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

[metis]

the Bible is not a book of science.

Exactly!!! But realize that you are trying to make it a "book of science" when you negate what the scientific research clearly shows, namely that things change over time, and that includes land masses and life itself.

Going back in the mid 1900's, the world's foremost expert on Homo erectus was Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and if an early H.e. walked down the street and you saw him/her, your eyes would likely get wide open in a hurry. And yet at their time, no humans have ever been found that look like us humans today.

A survey I saw about 30 or so years ago of Christian theologians had it that roughly 70% of them agreed that the basic ToE does not go against scripture. However, unfortunate many of them could talk about it with their congregation in fundamentalist churches especially, and that includes the church I grew up in. The first time I ran across the concept that they don't conflict from someone in the clergy was a Catholic priest I ran across at a local bowling alley.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exactly!!! But realize that you are trying to make it a "book of science" when you negate what the scientific research clearly shows, namely that things change over time, and that includes land masses and life itself.

Going back in the mid 1900's, the world's foremost expert on Homo erectus was Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and if an early H.e. walked down the street and you saw him/her, your eyes would likely get wide open in a hurry. And yet at their time, no humans have ever been found that look like us humans today.

A survey I saw about 30 or so years ago of Christian theologians had it that roughly 70% of them agreed that the basic ToE does not go against scripture. However, unfortunate many of them could talk about it with their congregation in fundamentalist churches especially, and that includes the church I grew up in. The first time I ran across the concept that they don't conflict from someone in the clergy was a Catholic priest I ran across at a local bowling alley.

You are asking me in essence to believe that God perhaps (or definitely) used the process of natural selection unfolding from whatever started the process via abiogenesis? Or maybe not asking me, but saying that's what you and of course many others believe because it seems that's how it really happened, is that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Exactly!!! But realize that you are trying to make it a "book of science" when you negate what the scientific research clearly shows, namely that things change over time, and that includes land masses and life itself.

Going back in the mid 1900's, the world's foremost expert on Homo erectus was Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and if an early H.e. walked down the street and you saw him/her, your eyes would likely get wide open in a hurry. And yet at their time, no humans have ever been found that look like us humans today.

A survey I saw about 30 or so years ago of Christian theologians had it that roughly 70% of them agreed that the basic ToE does not go against scripture. However, unfortunate many of them could talk about it with their congregation in fundamentalist churches especially, and that includes the church I grew up in. The first time I ran across the concept that they don't conflict from someone in the clergy was a Catholic priest I ran across at a local bowling alley.

Furthermore, I have come to question the process of discovery and the putting together of skin on bones--fossil bones that is. And the dating process. So in essence, I did not grow up in a fundamentalist church, yet had no reason in my later early adult years to disbelieve the ideas presented to me by men. By men I mean current scientific conclusions at the time. I appreciate the writings of scientists who examine cell structure and other things, but once I see 40,000 years ago and ideas that fish evolved flaps to walk on land and eventually became land rovers, I'm outta there. Because...they say these things as if they're true, but yes, there truly is nothing but conjecture to support the theory, even if they base the conclusion by evidence of fossils.
Ok this is long so I'll stop here.

 

[YoursTrue]

@metis which is why I said how beautiful the blue is of the sky and the white clouds as well.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You are asking me in essence to believe that God perhaps (or definitely) used the process of natural selection unfolding from whatever started the process via abiogenesis? Or maybe not asking me, but saying that's what you and of course many others believe because it seems that's how it really happened, is that right?

Because God is the author of nature and the laws of nature, anything that happens naturally is by extension his hand. Therefore, since we know that life evolved, we can safely say that evolution is God's tool.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are asking me in essence to believe that God perhaps (or definitely) used the process of natural selection unfolding from whatever started the process via abiogenesis? Or maybe not asking me, but saying that's what you and of course many others believe because it seems that's how it really happened, is that right?

It is not what we "believe". It is what we know. You have mere beliefs. You cannot support your claims properly with reliable evidence. We can when it comes to the fact of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Furthermore, I have come to question the process of discovery and the putting together of skin on bones--fossil bones that is. And the dating process. So in essence, I did not grow up in a fundamentalist church, yet had no reason in my later early adult years to disbelieve the ideas presented to me by men. By men I mean current scientific conclusions at the time. I appreciate the writings of scientists who examine cell structure and other things, but once I see 40,000 years ago and ideas that fish evolved flaps to walk on land and eventually became land rovers, I'm outta there. Because...they say these things as if they're true, but yes, there truly is nothing but conjecture to support the theory, even if they base the conclusion by evidence of fossils.
Ok this is long so I'll stop here.

