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

[Apostle John]

You know God once told me “you’re special” only pronounced similar to speeeeecial. He has given me over 200 words of knowledge/wisdom all in line with what the Bible teaches but I won’t be sharing many on here. I am humble and know all Christians are a class apart.

On here there is a disproportionate amount of interest in lgbt issues. Another word God gave me a while back was “stifled queer”. All words I get require some interpretation (again in line with what the Bible teaches). It means odd types, cut off from being with God, non-Christians in other words.

 

[ratiocinator]

He has given me over 200 words of knowledge/wisdom all in line with what the Bible teaches but I won’t be sharing many on here. I am humble and know all Christians are a class apart.

I don't suppose you have any more evidence for this than you have for your rather silly dismissal of very well established and thoroughly tested science.

 

[Apostle John]

I don't suppose you have any more evidence for this than you have for your rather silly dismissal of very well established and thoroughly tested science.

Yes I have more personal evidence beyond any doubt. Evolution theory is a collection of muddled thought with a bit of observation that, along with all the bias and prejudicial view that brings, has given the likes of you a convincing lie to follow. I was a deluded atheist before God woke me up.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes I have more personal evidence beyond any doubt.

'Personal evidence' is an oxymoron.

Evolution theory is a collection of muddled thought with a bit of observation that, along with all the bias and prejudicial view that brings, has given the likes of you a convincing lie to follow.

This is simply untrue. You are bearing false witness. The theory of evolution is an extremely well established scientific theory. One that you obviously have no understanding of at all (I'm assuming you're not deliberately lying) because you keep on posting a straw man version of it - the same goes for the supporting evidence. The result is that you have never actually addressed the real theory or the real evidence. When I posted some real evidence (from genetics) you didn't even try to address it, you just ignored it.

If you think this is promoting your faith, rather than bringing it into disrepute, you are sadly mistaken.

Pretty much every scientist in the world who studies these things (of all religions and none) accepts the theory and the tiny, tiny minority that don't consist almost exclusively of people who have a vested interest (their fundamentalist religion) in it being false. Believing them, is rather like accepting the scientists employed by tobacco companies when they were the last in the world telling people that smoking was safe. It would be hilariously comical if it weren't so sad and contributing to anti-science ignorance.

 

[viole]

Yes I have more personal evidence beyond any doubt.

There is not such a thing as personal evidence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

‘Lucy’ shows the daftness of the imagination of man. Bones, only 40% complete and they go fabricate a fairytale story with them. I’m not going to discuss the fantasy of using dating methods with you again. Those bones are likely actually to come from a female human. The fragments of skull, how do you even know they kept their original shape for example?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Yes I have more personal evidence beyond any doubt. Evolution theory is a collection of muddled thought with a bit of observation that, along with all the bias and prejudicial view that brings, has given the likes of you a convincing lie to follow. I was a deluded atheist before God woke me up.

You do not understand anything about the theory of evolution and you are definitely not qualified to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion about it. And what's worse, you seem to wallow in your ignorance.

The "bias[ed] and prejudicial views" in this this thread are all yours. The level of projection here is absolutely stunning.

 

[Apostle John]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You do not understand anything about the theory of evolution and you are definitely not qualified to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion about it. And what's worse, you seem to wallow in your ignorance.

The "bias[ed] and prejudicial views" in this this thread are all yours. The level of projection here is absolutely stunning.

Have you looked at the recreation of Lucy’s head from the few pieces they found. Why do you think it is true. Talk about it. Let’s examine what you know.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you mean to say that if something is abstract and complex and difficult or even not possible to put into easily understood words, it is suspect and should be considered irrelevant? Are you saying that reason and thoughts and ideas are the true measure of what is real? Only that which the mind can grasp should be considered truth or have value?

By 'sabda jaala', I mean a lengthy article or book with fancy words, overall carrying no meaning, having no evidence. Yes, reason and evidence should be the bed-rock of belief. How can something that cannot even be grasped by mind be taken as truth?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Have you looked at the recreation of Lucy’s head from the few pieces they found. Why do you think it is true. Talk about it. Let’s examine what you know.

Is the Lucy reconstruction a photograph of the lady? Does science say that? It is a model based on what they gather from the fossil.
I would say more than enough fragments to give a reconstruction (the law in particular).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Have you looked at the recreation of Lucy’s head from the few pieces they found. Why do you think it is true. Talk about it. Let’s examine what you know.

Over 300 Australopithecus afarensis specimens have been found, to date.

Highlighting once again. that you really do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Apostle John]

Over 300 Australopithecus afarensis specimens have been found, to date.

Highlighting once again. that you really do not know what you are talking about.

Sure..…we all believe that don’t we….and not a finer specimen such as Lucy and her skull. There’s never any question the science is suspect.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sure..…we all believe that don’t we….and not a finer specimen such as Lucy and her skull. There’s never any question the science is suspect.

Go ahead and write a scientific paper about it. I'm sure the other scientists would love to hear what you have to say about it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sure..…we all believe that don’t we…

That's what the evidence is telling us, so, if you're rational, then yes.

There’s never any question the science is suspect.

Since you have repeatedly shown that you have no idea what the science is actually saying, you are hardly in a position to judge.

 

[Apostle John]

Go ahead and write a scientific paper about it. I'm sure the other scientists would love to hear what you have to say about it.

