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

[Muffled]

Many that do not understand complex concepts have that belief. Here is a simple test:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution?

I believe there is circumstantial evidence that it could be possible but no direct evidence that it actually occurred. There have been many an innocent man imprisoned unjustly on circumstantial evidence which proved to have led to a false conclusion of guilty.

 

[Muffled]

Never mind the test. You just demonstrated that you do not understand evolution. Are you exactly like your mother or father? That is the same sort of evolution that you can observe as dropping an object.

Does dropping an object "prove" General Relativity? That is the theory of gravity in case you did not know. It corrected the errors in Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation. But dropping an object does not even "prove" Newton's Laws.

Newton's Laws explain planetary motions. How will you get that from simply dropping something?

I believe I have genes from both my mother and father but no new ones. I believe I even have some genes from Neanderthals but not enough to be considered a new species.

I believe it is not an evolution of species.

I believe that is news to me. I didn't think anyone had explained gravity. I believe there is a theory that gravity is an element of mass but I don't remember if that was proven or not. There is also another scientifically proven power of one thing being drawn to another and that is magnetism.

 

[exchemist]

I believe there is circumstantial evidence that it could be possible but no direct evidence that it actually occurred. There have been many an innocent man imprisoned unjustly on circumstantial evidence which proved to have led to a false conclusion of guilty.

If by that you mean it relies on inference from observation, you are quite right. But that applies to most theories of science. If you decide not to accept scientific inference, you have to throw out a huge amount, starting with the existence of molecules.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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:

View attachment 76714

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".

Yes, but there is a side effect. For an expert of a field you can somebody who are an expert for one field and has very little competence for another.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe there is circumstantial evidence that it could be possible but no direct evidence that it actually occurred. There have been many an innocent man imprisoned unjustly on circumstantial evidence which proved to have led to a false conclusion of guilty.

Yeah, now I want direct evidence as for happening now for that there actually was a day before. That is the end problem. The past has no direct evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but there is a side effect. For an expert of a field you can somebody who are an expert for one field and has very little competence for another.

What? I do not quite understand what you are saying here. If you are claiming that an expert in one field can be a DK victim in another I agree. I know of even one specific case.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What? I do not quite understand what you are saying here. If you are claiming that an expert in one field can be a DK victim in another I agree. I know of even one specific case.

Yes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I have genes from both my mother and father but no new ones. I believe I even have some genes from Neanderthals but not enough to be considered a new species.

I believe it is not an evolution of species.

I believe that is news to me. I didn't think anyone had explained gravity. I believe there is a theory that gravity is an element of mass but I don't remember if that was proven or not. There is also another scientifically proven power of one thing being drawn to another and that is magnetism.

What you believe is of no value. It is what you can show that matters. I can show that you have on the order of 100 mutations. Since a very large portion of our DNA is noncoding it is very likely that you do not have any "new genes". But new genes do appear quite often.

As to your denial of the evolution of species once again, your denial of reality does not matter. It matters what you can support.

As to gravity, science does not do "proof". It only does evidence. You did not understand the example given. There is more evidence that supports the theory of evolution than there is that supports gravity. Unfortunately you do not even understand Newtonian gravity and the clear evidence for it or how it is tested, much less Einstein's General Relativity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe there is circumstantial evidence that it could be possible but no direct evidence that it actually occurred. There have been many an innocent man imprisoned unjustly on circumstantial evidence which proved to have led to a false conclusion of guilty.

What do you mean by "direct evidence"? That is a rather vague term. The fact is that there is endless scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. Your "direct evidence" is likely not as strong as you think that it is. For example eyewitness evidence is not every strong evidence. In a court of law eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of evidence allowed. Various forms of scientific or forensic evidence are some of the strongest forms of evidence that one can offer in a case. One is probably far more likely to be unjustly found guilty by your "direct evidence" then by forensic evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What do you mean by "direct evidence"? That is a rather vague term. The fact is that there is endless scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. Your "direct evidence" is likely not as strong as you think that it is. For example eyewitness evidence is not every strong evidence. In a court of law eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of evidence allowed. Various forms of scientific or forensic evidence are some of the strongest forms of evidence that one can offer in a case. One is probably far more likely to be unjustly found guilty by your "direct evidence" then by forensic evidence.

