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

[IndigoChild5559]

Of course it was. It was a controlled event. God caused the Deluge.

You’re Jewish, right? You don’t think your God is powerful enough?
Amazing.
I guess i should not be surprised…

The evidence is there, though. For what we find.

I hear arguments like, “Why wasn’t the vegetation ruined?”
(Is that what God wanted to do, to kill the vegetation?)

Or, “How could the wooden Ark withstand such pressures?”
(So God tells Noah to build the Ark, but then He’s too weak to protect it and it’s inhabitants?)

He did what He wanted to do.

Do you know why God made it a global event?
It has to do with “the sons of God” taking “all whom they chose”, in Genesis 6:1-4.
And the repercussions that
resulted.

Best wishes, my cousin.

Again, you are approaching things from the point of view that its in the bible, and needs to be taken literally, therefore X. I am not coming from that at all. In my world, the bible contains many different genres, including fiction, such as legends. It is a terrible idea to take a legend to be history. If you want to know history, you approach things from a more scientific mindset. And quite frankly, there is no scientific evidence for global flood. Local floods, sure. But nothing global.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It does? How?

We could touch on dozens of different lines of evidence, but lets look at just one. If there were a global flood, there would be a geological strata of silt all around the world. There isn't. It simply doesn't exist.

 

[shunyadragon]

How does the Flood “massively” negate our current understanding of geology? I can think of only one way.

It does? How?

I think it does…

One instance is, the Flood perfectly explains the Grand Canyon’s missing sediment, over 1000 cu. mi. in volume, was cleanly removed. No River did that.

No, as picured and cited the Grand Canyon form over millions of years cutting in a meandering pattern of natural river system cutting through massive discrete limestone deposited in shallow seas, volcanic basalt deposited in layers over a period of billions of year, Some of these layers in the region contain standing trees buried by natural sandstone wind blown deposits, not flood deposition.

The Colorado River, the rocks in the strata and the Grand Canyon formed by the same natural processes of erosion, deposition and up lift that are happening today gradually over millions of years. It is impossible for the rocks of Grand Canyon to form in a flood.

By the way, they know where the Colorado River sediment is deposited. It is in ancient alluvial fans.

The following book describes the whole history of the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon based on the physical evidence.

Ancient Landscapes of the Colorado Plateau

The Colorado Plateau is one of the world's great showplaces of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rock. The plateau's rocky landscapes are home to the greatest concentration of national parks and monuments in the world. Ancient Landscapes of the Colorado Plateau highlights the plateau's...

shop.grandcanyon.org

The other is, many (not all) of the world’s tallest mountain ranges, formed from ancient rock beds, display youthful, crisp features…. Very little erosion even with the extreme weathering they endure. (Observe it yourself.) Certainly not “millions of years”, lol.

Bias is blinding!

Yes, your bias is blinding!!! Again . . . What is your education and experience background to make such outrageous assertions?

The major problem with the Creationist view of the history of the earth is simply physics. It is impossible for the amount of energy required for mountains and the vast limestone deposits that some in shallow seas and contain ancient coral reefs to dorm in a short period of time,

An interesting example of the age of rocks like conglomerate (rounded sand and gravel) that contain rounded pebbles of more ancient gravels that also contain a mix or gravels and sand form older rocks. This can only happen in vast periods of time of hundreds of millions of years.

There are NO youthful features in ancient rocks.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course it was. It was a controlled event. God caused the Deluge.

You’re Jewish, right? You don’t think your God is powerful enough?
Amazing.
I guess i should not be surprised…

The evidence is there, though. For what we find.

I hear arguments like, “Why wasn’t the vegetation ruined?”
(Is that what God wanted to do, to kill the vegetation?)

Or, “How could the wooden Ark withstand such pressures?”
(So God tells Noah to build the Ark, but then He’s too weak to protect it and it’s inhabitants?)

He did what He wanted to do.

Do you know why God made it a global event?
It has to do with “the sons of God” taking “all whom they chose”, in Genesis 6:1-4.
And the repercussions that
resulted.

Best wishes, my cousin.

Concerning the Ark: The Arc by the evidence is impossible to physically build such a ship even today. Your claim. What you claim subjectively what God did or intended to do is not evidence. This is true world wide.