You have not been able to justify those "questions". All you could do was to demonstrate that you did not understand the process.

When you do not understand a fact you should be asking questions. You should not be desperately scrambling for reasons not to believe. Like it or not, when you try to claim that Genesis is true you are claiming that God is a liar.

 

[ratiocinator]

but once I see 40,000 years ago and ideas that fish evolved flaps to walk on land and eventually became land rovers, I'm outta there. Because...they say these things as if they're true, but yes, there truly is nothing but conjecture to support the theory, even if they base the conclusion by evidence of fossils.

Calling it 'conjecture' is basically bearing false witness. The evidence is way beyond reasonable doubt and not just from fossils.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

but once I see 40,000 years ago and ideas that fish evolved flaps to walk on land and eventually became land rovers, I'm outta there.

Mudskippers are fish that can walk on land. They even climb trees. They breath both air and water. They are not amphibians. They are fish that are not quite yet evolved into fully being land animals.

 

[Audie]

Calling it 'conjecture' is basically bearing false witness. The evidence is way beyond reasonable doubt and not just from fossils.

Unaware that the easiest to fool ( lie to) is himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unaware that the easiest to fool ( lie to) is himself.

Herself, in this case, but otherwise correct.

 

[Audie]

Mudskippers are fish that can walk on land. They even climb trees. They breath both air and water. They are not amphibians. They are fish that are not quite yet evolved into fully being land animals.

Actual ancestral tetrapods of course had pelvic fins.

 

[YoursTrue]

Mudskippers are fish that can walk on land. They even climb trees. They breath both air and water. They are not amphibians. They are fish that are not quite yet evolved into fully being land animals.

You really only figure they evolved. You don't know that. It is presumed they evolved. Or -- what?

 

[YoursTrue]

Because God is the author of nature and the laws of nature, anything that happens naturally is by extension his hand. Therefore, since we know that life evolved, we can safely say that evolution is God's tool.

Whether evolution occurs within certain parameters is certainly possible. But there is nothing to ascertain that fish evolved to become apes. And given the uniqueness of mankind vs. the qualities of lions, fish, monkeys (they are all unique, but -- mankind is a vastly different way of thinking and performing) it makes sense now (to me) that they were created as the Bible states. With thee qualities God ordained in them. Although since Adam and Eve they have vastly misused these qualities. Yet many claim to be waiting for a messiah for some reason. Maybe some think he'll evolve also?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You really only figure they evolved. You don't know that. It is presumed they evolved. Or -- what?

Just saying, there's an example of a walking fish, which you seemed to imply that none ever existed.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Whether evolution occurs within certain parameters is certainly possible. But there is nothing to ascertain that fish evolved to become apes.

All life evolved from pond scum. Fish were simply a step along the way.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just saying, there's an example of a walking fish, which you seemed to imply that none ever existed.

I'm not claiming a "walking fish" doesn't exist. I am saying there is not a shred of 'evidence' that it evolved. So far sharks remain sharks, salmon remain salmon, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

All life evolved from pond scum. Fish were simply a step along the way.

So you say, and of course many scientists and people say that as well. There is not much beyond conjecture about that. Now I wonder why some actually hope for or think a messiah will appear unless a messiah will evolve too by "natural selection" you think? Do you think or believe God is involved with the process of natural selection, or evolution?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not claiming a "walking fish" doesn't exist. I am saying there is not a shred of 'evidence' that it evolved. So far sharks remain sharks, salmon remain salmon, etc.

And how did a fish come to walk on land if it didn't evolve? Do fish normally walk on land?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So you say, and of course many scientists and people say that as well. There is not much beyond conjecture about that. Now I wonder why some actually hope for or think a messiah will appear unless a messiah will evolve too by "natural selection" you think? Do you think or believe God is involved with the process of natural selection, or evolution?

Well the messiah, when he comes, will be a man. Not sure what that has to do with evolution. It's not like the messiah is chosen because of natural selection. He is the messiah because he fulfills the messianic prophecies.