Adam and Eve as a Myth

[outhouse]

From the above chart (from: Biblical Old Testament Chronology, can the genealogical conflicts be resolved?, a site I do not agree with everything on), there is flexibility on the date.

The Flood was before those civilizations, although there was writing before the flood as in the ten patriarchs or kings who lived before the flood which many cultures mention.

Oh, its definitely up for debate.

Here's a couple of their quotes:

Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information—hardly the simple ‘globules of plasm’ envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.”

Dr. Michael Denton (a non-Christian molecular biologist) said, “Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology . . . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.”

Since this has gone so off the Adam and Eve topic into the age of the earth, the theory of evolution, the flood, etc. I'm just gonna say, Darwin did not have a very strong microscope, around 100x I think, and when he saw a cell it looked like a blob with a membrane and some fluid like substance inside and perhaps a nucleus. Now we know one cell is immensely complex and for one to just happen by chance is impossible. That's because they didn't.

you posted from a few known quacks that have no standing in modern science.

and it is not up for debate about the age of homo sapiens.

 

[gnostic]

you posted from a few known quacks that have no standing in modern science.

and it is not up for debate about the age of homo sapiens.

I wish you would stop using "not up for debate" with regards to modern science, including that of human evolution.

Of course it is up-for-debate. Everything in modern science will always be up-for-debate, including the age of homo sapiens.

You forget that modern science are built upon the ability to refute any hypothesis or any (accepted) theory. Falsifiability is utterly important in modern science. And it is what make science different from religion or theology, and more particularly from dogmatic creationism or the existence of god (theism).

If science was unfalsifiable like theism or creationism, then we would still be stuck on Newton's classical theory on gravity, and general relativity and quantum physics would be discarded as being "unscientific".

But I would agree with you that the modern human (homo sapiens sapiens, the current subspecies of the homo sapiens) have been around far longer than the calculation of the Biblical timeline of under 6000 years (according to the Masoretic Text) or the 13,000 years (accepted by those YEC Christians who believe 1 day = 1000 years). So without question, humans have been around longer than biblical estimation of creation.

You're correct that the oldest homo sapiens is about 200,000 years, but that age could be pushed further back in time, if we were to discover earlier remains than the one found in Omo, Ethiopia. The AGE of homo sapiens can be revised, amended or updated, and that's depending on if new discoveries are made.

So please, stop using these words, "not up for debate".

 

[Krok]

Here is your one living nonreligious biologist who has major problems with Darwinian Evolution:
Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said in a different thread, there is nothing wrong with religion being involved in science. My religion states that the bible is true, so then I can apply that to science, I can say the bible says there was a catastrophic global flood in the order of four and a bit thousand years ago, so I can predict that we should see evidence of that. Then I can go out and see that. What is wrong with that? is that not scientific? How come athiests are the only ones who are allowed to be "real scientists"?

No, Behe is religious. faith + evolution - Michael Behe: A Biography I asked for a non-religious biologist who has these "major" problems with evolution.

Please, just provide the name of one non-religious biologist who has "major" problems with the Theory of Evoution. If you can't, think that you didn't tell the truth in your post. That wouldn't surprise me, as creationists always have to tell porkies. That's all they have.

By the way, you writing that Behe is "nonreligious" is another untruth.

 

[siweLSC]

Wow, you found one quote from one person who uses the word "evolution" and "atheist" in the same sentence. Surely, they must be the same thing.

I didn't say they are the same thing, but all atheists must believe in evolution (or aliens, but that creates new problems: who created the aliens?). Atheism can work without it, but it is way more difficult.

There's no "conflict of interest" for either if they are good scientists.

Agreed, but I suppose by your definition, a good scientist probably = an evolutionist.

Well, thousands of credential scientists, theists and Church leaders disagree. Some people's beliefs are not as easily shaken as yours are.

Atheism can work without evolution but it is pretty hard, and likewise, christianity can work with evolution, but it is pretty hard. You have to discount the bibles history, yet the bible is supposed to be the inspired word of God. Was God so ignorant he didn't know what happened?
Once you have reinterpreted Genesis, you have set a precedent which causes trouble for you. Once inspiration of God has been downgraded, and made second mans "science", what else did God make a mistake about? Why take any of it as Gods word? Nothing is sacred any more.
A LOT of young people are leaving churches nowadays because of this conflict. Church leaders who believe in evolution must be leaving their brains at the church door I think.
Richard Dawkins again:
I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen.

 

[siweLSC]

No, Behe is religious. faith + evolution - Michael Behe: A Biography I asked for a non-religious biologist who has these "major" problems with evolution.

Please, just provide the name of one non-religious biologist who has "major" problems with the Theory of Evoution. If you can't, think that you didn't tell the truth in your post. That wouldn't surprise me, as creationists always have to tell porkies. That's all they have.