Controlled event??? You lack any physical evidence that explains how this controlled event took place. The physical evidence demonstrates Natural processes of sedimentary deposition, volcanics, metamorphic formation, Natural erosion/deposition and uplift All of which are taking place today.

The natural process of slow mountain range uplift and erosion can be measured to day and compared to the geologic history of mountain ranges, including natural volcanics that contribute to mountain building, Fresh and eroded metererite craters are clear evidence of the varying age to up to millions and billions of years. Some buried in ancient sediments.

 

[metis]

Seas are salt water; the permafrost is fresh water. And a slow-moving Ice age will not envelope animals within it. Certainly wouldn’t act quickly enough to preserve them.

Warm spells induce more rain because of increased evaporation. Also, when sea levels drop and the only source of water is rain or snow, this would gradually wash away salt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, as picured and cited the Grand Canyon form over millions of years cutting in a meandering pattern of natural river system cutting through massive discrete limestone deposited in shallow seas, volcanic basalt deposited in layers over a period of billions of year, Some of these layers in the region contain standing trees buried by natural sandstone wind blown deposits, not flood deposition.

The Colorado River, the rocks in the strata and the Grand Canyon formed by the same natural processes of erosion, deposition and up lift that are happening today gradually over millions of years. It is impossible for the rocks of Grand Canyon to form in a flood.

By the way, they know where the Colorado River sediment is deposited. It is in ancient alluvial fans.

The following book describes the whole history of the Colorado River and the Grand Canyon based on the physical evidence.

Ancient Landscapes of the Colorado Plateau

The Colorado Plateau is one of the world's great showplaces of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rock. The plateau's rocky landscapes are home to the greatest concentration of national parks and monuments in the world. Ancient Landscapes of the Colorado Plateau highlights the plateau's...

shop.grandcanyon.org

Yes, your bias is blinding!!! Again . . . What is your education and experience background to make such outrageous assertions?

The major problem with the Creationist view of the history of the earth is simply physics. It is impossible for the amount of energy required for mountains and the vast limestone deposits that some in shallow seas and contain ancient coral reefs to dorm in a short period of time,

An interesting example of the age of rocks like conglomerate (rounded sand and gravel) that contain rounded pebbles of more ancient gravels that also contain a mix or gravels and sand form older rocks. This can only happen in vast periods of time of hundreds of millions of years.

There are NO youthful features in ancient rocks.

Creationists forget about plate tectonics. If I remember correctly a lot of the sediments ended up in central valley California. The Gulf of California itself is a rather young feature. It is only about 5 million years old and the delta of the Colorado extends as far north as Indio. Creationists tend to look for the sediments only at the current mouth of the Colorado and look out into the Gulf of California from there. When one looks in the wrong spot it is no wonder that they cannot find the sediments that they are hoping to find:

Gulf of California - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your claims of extremely young ages for geological features has been refuted. Did you forget this picture already:

No, I didn’t. Maybe you didn’t read what I said… I said “many (not all)”. Many geologic features were created by natural processes before the Flood. (Remember, I’m not a YEC, which the Bible doesn’t support anyways.)

Obviously formed by a meandering river, iow, slow moving.

But tell me, how do you think the tons of debris and sediment were so cleanly removed? Since it was slow-moving.

 

[blü 2]

How it is not? The history of science is full of errors, why believe it would be correct about possibility of Adam and Eve?

The story of there being a single first human male and a single first human female is blown away by the evidence that Homo sap is a species of genus Homo, itself a part of the Order of the primates.

Y-chromosomal Adam ─ genetically the first H. sap male from whom all modern humans are descended ─ appeared something over 200,000 years ago, whereas Mitochondrial Eve, genetically the first H. sap female from whom all modern humans are descended, appeared something like 155,000 years ago. You could argue that, in a sense, that more recent date is when H sap sap (us) came into focus as a subspecies.

