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

[Twilight Hue]

I ask if fish have been noticed recently to be evolving to walk on land entirely.

Might as well include airborne fish into the mix.
They are transitional as well.

Also the webbing between your/our fingers that shows our origins from the ocean before we became a land dwelling species.

If you are looking for examples of fish that now walk on land entirely, you need look no further than ourselves.

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

It may seem strange that humans have evolved from fish but the evidence can be found not just in fossils, but also within our own bodies.

www.bbc.com

 

[Audie]

Might as well include airborne fish into the mix.
They are transitional as well.

Also the webbing between your/our fingers that shows our origins from the ocean before we became a land dwelling species.

The q was "entirely" which of course is
moving goalposts but at least a tacit
admission of error, and that there are fish
rgat are better suited to land than water.

'Entirely" of course is calling on us to
know what a spe is might do in 20 million
years- nobody can so aha gotcha.
A cheap move but, you know.

In the event, there will as things stand be
no more fish- to- amphibian transitions for
the simple reason that someone did it first.

And their descendants are mink, raccoons,
rages, housecats, herons etc.

Ready to gobble any foolish beginner
who might try to take up land dwelling
now, about 3 or 4 hundred million years
late to the party.

ETA That " webbing" bit.
No.
Nononono.

Nonsense.

 

[YoursTrue]

yes evolution can go back. evolution does not have a goal or direction. it is simply what happens when some mutations lead to great reproduction.

A good example of this are dolphins and whales which are mammals that returned to the sea, trading their legs for fins again.

Where is evidence of this?

 

[YoursTrue]

You were given an example.

There is no current transforming that has been noted.

 

[YoursTrue]

because thats the prophecy. Now you can say you don't believe in the prophecies. But you cannot say that the prophecies don't speak of a man.

Why believe that and not what Moses wrote..

 

[YoursTrue]

yes evolution can go back. evolution does not have a goal or direction. it is simply what happens when some mutations lead to great reproduction.

A good example of this are dolphins and whales which are mammals that returned to the sea, trading their legs for fins again.

I'd love to see another person here who believes in the theory of evolution and agrees with you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Where is evidence of this?

All cetaceans have a certain formation in their inner ear that other creatures do not share. We can trace this ear formation back to a four legged land animal where the mutation first occurred, and follow the evolution of that animal through the fossil records to the dolphins and whales we knw today.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/whale_evo.jpg

 

[YoursTrue]

All cetaceans have a certain formation in their inner ear that other creatures do not share. We can trace this ear formation back to a four legged land animal, and follow the evolution of that animal through the fossil records to the dolphins and whales we knw today.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/whale_evo.jpg

Many people believe God had a hand in evolution. Do you believe that as well?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Many people believe God had a hand in evolution. Do you believe that as well?

Either directly or indirectly, I'm not sure which. I often think that natural selection is an insufficient explanation for the diversity of life that we see today. But on the other hand, lets say that evolution is 100% natural. Who was it that created nature, and the laws of nature? So even if its natural, God would be behind it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Either directly or indirectly, I'm not sure which. I often think that natural selection is an insufficient explanation for the diversity of life that we see today. But on the other hand, lets say that evolution is 100% natural. Who was it that created nature, and the laws of nature? So even if its natural, God would be behind it.

I appreciate your answer. But...Moses wrote, and it seems clear to me, that (1) God created the heavens. Because from what I read, even scientists are at a loss to say what really happened "in the beginning." To say something was always there like the substance that blew up (i.e., the Big Bang) and no divine force called God was there before that doesn't make sense to me. Even if scientists and theoretical physicists try to argue that it just happened without an intelligence behind it because of the physics involved, the argument does not make sense to me that something was there without someone to form this. Can we comprehend this? No. Because we know death lurks, and we, you and I, have a beginning. THAT science I believe.

 

[YoursTrue]

Might as well include airborne fish into the mix.
They are transitional as well.

Also the webbing between your/our fingers that shows our origins from the ocean before we became a land dwelling species.

If you are looking for examples of fish that now walk on land entirely, you need look no further than ourselves.

Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish

It may seem strange that humans have evolved from fish but the evidence can be found not just in fossils, but also within our own bodies.

www.bbc.com

So then airborne fish became birds, is that what you're saying?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I appreciate your answer. But...Moses wrote, and it seems clear to me, that (1) God created the heavens. Because from what I read, even scientists are at a loss to say what really happened "in the beginning." To say something was always there like the substance that blew up (i.e., the Big Bang) and no divine force called God was there before that doesn't make sense to me. Even if scientists and theoretical physicists try to argue that it just happened without an intelligence behind it because of the physics involved, the argument does not make sense to me that something was there without someone to form this. Can we comprehend this? No. Because we know death lurks, and we, you and I, have a beginning. THAT science I believe.

There are so many problems with this that I don't even know where to begin. It would take a great many posts to answer every mistake. I'll list just two, and not to argue with you -- our discussion has pretty much closed. But consider that:

1. Moses did not write the Torah. The textual evidence seems to indicate that the Torah is spliced together by four or more authors.

