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

[Muffled]

Adam and Eve "suddenly appear" in ancient history as 2 full grown educated adults.
They had been educated in what Gods will was for them on earth.
The previously fallen "crafty beast" or devil or Satan speaks their language, he knows what they were taught.
Eve and then Adam sinned, lost the use of the tree of life. They eventually die.
Cain fears the outside world becuse its already populated.

Each time the Israelites rewrote the story they left little hints about what was there previously.

I believe saying that Adam and Eve were extra-terrestrial because they were educated adults is an assumption not a deduction. The text says they were created.

 

[Muffled]

Evolution has been demonstrated. Your inability to understand it does not mean that others have nor fulfilled their burden of proof.

You probably do not. In the exact same way the differences between offspring and their parents is evidence for evolution. Those examples are only a small part of the evidence for both. But dropping something does not even begin to explain Newtonian gravity much less General Relativity. In the same way the differences between parents and their offspring does not even explain speciation. To "demonstrate" evolution one needs to look more deeply into all of the evidence. If you refuse to learn what evidence is and how it works no one will be able to demonstrate it to you, but that would be your fault. Not theirs.

I have never seen a demonstration. All I have seen are claims. So you claim genetic changes guarantee speciation? On what basis? It sounds like an imagination to me.

 

[Muffled]

It's been demonstrated by multiple independent groups of scientists across multiple independent fields of science over the last 160+ years. It's the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence. Evolution is the backbone of biology.
How did you miss all that?

I believe I did my studies before the scientific world went daft. I have demonstrated that there is God but not to anyone but myself. Isn't that just as good as scientists demonstrating evolution to themselves?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe I did my studies before the scientific world went daft. I have demonstrated that there is God but not to anyone but myself. Isn't that just as good as scientists demonstrating evolution to themselves?

Scientists demonstrate evolution to everyone. I would say that unverifiable personal experiences are quite inferior to the scientific method in terms of demonstrating the facts of reality.

 

[Colt]

I believe saying that Adam and Eve were extra-terrestrial because they were educated adults is an assumption not a deduction. The text says they were created.

Well, they were "materialized." But since the Israelites were writing long after these ancient transactions, they didn't understand how they came into being.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have never seen a demonstration. All I have seen are claims. So you claim genetic changes guarantee speciation? On what basis? It sounds like an imagination to me.

As the saying goes "None are so blind as those that will not see." It does not matter what you see, it matters what honest people that are not afraid can see. There will always be those that cannot handle reality. If your faith in God is strong it should not matter to you how life came about.

And it is of course the evidence that demonstrates evolution, but you are probably too afraid to even learn what counts as evidence and why.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I did my studies before the scientific world went daft. I have demonstrated that there is God but not to anyone but myself. Isn't that just as good as scientists demonstrating evolution to themselves?

No, it is not. Muslims have "demonstrated" that their god exists to themselves. Hindus have demonstrated that their god exists to themselves. Members of every sect that believes in a god has done that for themselves. And yet the all are contradictory to each other. That is nowhere near "just as good". Scientists can demonstrate evolution to any rational and honest person. That is why 99% of scientists accept the theory. And scientists are just as contentious as other human beings with the exception that they are willing to be honest when it comes to the sciences.

 

[YoursTrue]

Beneficial ones (those that aid survival and reproduction in the environment) accumulate in the population over generations. Deleterious ones (those that reduce the chances of survival and reproduction in the environment) die out. Basic, obvious, simple natural selection.


So what? You are making claims that clearly contradict the evidence. Unless you have something better than your blind belief, it really isn't going to convince anybody else.