 

[exchemist]

Creationists forget about plate tectonics. If I remember correctly a lot of the sediments ended up in central valley California. The Gulf of California itself is a rather young feature. It is only about 5 million years old and the delta of the Colorado extends as far north as Indio. Creationists tend to look for the sediments only at the current mouth of the Colorado and look out into the Gulf of California from there. When one looks in the wrong spot it is no wonder that they cannot find the sediments that they are hoping to find:

Gulf of California - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Creationists have to actually deny plate tectonics. They don’t just forget about it. Just as they have to fail to grasp how radiometric dating works, and all manner of other inconvenient bits of science.

Creationism relies 100% on a carefully curated, selective ignorance. They put on the impregnable armour of ignorance, wield the trusty shield of stupidity (sometimes, but not always, feigned) and when necessary are not afraid to brandish the mighty sword of deceit.

 

[1213]

The story of there being a single first human male and a single first human female is blown away by the evidence that Homo sap is a species of genus Homo, itself a part of the Order of the primates.

Y-chromosomal Adam ─ genetically the first H. sap male from whom all modern humans are descended ─ appeared something over 200,000 years ago, whereas Mitochondrial Eve, genetically the first H. sap female from whom all modern humans are descended, appeared something like 155,000 years ago. You could argue that, in a sense, that more recent date is when H sap sap (us) came into focus as a subspecies.

The problem with that is, I have no good reason to believe it, sorry.

 

[blü 2]

The problem with that is, I have no good reason to believe it, sorry.

I suspect that's because you've never studied it ─ what it says, why it says it, what the hard evidence is, how the arguments from that evidence are formed.

Reasoning from hard evidence like that is something I find attractive, the best way I know to get at the truth. (I define 'truth' as a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality, a state of affairs in the world external to the self.

 

[metis]

The problem with that is, I have no good reason to believe it, sorry.

That's simply because you choose to use a set of blinders so as to not see reality. Evolution in no way states nor implies there was no Divine creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I didn’t. Maybe you didn’t read what I said… I said “many (not all)”. Many geologic features were created by natural processes before the Flood. (Remember, I’m not a YEC, which the Bible doesn’t support anyways.)

Obviously formed by a meandering river, iow, slow moving.

But tell me, how do you think the tons of debris and sediment were so cleanly removed? Since it was slow-moving.

The problem is that we have older local events that should have been "written over" by your flood. The illustration that I provided refuted your claim about millions of years of erosion not being possible. You are either ignoring it or not understanding it. There is no evidence of your Flood and yet there should be more evidence for it than for any geologic event in the history of the world.

This is why I often challenge believers to explain their beliefs in the form of a testable hypothesis. Do you know why no one does that on the creationist side? It is because they do not want to look as amazingly ignorant as Walt Brown and his fantasy where he cooked the surface of the Earth so badly that he would have boiled the seas and melted the crust.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The problem is that we have older local events that should have been "written over" by your flood.

Like what? Sources, please.

The illustration that I provided refuted your claim about millions of years of erosion not being possible.

You mean Goosenecks State Park

?


What did I say about this?

You are either ignoring it or not understanding it.

I’m not. Are you ignoring my comment? I said:
“Many geologic features were created by natural processes before the Flood. (Remember, I’m not a YEC.)”

I further stated:
“Obviously formed by a meandering river, iow, slow moving.”

Then I asked:
“How do you think the tons of debris and sediment were so cleanly removed?”
Since obviously a slow-moving, meandering river can only do so much?

There is no evidence of your Flood and yet there should be more evidence for it than for any geologic event in the history of the world.

There is. You prefer other interpretations of the evidence, which are mostly inadequate.

And your explanation of megafauna found within the Permafrost — ‘animals eating food next to the glaciers’ — (getting stuck, I guess?)
has no explanatory power.

This is why I often challenge believers to explain their beliefs in the form of a testable hypothesis. Do you know why no one does that on the creationist side? It is because they do not want to look as amazingly ignorant as Walt Brown and his fantasy where he cooked the surface of the Earth so badly that he would have boiled the seas and melted the crust.

Unfortunately, Dr. Brown is a YEC. So his conclusions for some things, imo, have to be suspect. (I don’t agree with your analysis of ‘boiling the seas’, though.)