I don't recall saying that I could name one nonreligious biologist who had major problems with evolution, so if you can't show me where I did, you were telling porkies in saying I was telling porkies.

By the way, you writing that Behe is "nonreligious" is another untruth.

And I stand corrected. I stood corrected ages ago. Are you interested in having a real debate, or personal attacks?

I wish you would stop using "not up for debate" with regards to modern science, including that of human evolution.

Of course it is up-for-debate. Everything in modern science will always be up-for-debate, including the age of homo sapiens.

Frubals!

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I didn't say they are the same thing, but all atheists must believe in evolution (or aliens, but that creates new problems: who created the aliens?). Atheism can work without it, but it is way more difficult.

Atheism is solely the lack of belief in deities.

While it is true that many atheists appear to understand evolution, one is not dependent on the other.

 

[siweLSC]

Atheism is solely the lack of belief in deities.

While it is true that many atheists appear to understand evolution, one is not dependent on the other.

Atheism is heavily dependant on evolution. How then do you propose we got here without belief in a deity AND without evolution?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Atheism is heavily dependant on evolution. How then do you propose we got here without belief in a deity AND without evolution?

No, it's not.

I surmise it's entirely possible that a natural intelligent ability to understand science might lead to atheism, or, might be prevalent in people who arrive at atheism. but there is unlikely to be an exact causation in either direction. 'Atheism' itself though is only exactly what the etymology of the word suggests: non-belief in deity.

 

[siweLSC]

Evolution does not have anything whatsoever to do with cells happening by chance. Consider the following from the Encyclopedia Britannica Online:

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accepted naturalistic or theistic evolution. That obviously includes the vast majority of Christian experts.

Since Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," he quite obviously did not believe that life on earth originally happened by chance, only that current lifeforms come from preexisting lifeforms. Today, the vast majority of experts around the world, including the vast majority of Christian experts, believe that he was right.

theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

And what about the first living thing on earth? Where was its origin? This definiton includes abiogenesis.

 

[siweLSC]

No, it's not.

I surmise it's entirely possible that a natural intelligent ability to understand science might lead to atheism, or, might be prevalent in people who arrive at atheism. but there is unlikely to be an exact causation in either direction. 'Atheism' itself though is only exactly what the etymology of the word suggests: non-belief in deity.

How is it possible for us to get here without a deity AND without evolution?
Without evolution, atheism has a great big hole in it.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

How is it possible for us to get here without a deity AND without evolution?
Without evolution, atheism has a great big hole in it.

Really. Please describe this hole in 'I do not believe in any deities".

Note: evolution isn't abiogenesis

[I realize you're confused about that]

 

[gnostic]

I didn't say they are the same thing, but all atheists must believe in evolution (or aliens, but that creates new problems: who created the aliens?). Atheism can work without it, but it is way more difficult.

Now you're generalising and stereotyping atheists.

I have many cousins who are atheists, and many of them don't accept evolution simply because they are "atheists".

And there is perfectly good answer for my cousins for not accepting or "believing" in evolution.

They don't understand evolution. And the reason why they don't understand evolution is that they are most of their education don't require them to learn about evolutionary biology; they are not scientists. Many of them, university-educated, but in the fields of business and finance. So many of them are accountants, financial advisers or marketing experts. But at the same time, they don't reject evolution; evolution to these cousins of mine, are simply irrelevant in their lives.

I think it is nothing more than desperate attacks on atheists, by linking evolution to atheism.

They are not the same.

So NO, atheists don't have to accept evolution. It is most ignorant statement I've read from you.

And there are many Christians (and other non-Christian theists) who do accept evolution as the best scientific explanation as to why there are biodiversity, because they understand the concepts.

And clearly, you're not one of these who understand, by the simple fact that you associate evolution with atheism.

 

[gnostic]

How is it possible for us to get here without a deity AND without evolution?
Without evolution, atheism has a great big hole in it.

You seriously don't know what you're talking about.

Here is another thing you should get straight: atheism and evolution are completely unrelated, as you will see in my example in the previous post (post 352).

You keep making ignorant claims, one after another.

Atheism only deal with the question of theism, hence the question of the existence of god(s).

Atheism is not scientific position. Atheism is not evolution.

Man! You keep making a big fool of yourself, in this topic.

Not only you don't much about evolution, you certainly have no idea what atheism is.

And not every atheists accept evolution, like my cousins, because they don't understand. But they also don't reject evolution, because it is not relevant to them.

Look at it this way, as an example. Say, you're a brain surgeon, and you frequently drive to work and then back home after work, where you have go through a bridge. You wouldn't know how to design the bridge or construct a bridge; for you just simply use the bridge, as mean to get to your destination. It would be irrelevant to know how the bridge was designed or constructed.