There is no scientific reason that holds validity that supports your doctrine, i.e., that it didn't happen. Tectonics and underwater springs also support the fact that there was a great flood. I believe God made the blue skies and beautiful fluffy white-ish clouds for our enjoyment. I also believe we were not made to die, and it makes sense to me that we die because of the curse put on Adam and Eve. I have come to the conclusion that science does not prove the theory of evolution, yes -- I know -- science doesn't prove anything, right? And the specimens of fossils, also dating, does not support the theory. I used to believe it did, I no longer do. Anyway, have an nice evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are forgetting that people are the result of evolution. Not a magical spell. Death occurred from almost the beginning of life. Not because a bimbo ate an apple.

I am surprised you say apple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am surprised you say apple.

Though the Bible gives no clue to the magical fruit (hmm, beans technically are a fruit) in lighthearted commentaries it is often referred to as "the apple". You should not take some parts of posts too seriously.

 

[metis]

Tectonics and underwater springs also support the fact that there was a great flood.

Not at all as the experts on this will tell us.

I believe God made the blue skies and beautiful fluffy white-ish clouds for our enjoyment

Agree, but the question is how God did it, and the Creation accounts are really about some important teachings with basic Judaism? So many insist on literalism but miss these basics as I have seen over and over again. It's the ancient art of storytelling, so a literalistic approach doesn't make much sense and often obscures the basic beliefs of Jews and, later, Christians.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no scientific reason that holds validity that supports your doctrine

I don't have a doctrine. I was talking about a scientific theory that has vast amounts of supporting evidence.

Tectonics and underwater springs also support the fact that there was a great flood.

What a bizarre and rather absurd statement. Reasoning?

I believe God made the blue skies and beautiful fluffy white-ish clouds for our enjoyment. I also believe we were not made to die, and it makes sense to me that we die because of the curse put on Adam and Eve.

Makes sense? The Adam and Eve myth makes the god character unjust, evil, and vindictive.

I have come to the conclusion that science does not prove the theory of evolution, yes -- I know -- science doesn't prove anything, right?

No, it doesn't. However, the supporting evidence is way beyond the legal sense of 'proved' (beyond reasonable doubt).

And the specimens of fossils, also dating, does not support the theory.

Untrue.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There is no scientific reason that holds validity that supports your doctrine, i.e., that it didn't happen. Tectonics and underwater springs also support the fact that there was a great flood. I believe God made the blue skies and beautiful fluffy white-ish clouds for our enjoyment. I also believe we were not made to die, and it makes sense to me that we die because of the curse put on Adam and Eve. I have come to the conclusion that science does not prove the theory of evolution, yes -- I know -- science doesn't prove anything, right? And the specimens of fossils, also dating, does not support the theory. I used to believe it did, I no longer do. Anyway, have an nice evening.

Actually, it is the positive statement that requires evidence. You cannot prove a negative. If your suggestion is that there was a global flood, then it is incumbent on you to show adequate evidence. But none exists. For example, if there had been a global flood, there would be a single layer of silt that you could find everywhere in the world. There's not.

There is no evidence that there were ever huge springs under ground that broke open. Its just an idea that someone imagined without evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, it is the positive statement that requires evidence. You cannot prove a negative. If your suggestion is that there was a global flood, then it is incumbent on you to show adequate evidence. But none exists. For example, if there had been a global flood, there would be a single layer of silt that you could find everywhere in the world. There's not.

There is no evidence that there were ever huge springs under ground that broke open. Its just an idea that someone imagined without evidence.

I read different. God can do anything anyway, so no need to wonder about "natural occurrences." Hey, have a good one. At this point, I realize nothing anyone says contrary to your belief will make a difference, but here is some report anyway about underground springs. Springs and the Water Cycle | U.S. Geological Survey

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, it is the positive statement that requires evidence. You cannot prove a negative. If your suggestion is that there was a global flood, then it is incumbent on you to show adequate evidence. But none exists. For example, if there had been a global flood, there would be a single layer of silt that you could find everywhere in the world. There's not.

There is no evidence that there were ever huge springs under ground that broke open. Its just an idea that someone imagined without evidence.