Ex-atheist Dr. Hugh Ross, on the other hand, has approached this issue of a testable model for creation in his book, “More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation”

And I’m curious, since it seems you hold testable models as the standard for belief, what’s yours for the origin of Planet Earth, or for abiogenesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like what? Sources, please.

You mean Goosenecks State Park
View attachment 77486
?


What did I say about this?

I’m not. Are you ignoring my comment? I said:
“Many geologic features were created by natural processes before the Flood. (Remember, I’m not a YEC.)”

I further stated:
“Obviously formed by a meandering river, iow, slow moving.”

Then I asked:
“How do you think the tons of debris and sediment were so cleanly removed?”
Since obviously a slow-moving, meandering river can only do so much?

What do you mean by "cleanly removed"? What part of the erosion process don't you understand? A slow moving river still erodes. The meander was " trapped" due to uplift. It had to erode downwards.

There is. You prefer other interpretations of the evidence, which are mostly inadequate.

And your explanation of megafauna found within the Permafrost — ‘animals eating food next to the glaciers’ — (getting stuck, I guess?)
has no explanatory power.

Oh my! Don't use phrases that you do not understand if you want to be taken seriously. Have you ever been to a glacier? Now I know that you have never been to an advancing one, but a glacier will have an area bare of ice and snow at its base. If the glacier is an advancing one there will be vegetation at its base. An animal that dies at its base can be overridden by the glacier. If a critter died at the base of the glacier some time before the first snow it could have been buried by snow and ice before it could decompose.

Once again, when you do not understand ask questions.

Unfortunately, Dr. Brown is a YEC. So his conclusions for some things, imo, have to be suspect. (I don’t agree with your analysis of ‘boiling the seas’, though.)

Ex-atheist Dr. Hugh Ross, on the other hand, has approached this issue of a testable model for creation in his book, “More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation”

Great. What is his testable hypothesis?

And I’m curious, since it seems you hold testable models as the standard for belief, what’s yours for the origin of Planet Earth, or for abiogenesis?

The formation of the Earth has to be modeled largely mathematically. Abiogenesis is being solved by breaking it down and getting answers as to how various parts of it occurred. Both are still being solved with testable models.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You mean Goosenecks State Park
View attachment 77486
?


What did I say about this?

Your post is too long to reply to all your points, but I'll take this on. There is nothing in this state park that can't be explained by normal geological processes such as plate tectonics and erosion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As to Hugh Ross, he knows that a worldwide flood never happened. He still has not come to grips with the fact that any real flood would have made Noah's Ark superfluous.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Again, you are approaching things from the point of view that its in the bible, and needs to be taken literally, therefore X. I am not coming from that at all. In my world, the bible contains many different genres, including fiction, such as legends. It is a terrible idea to take a legend to be history. If you want to know history, you approach things from a more scientific mindset. And quite frankly, there is no scientific evidence for global flood. Local floods, sure. But nothing global.

So, since you consider much of your ancestors’ books, ie., the Hebrew Bible, as fiction and myth, how do you view the origin of the Passover? Do you understand the significance of the *controlled* event?

(There’s that word again!)

You don’t believe your God can be the source of miracles, altering the laws of physics?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Again, you are approaching things from the point of view that its in the bible, and needs to be taken literally, therefore X. I am not coming from that at all. In my world, the bible contains many different genres, including fiction, such as legends. It is a terrible idea to take a legend to be history. If you want to know history, you approach things from a more scientific mindset. And quite frankly, there is no scientific evidence for global flood. Local floods, sure. But nothing global.

So, since you consider much of your ancestors’ books, ie., the Hebrew Bible, as fiction and myth, how do you view the origin of the Passover? Do you understand the significance of the *controlled* event?

(There’s that word again!)

You don’t believe your God can be the source of miracles, altering the laws of physics!

And no local floods resulted in the preserved megafaunal remains enveloped by the Permafrost…. In some cases, deep within it.

 

[exchemist]

As to Hugh Ross, he knows that a worldwide flood never happened. He still has not come to grips with the fact that any real flood would have made Noah's Ark superfluous.

Is that so? I'd never heard of this guy but, having looked him up, it seems he is an OEC, who presumably must therefore see some of these OT stories as allegorical rather than literal. Has he expressed a view about Noah's Ark, do you know?