That's what the evidence is telling us, so, if you're rational, then yes.


Since you have repeatedly shown that you have no idea what the science is actually saying, you are hardly in a position to judge.

Have you read how they dated her bones.
Also they cannot decide if she died by falling out of a tree or whether, because she could walk like us, she died some other way. It’s all speculative by my estimation but you laud it all as very precise and accurate.

 

[ratiocinator]

Have you read how they dated her bones.

They didn't. They dated the sediment she was found in (Argon-argon radiometric). More very well established and evidence based science.

Also they cannot decide if she died by falling out of a tree or whether, because she could walk like us, she died some other way.

Relevance? Why would you expect a cause of death (which is quite often difficult to determine in recent historical cases)?

It’s all speculative by my estimation but you laud it all as very precise and accurate.

More false witness. It isn't speculation and the exact details of one case would be completely irrelevant to the overall case for evolution anyway. Again, we can make the entire case from genetics alone (no matter how much you ignore the evidence when it's provided or simply deny it without justification).

If you want to ague effectively (non-comically) against evolution you'll first need to learn something about it and the evidence that supports it. Arguments from total and obvious ignorance are never going to convince anybody.

You've even gone way beyond your fellow evolution-deniers in some respects. For example, very few go as far as to deny natural selection entirely, as you did (the evidence is way too strong, even the classic peppered moth is a clear example). They deny what it can achieve (never giving a reason or mechanism that limits it) but not that it happens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

‘Lucy’ shows the daftness of the imagination of man. Bones, only 40% complete and they go fabricate a fairytale story with them. I’m not going to discuss the fantasy of using dating methods with you again. Those bones are likely actually to come from a female human. The fragments of skull, how do you even know they kept their original shape for example?

Please, don't go throwing around terms like "daft". It only discredits you. And you also just demonstrated that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. Not only is Lucy scientific evidence for human evolution she is strong scientific evidence. She was the "missing link" that creationists demanded.

Let's go over your claims that show how little that you know. Yes, it is only 40% of a skeleton, but guess what, humans and other apes are bilaterally symmetrical. That means that we could have up to 80% of her bones represented. One's right knee is a mirror image of one's left knee. You really should not listen to lying sources. I can tell that you did by your answer. Do you know what her skeleton tells us? Her knees tell us that she was bipedal. Her skull tells us that she was bipedal. Her hips tell us that she was bipedal. There is no doubt that she was bipedal. Her hips are also much more similar to ours than to chimps, our closest ape relation.


I am going to briefly define scientific evidence for you:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

Human evolution, in fact evolution in general is a testable concept. I can name various tests that exist for both. That means that it is a scientific theory or hypothesis. And the Lucy fossils and other Australopithecus afarensis finds all support the theory of evolution. That means that they are scientific evidence. Since it is scientific evidence that actually puts a burden of proof upon you. You can't get away with just denial. You only prove that you are not qualified to debate this topic once you are presented with evidence. You have two choices. Refute it or accept it as evidence.

So good luck with disproving Lucy as a transitional fossil. No creationist, not even any that have scientific training, has come close. You called something "daft" and you cannot refute it. That would make your claims worse than the ones that you called daft.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you read how they dated her bones.
Also they cannot decide if she died by falling out of a tree or whether, because she could walk like us, she died some other way. It’s all speculative by my estimation but you laud it all as very precise and accurate.

Yes. I have read how they dated her bones. It was by a very reliable method. How do you think that they dated her bones?

 

[Apostle John]

It isn't speculation and the exact details of one case would be completely irrelevant to the overall case for evolution anyway.

Please, don't go throwing around terms like "daft". It only discredits you. And you also just demonstrated that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. Not only is Lucy scientific evidence for human evolution she is strong scientific evidence. She was the "missing link" that creationists demanded.
So good luck with disproving Lucy as a transitional fossil. No creationist, not even any that have scientific training, has come close. You called something "daft" and you cannot refute it. That would make your claims worse than the ones that you called daft.

The atheist presentation for evolution is very erratic if not silly. One says Lucy is a completely irrelevant case, the other says Lucy is strong scientific evidence. One claims she IS THE missing link when the skeleton could be anything. This discredits atheists.
Btw using genetics to explain evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. There’s no way evolution can go toward more complex organisms without breaking this law.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You know God once told me “you’re special” only pronounced similar to speeeeecial. He has given me over 200 words of knowledge/wisdom all in line with what the Bible teaches but I won’t be sharing many on here. I am humble and know all Christians are a class apart.

Yeah, that is humble.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The atheist presentation for evolution is very erratic if not silly. One says Lucy is a completely irrelevant case, the other says Lucy is strong scientific evidence. One claims she IS THE missing link when the skeleton could be anything. This discredits atheists.
Btw using genetics to explain evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics. There’s no way evolution can go toward more complex organisms without breaking this law.

You need to quote and link when you make such claims. Unsupported claims or the inability to support what you state only makes it look as if you are telling falsehoods.

Odds are that at best you misunderstood what people are telling you. We do know that without a doubt that humans are the product of evolution. So in that sense Lucy is not needed. Fossils are not the strongest evidence for evolution, but I can guarantee you that you would not understand the stronger evidence. Lucy is the most obvious evidence for the uneducated. That is why she is useful.

Meanwhile you could not refute her as evidence. Which means that you do have to accept it, like it or not she is strong evidence for human evolution.