Hey look, you don't have to believe the Bible. No one is forcing you. Maybe you don't believe Moses existed as written either. or David. Or Samuel. Or any of those recorded.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not at all as the experts on this will tell us.

Agree, but the question is how God did it, and the Creation accounts are really about some important teachings with basic Judaism? So many insist on literalism but miss these basics as I have seen over and over again. It's the ancient art of storytelling, so a literalistic approach doesn't make much sense and often obscures the basic beliefs of Jews and, later, Christians.

Thank you, Metis. I do understand to an extent the theory of evolution. I say 'to an extent' because I don't think that even the most scholarly scientists understand it in the long run, although they attempt to explain it. I've read the surmises. Such as: many eons had to take place to perform what we say must have happened. And science certainly plays an important place in humankind. But -- the Bible is not a book of science. Frankly, the book of Job explains God's position to Job about questioning some things. Do i understand everything? No. But do I think science can explain how the earth (blue skies and all) came about as if these things, including birds as well as bees, came about by natural selection? Not anymore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read different. God can do anything anyway, so no need to wonder about "natural occurrences." Hey, have a good one. At this point, I realize nothing anyone says contrary to your belief will make a difference, but here is some report anyway about underground springs. Springs and the Water Cycle | U.S. Geological Survey

That does not help. Even if all of the ground water magically left where it is it would not be nearly enough to flood the Earth. You need about five miles of water.

There are about 5.6 million cubic miles of ground water on the Earth:

Groundwater Storage and the Water Cycle | U.S. Geological Survey

The ground stores huge amounts of water and it exists to some degree no matter where on Earth you are. Lucky for people, in many places the water exists in quantities and at depths that wells can be drilled into the water-bearing aquifers and withdrawn to server the many needs people have.

www.usgs.gov

That sounds like a lot. But to see how much water that is if it all came to the surface you need to divide that figure by the surface area of the Earth. And that is:

196.9 million square miles.

What is the Surface Area of the Earth?

Compared to other Solar planets, Earth is kind of average. And given its shape, determining its surface area is a but complicated.

www.universetoday.com

You should be able to see already that that is not enough. But let's do the math anyway.

5.6 million mi^3/196.9 million mi^2 = .02844 miles. Let's change that to feet. Multiply by 5280 and you get:

150 feet. Not even enough to cover the low hills. Remember, Everest is roughly 5 miles tall. You fell just a little bit short.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you, Metis. I do understand to an extent the theory of evolution. I say 'to an extent' because I don't think that even the most scholarly scientists understand it in the long run, although they attempt to explain it. I've read the surmises. Such as: many eons had to take place to perform what we say must have happened. And science certainly plays an important place in humankind. But -- the Bible is not a book of science. Frankly, the book of Job explains God's position to Job about questioning some things. Do i understand everything? No. But do I think science can explain how the earth (blue skies and all) came about as if these things, including birds as well as bees, came about by natural selection? Not anymore.

Your understanding o it is almost zero. You should be aware of the Dunning Kruger Effect. When it comes to evolution you are in the top let part of this graph:

The Dunning Kruger Effect is the tendency of people with almost no knowledge of a concept to think that they know more than the experts. I need to remind you that you keep demonstrating that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. That puts your knowledge level very close to "None".

 

[YoursTrue]

Not at all as the experts on this will tell us.

Agree, but the question is how God did it, and the Creation accounts are really about some important teachings with basic Judaism? So many insist on literalism but miss these basics as I have seen over and over again. It's the ancient art of storytelling, so a literalistic approach doesn't make much sense and often obscures the basic beliefs of Jews and, later, Christians.

The point is that there are underground springs I read about that have recently been discovered. And of course were known for quite a while.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The point is that there are underground springs I read about that have recently been discovered. And of course were known for quite a while.

Now you are merely grasping at straws. You cannot count the "hits" if you do not count the misses. I will grant this hit if you agree to count all of the misses as well,