The problem is that there in the absurd sense is not direct evidence of the past. It is in effect an inference based on that the universe is orderly including time and space and in effect cause and effect over time and space.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that there in the absurd sense is not direct evidence of the past. It is in effect an inference based on that the universe is orderly including time and space and in effect cause and effect over time and space.

Denying reality has its own huge burden of proof.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Denying reality has its own huge burden of proof.

No, that is why we have methodological naturalism. Philosophy failed for that one.
That the universe is real, orderly and knowable is without proof.
I just happen to have faith in that as in effect neither an atheist nor a theological god believer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I believe I have genes from both my mother and father but no new ones. I believe I even have some genes from Neanderthals but not enough to be considered a new species.

"At birth, children typically have 70 new genetic mutations compared to their parents (out of the 6 billion letters that make both parental copies of DNA sequence). A new study published in eLife shows that number varies dramatically with some people being born with twice as many mutations as others, and that characteristic runs in families."

Some parents pass on more mutations to their children than others

Everyone is a mutant but some are prone to diverge more than others, report scientists. A new study shows the number of mutations a child has compared to her parents varies dramatically with some people being born with twice as many as others, and that characteristic runs in families.

www.sciencedaily.com

Maybe we can chalk up your rejection of evolution to a misunderstanding of it?

I believe it is not an evolution of species.

I believe that is news to me. I didn't think anyone had explained gravity. I believe there is a theory that gravity is an element of mass but I don't remember if that was proven or not. There is also another scientifically proven power of one thing being drawn to another and that is magnetism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that is why we have methodological naturalism. Philosophy failed for that one.
That the universe is real, orderly and knowable is without proof.
I just happen to have faith in that as in effect neither an atheist nor a theological god believer.

Now you are conflating proof and evidence and abusing philosophy in the process. "Burden of proof" does not mean proving absolutely. Asides from mathematical concepts one cannot "prove" anything. A proper philosopher knows this and as a result follows the evidence, knowing that it is not absolute.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Now you are conflating proof and evidence and abusing philosophy in the process. "Burden of proof" does not mean proving absolutely. Asides from mathematical concepts one cannot "prove" anything. A proper philosopher knows this and as a result follows the evidence, knowing that it is not absolute.

Correct and thus we have the assumption that the universe is real, orderly and knowable. That is in effect the basis of evidence as a system of knowledge. And yes, it is not absolute, it is an assumption without evidence.
Then we have the limit of science for the everyday world where we don't use science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct and thus we have the assumption that the universe is real, orderly and knowable. That is in effect the basis of evidence as a system of knowledge. And yes, it is not absolute, it is an assumption without evidence.
Then we have the limit of science for the everyday world where we don't use science.

When speaking of the real world it is rather limited when it comes to areas where evidence does not apply. Love may be one of those areas, and yet there are even those that will debate that. I can see how one might oppose misapply the scientific method. There are areas of justice and love where other standards are used. But for a huge portion of our actions it is the best tool for getting reliable answers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When speaking of the real world it is rather limited when it comes to areas where evidence does not apply. Love may be one of those areas, and yet there are even those that will debate that. I can see how one might oppose misapply the scientific method. There are areas of justice and love where other standards are used. But for a huge portion of our actions it is the best tool for getting reliable answers.

You have no evidence that it is the best tool. It is a limited tool for some of the everyday world, but it is neither the best or the worst. It is one way to do human behavior, but not the only one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have no evidence that it is the best tool. It is a limited tool for some of the everyday world, but it is neither the best or the worst. It is one way to do human behavior, but not the only one.

Not true. You ignored the qualifier.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not true. You ignored the qualifier.

Just you still don't have evidence. You can't with any of the 5 external sense experience best and there is no instrument to measure best and there is no scientific theory of best.
I do understand what you are saying and I get it, but there is no evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just you still don't have evidence. You can't with any of the 5 external sense experience best and there is no instrument to measure best and there is no scientific theory of best.
I do understand what you are saying and I get it, but there is no evidence.

Yet ironically you had to rely on the successes of science to post that answer.