2. Genesis 1 is not history, nor is it science. It is a creation myth. That's not a bad thing -- fiction is often used to teach deeper values. But it means that taking Genesis 1 literally is a huge mistake. You cannot use Genesis 1 to prove how the earth was created anymore than you can use Harry Potter to prove that there is a Diagon Alley in London.

Anyhow, I realize you will continue to believe as you wish, because you are more concerned with defending a literal understanding of a myth than with what evidence actually indicates. That's fine. Be well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I appreciate your answer. But...Moses wrote, and it seems clear to me, that (1) God created the heavens. Because from what I read, even scientists are at a loss to say what really happened "in the beginning." To say something was always there like the substance that blew up (i.e., the Big Bang) and no divine force called God was there before that doesn't make sense to me. Even if scientists and theoretical physicists try to argue that it just happened without an intelligence behind it because of the physics involved, the argument does not make sense to me that something was there without someone to form this. Can we comprehend this? No. Because we know death lurks, and we, you and I, have a beginning. THAT science I believe.

Moses is very fictional. He never wrote anything.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

So, when presented with the exact evidence you'd asked for, what do you do? Wave it away and claim conjecture.
Just be honest here, you're not actually interested in honestly assessing the evidence for evolution, right? That's what your response(s) indicates.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are so many problems with this that I don't even know where to begin. It would take a great many posts to answer every mistake. I'll list just two, and not to argue with you -- our discussion has pretty much closed. But consider that:

1. Moses did not write the Torah. The textual evidence seems to indicate that the Torah is spliced together by four or more authors.

2. Genesis 1 is not history, nor is it science. It is a creation myth. That's not a bad thing -- fiction is often used to teach deeper values. But it means that taking Genesis 1 literally is a huge mistake. You cannot use Genesis 1 to prove how the earth was created anymore than you can use Harry Potter to prove that there is a Diagon Alley in London.

Anyhow, I realize you will continue to believe as you wish, because you are more concerned with defending a literal understanding of a myth than with what evidence actually indicates. That's fine. Be well.

Moses wrote what he wrote and the carriers of the writings copied. And likely put it all together. We know the kings of Israel were supposed to have read the scrolls, they were sacred and contained the "Law." Yes, I will not argue any more with this. I can only guess you don't even believe Moses existed. Such as some Catholics and others don't believe that Moses really existed. I made my decision. (sigh -- and oh, well, have a good day.)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Moses wrote what he wrote and the carriers of the writings copied. And likely put it all together. We know the kings of Israel were supposed to have read the scrolls, they were sacred and contained the "Law." Yes, I will not argue any more with this. I can only guess you don't even believe Moses existed. Such as some Catholics and others don't believe that Moses really existed. I made my decision. (sigh -- and oh, well, have a good day.)

Oh I think Moses existed. The law exists, and so there was a person who is the originator of these laws, at least in their original form. No reason not to call that person, Moses.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are so many problems with this that I don't even know where to begin. It would take a great many posts to answer every mistake. I'll list just two, and not to argue with you -- our discussion has pretty much closed. But consider that:

1. Moses did not write the Torah. The textual evidence seems to indicate that the Torah is spliced together by four or more authors.

2. Genesis 1 is not history, nor is it science. It is a creation myth. That's not a bad thing -- fiction is often used to teach deeper values. But it means that taking Genesis 1 literally is a huge mistake. You cannot use Genesis 1 to prove how the earth was created anymore than you can use Harry Potter to prove that there is a Diagon Alley in London.

Anyhow, I realize you will continue to believe as you wish, because you are more concerned with defending a literal understanding of a myth than with what evidence actually indicates. That's fine. Be well.

Let's figure for a moment that Adam and Eve really existed. (I believe they did, but that's another discussion, so let you pretend they existed as Moses wrote.) On the other hand, let's digress from that for a moment. Do you believe that Moses actually wrote what the Torah (essentially the first 5 books--yes the names of the books were given them later not by Moses, but let's say for the sake of discussion I am going to ask you if you know or think he wrote only some of them, or maybe none of them, or all of them? Some points are clear, such as the fact that he could not have written about his own death as it happened. That is said to have been written by Joshua. But before that, do you really think the scrolls were made up?
I'll tell you this -- it took me a while to accept that the Bible tells the truth, whether in allegory or factual data.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh I think Moses existed. The law exists, and so there was a person who is the originator of these laws, at least in their original form. No reason not to call that person, Moses.

On the other hand, unless Moses was a liar (made things up), the Law of the 10 Commandments were given distinctly by God to him. And just taking Numbers 1:1 it says that Hashem (God Almighty) spoke to Moses and obviously Moses wrote this down. Very, very clear instructions.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

On the other hand, unless Moses was a liar (made things up), the Law of the 10 Commandments were given distinctly by God to him. And just taking Numbers 1:1 it says that Hashem (God Almighty) spoke to Moses and obviously Moses wrote this down. Very, very clear instructions.

Is the Lord of the Rings a lie? No of course not.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is the Lord of the Rings a lie? No of course not.

(Oh boy. Or girl.) So you think it's not a lie, ok. Just a made-up story. OK, got it. Thanks.