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

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Yeah, feelings is in part where it always ends. One thing is what the universe is, another thing is how we ought to feel and act in it.
As always we end in the demarcation between science and non-science, so yes I use science in part, but that is it, in part. And that science matters, is not science.

Here it is for empiricism. There are 2 variants, not one. The external sensory experience one versus both external and internal experience.
As for Dunning-Kruger there is a tendency for skeptics to be scientific skeptics and neglect the training in how the internal works, because the external matters more, but that is internal.
That is how you in general catch them. They are good at external, but they in a sense don't use metacognition and ask how do they know, that they know for the internal. So for how internal experience works for knowledge, they don't learn that, because it is not relevant as for scientific skepticism.
If you want it for a name, it is David Hume and how to read a text for is versus ought. Science is is, non-science is ought and how to do those 2 in combination is limited cognitive relativism. Notice limited.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I do not believe one can observe an evolution.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe the past does have direct evidence: the testimony of God that he created man.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe by direct evidence I mean repeatable experiment. The fact is that evolution is not achieved by experiment and since it occurs in the past there is no way to know for sure what occurred in the past since it can't be part of an experiment.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe the past does have direct evidence: the testimony of God that he created man.

Yes, now turn around and look directly into yesterday and tell us what you see.

 

[exchemist]

I do not believe one can observe an evolution.

You may not believe it but if so you would be wrong. My wife died of it (cancer, that eventually evolved to resist all the chemotherapy drugs available) and millions have been made ill by variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that evolved to escape the immunity to previous versions. Mutations, amplified by the more rapid reproduction of those mutations that have an advantage. Classic Darwinian process.

Evolution is visible all around us, every day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not believe one can observe an evolution.

Why do you believe that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe by direct evidence I mean repeatable experiment. The fact is that evolution is not achieved by experiment and since it occurs in the past there is no way to know for sure what occurred in the past since it can't be part of an experiment.

Then we do have that evidence for evolution as well.

Every new fossil find is an "experiment". If we find a specific species in a specific stratum that can very often be repeated. Or if a find is left in situ that too is a "repeatable experiment". It is a valid experiment since every fossil find can also possibly refute the theory. If we found a bunny rabbit in Precambrian strata we would know that there was a huge problem with the theory.

One suggestion, since you do not appear to understand what science is or how it is done or even what is or what is not evidence why not learn those concepts first? You do not even necessarily have to use evolution as an example when you first learn. Once you get the basics down then you can try to apply them to evolution and other areas.

And why do you think that an event from the past cannot be part of an experiment? That is a very telling claim on your part. It tells us that you have no idea of what an experiment is. That is why you need to learn the basics of science. Or you could bring up specific examples and they could be explained to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the past does have direct evidence: the testimony of God that he created man.

No, there is no evidence of that. Unless you can answer this question. Spoiler alert, your answer will probably tell us that there is no evidence for God:

What possible test could refute your idea of God?

 

[Clear]

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

Hi @InvestigateTruth :

Can you elucidate as to which and What part of "the story of Adam and Eve" are you referring to and which and what part of science are you referring to?

Clear
ειτζκω

 

[metis]

I do not believe one can observe an evolution.

Yep, it can and has.

Where I did my grad work in anthropology, it was an on-going series of experiments & observations using fruit flies since they reproduce so rapidly. Depending on how the experiments were conducted, a new species* of fruit flies could emerge in 10 or so years of growth and separation.

Also, just a reminder that the ToE in no way denies at least the possibility of Divine creation.


* different species cannot reproduce and produce fertile offspring.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

OK, put another way, nothing beyond some figuring that these walking fish must have evolved from non landwalking fish.

When available, DNA will clear some of that up.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I did not always believe that, but I see that life has shown me that mankind has vastly different cognitive and intellectual qualities from other creatures such as gorillas.

Yeah, they're usually smarter than us, LOL.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That is a poorly asked question. Once again it assumes a goal. You could have asked if the forces of evolution could cause other fish to evolve to become land dwellers. To that the answer would be yes.

Everything's better down where it's wetter anyway. LOL.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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

I do. We carry our genetic history with us, meaning sometimes, if the more recent upgrades don't get expressed, the life form will return to an earlier restore point, so to speak.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But...Moses wrote, and it seems clear to me, that (1) God created the heavens.

Doesn't say HOW, though.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But before that, do you really think the scrolls were made up?

The earliest Hebrew (edit: writing) dates nowhere near "Moses"' time. Also 2 Kings has a story about King Josiah and High Priest Hilkiah. I think they invented or discovered an invented story developed by themselves or someone earlier in the monarchy. Why is Josiah compared with King David as a lawgiver, and not Moses? It's like they don't know who he is.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

There are some rather extreme sects of Christianity that teach things that if it is not literally true that it is a lie.

Yeah. The Thermians.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In almost every incident where the Scriptures record Jehovah suspending physical laws that affected people

Funny how it never happens unless the plot demands it. God in the bible is a lot like comic book heroes: inconsistent power sets.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

Have two sand piles. Place a garden hose on the top of one pile and a large bucket of water on the other. Turn on the hose and tip over the bucket. Do you think the erosion caused will be the same on both piles?