book of myths think that it is just a Commandment banning lying. But it does not ban lying at all. It bans "bearing false witness against thy neighbor". And that is stating false things about them as if they were factual. One can even believe those claims. That is still "bearing false witness".

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

What THAT I agree with you, after investigating their ideas and so-called facts.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I've listened to and heard your arguments. Your meaning plural particularly about those upholding the theory, dates, and conclusions. I have, upon investigation, come to the conclusion that the majority of scientific conclusions about evolution are not true. Anyway, have a nice day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've listened to and heard your arguments. Your meaning plural particularly about those upholding the theory, dates, and conclusions. I have, upon investigation, come to the conclusion that the majority of scientific conclusions about evolution are not true. Anyway, have a nice day.

And yet you can never ever justify your supposed 'reasoning". It is rather clear to everyone else rather than reasoning you decided to go with the teaching of a cult. There are definitely some forms of Christianity that are very cultic in their behavior. When one has to deny reality and call one's own God a liar that is a very good sign that one is in a cult.

 

[ratiocinator]

I have, upon investigation, come to the conclusion that the majority of scientific conclusions about evolution are not true. Anyway, have a nice day.

Odd how pretty much every creationist says this (with very rare, honest exceptions: The truth about evolution) and none of them can supply any justification at all that isn't full of obvious holes, misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and falsehoods.

 

[exchemist]

I've listened to and heard your arguments. Your meaning plural particularly about those upholding the theory, dates, and conclusions. I have, upon investigation, come to the conclusion that the majority of scientific conclusions about evolution are not true. Anyway, have a nice day.

....thus demonstrating the accuracy of the surmise in my last paragraph.

In the end it's up to you, of course. No one can tell you what to think. Just don't pretend, in public discussion, that there is any justification for your view in the scientific evidence. Because there isn't, and that will be pointed out remorselessly.

 

[1213]

So what has this got to do with your glaring non sequitur?

All of them (Ursus minimus) have basically same genetic variation. If genetic variation of two would not survive, how could they survive and lead to many new bear "species"?

 

[ratiocinator]

All of them (Ursus minimus) have basically same genetic variation. If genetic variation of two would not survive, how could they survive and lead to many new bear "species"?

When you reduce a population to two, the entire gene pool of the species is reduced to those two individuals. When a new genetic mutation arises, the gene pool is pretty much unaltered. All the variation across all the genes is the same. If the mutation is advantageous, then it will spread in the next generation and each subsequent one, but there is no restriction on breading. The next generation isn't forced to mate with their siblings, there no bottleneck of overall variation. The mutation will just crop up more and more often amongst all the existing variations, probably acquiring variations of its own on the way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All of them (Ursus minimus) have basically same genetic variation. If genetic variation of two would not survive, how could they survive and lead to many new bear "species"?

Small populations can easily go extinct. Excessive inbreeding leads to a concentration of negative traits. It is also detectable in a species wide genome. Cheetahs are a very good example of this. Due to a severe population bottleneck, that is an event where the number of breeding animals drops off for some reason, the few remaining ones can only have the genetic information of their parents. For the cheetahs it got so bad that scientists think that there were less than ten breeding animals at one point abut 10,000 years ago. As a result any two cheetahs are more closely related to each other than you are to your own brother or sister. It give reproduction a whole new "Eeew!" factor. But also as a result organ transplants with cheetahs are dead easy. If the flood myth were real organ transplants would be simple.

 

[YoursTrue]

Really? What part of my post was conjecture? Do you not understand the Ninth Commandment? The Ninth Commandment tells you not to bear false witness against your neighbor. That means if you say something about someone else that is false you have broken that commandment. And it appears that your claim is very false since none of what I posted was conjecture. Now you may not understand the evidence. That is fine. There is no biblical law that says that you have to be scientifically literate. But it does tell you that you need to be able to support your claims when you attack others. What part of my post did you not understand? Do you not understand the effect of carbon dioxide and how it can trap heat? We have a massive example of it in your Solar System. Venus has a much higher average temperature than Mercury, yet Mercury is much closer to the Sun. It is explained perfectly but the Greenhouse Effect. Do you not know that the Solar System is billions of years old? I can explain how we know that. Again, you may not understand the concepts because you do appear to be rather scientifically illiterate. but that does not mean that they are wrong. Worse yet the fact that I can support and explain my claims means that by definition they are not "conjecture".

It is foolish to accuse others in a way that puts the burden of proof upon you. You do that quite often. But as a Christian it is even worse to regularly break on of the Ten Commandments. Many Christians that do not understand their own book of myths think that it is just a Commandment banning lying. But it does not ban lying at all. It bans "bearing false witness against thy neighbor". And that is stating false things about them as if they were factual. One can even believe those claims. That is still "bearing false witness".

You keep bringing up the "Ninth Commandment," yet you keep saying the Bible is not true. So which is it? You keep saying the Bible is not true, then you quote the Bible as if it is true.

 

[YoursTrue]

Small populations can easily go extinct. Excessive inbreeding leads to a concentration of negative traits. It is also detectable in a species wide genome. Cheetahs are a very good example of this. Due to a severe population bottleneck, that is an event where the number of breeding animals drops off for some reason, the few remaining ones can only have the genetic information of their parents. For the cheetahs it got so bad that scientists think that there were less than ten breeding animals at one point abut 10,000 years ago. As a result any two cheetahs are more closely related to each other than you are to your own brother or sister. It give reproduction a whole new "Eeew!" factor. But also as a result organ transplants with cheetahs are dead easy. If the flood myth were real organ transplants would be simple.

Stop using the Ninth Commandment as if you believe it. Then you testify against the Bible account of the flood. Either you believe the "Ninth Commandment" came from God, or you don't believe it came from God. If you don't believe in "God," then stop using that commandment as if you adhere to it, and/or believe it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Small populations can easily go extinct. Excessive inbreeding leads to a concentration of negative traits. It is also detectable in a species wide genome. Cheetahs are a very good example of this. Due to a severe population bottleneck, that is an event where the number of breeding animals drops off for some reason, the few remaining ones can only have the genetic information of their parents. For the cheetahs it got so bad that scientists think that there were less than ten breeding animals at one point abut 10,000 years ago. As a result any two cheetahs are more closely related to each other than you are to your own brother or sister. It give reproduction a whole new "Eeew!" factor. But also as a result organ transplants with cheetahs are dead easy. If the flood myth were real organ transplants would be simple.

Speaking of small populations, how big was the population of "homo sapiens" when they began procreating from another type of population? Do you know? Or can you guess.