Now, here is a VERY IMPORTANT question here for you:

Do you need to a Christian to be able to perform brain surgery?
​

If not, then why do atheist have to accept evolution?

It is the same with one of my cousin-atheistic-accountants. He know about evolution, but since he has never study biology, he doesn't understand evolution. He doesn't accept or reject evolution, because it played no part in his education or his career.

You can be atheist without accepting/believing/understanding evolution.

Do you understand?

 

[Krok]

I don't recall saying that I could name one nonreligious biologist who had major problems with evolution, so if you can't show me where I did, you were telling porkies in saying I was telling porkies.
And I stand corrected. I stood corrected ages ago. Are you interested in having a real debate, or personal attacks?Frubals!

Actually, you did lie. Could you provide the name of even one non-religious biologists with "major problems" with the Theory of Evolution? More than that, can you provide the name of even one non-religious biologist who published any "major" problem about the Theory of Evolution in any biologocal journal? You've failed to do it so far.

 

[siweLSC]

Really. Please describe this hole in 'I do not believe in any deities".

Note: evolution isn't abiogenesis

[I realize you're confused about that]

Here is the hole: How did we get here, if there are no deities to create us?

 

[siweLSC]

Now you're generalising and stereotyping atheists.

I have many cousins who are atheists, and many of them don't accept evolution simply because they are "atheists".

And there is perfectly good answer for my cousins for not accepting or "believing" in evolution.

They don't understand evolution. And the reason why they don't understand evolution is that they are most of their education don't require them to learn about evolutionary biology; they are not scientists. Many of them, university-educated, but in the fields of business and finance. So many of them are accountants, financial advisers or marketing experts. But at the same time, they don't reject evolution; evolution to these cousins of mine, are simply irrelevant in their lives.

I think it is nothing more than desperate attacks on atheists, by linking evolution to atheism.

They are not the same.

So NO, atheists don't have to accept evolution. It is most ignorant statement I've read from you.

And there are many Christians (and other non-Christian theists) who do accept evolution as the best scientific explanation as to why there are biodiversity, because they understand the concepts.

And clearly, you're not one of these who understand, by the simple fact that you associate evolution with atheism.

I would say to your friend "How did we get here?" and your friend wouldn't be able to answer. Evolution is the only theory of how we got here that is compatible with atheism.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution is the only theory of how we got here that is compatible with atheism.

Well, apparently you can't read nor understand what you're reading. Are (literal Christian) creationists always do willfully ignorant. I don't think they are, but I have yet to come across ones who understand the difference between atheism and evolution. And apparently I've wasted my time in the last 2 replies.

Evolution is a science that explain biodiversity & speciation, common ancestry, all through biological research on genes.

Anyone with the will and patient can understand the theory of evolution, not just atheists; there are agnostics, deists, pantheists, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, Jews, Muslims, etc...oh yes, a large majority of Christians understand and accept evolution. Charles Darwin himself was a Christian and theist, so you are not doing yourself credit by forgetting that one important fact.

Being atheists doesn't make them automatically accept evolution. I've already mention my cousins who don't know what evolution because many of them are not scientists. So you only lamely put them in one basket. The name for that is stereotyping and generalizing.

Atheism only deal with the question of the existence of god. They don't believe that god(s) exist, and that's all it is. Atheism is not a scientific position. Atheism is not evolution, and until you understand this, there is absolutely no help for you, intellectually.

(Note) accidentally and prematurely hit the REPLY or SAVE button. Sorry.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Here is the hole: How did we get here, if there are no deities to create us?

We arose from the natural processes of the planet.

It's really simple.

Is it really that one single issue that totally baffles you about the atheists?

 

[David M]

Can you show me where they refuted that idea? I must have missed it.
Insects have an exoskeleton, which is pretty hard and resistant to decay.

And blood is pretty hard and resistant to decay? because scientists have recovered blood proteins from inside insects preserved in amber. The notion that proteins cannot survive for millions of years under the right conditions is not based on science.

 

[David M]

Yet germ theory is completely compatible with Christianity while evolution is not.
I have demonstrated here that I know very little about Michael Behe. :rainbow1:

But people here have been repeating mantra fassion that ID = biblical creationism. But now it turns out that Behe is actually an evolutionist? (albeit evolution guided by God). Please explain!

Read up on the Dover trial, pay special attention to the evidence concerning Of Pandas and People, a book that was turned from a creationism school text book to an ID one by, in part, doing a search and replace to swap "creationist" to "design proponent".

Then look at the part where, under oath, it was admitted that for ID to qualify as science you would need to change the definition of science so far that Astrology would then also qualify as science.

Then do some real research into the people at the DI and look at what they have been found to have said to religious audiences, statements that confirm that ID has a religious basis.