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

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with that is, the mistakes are always found much later. Now you believe they are small, but after 100 years they can be huge.

I don't think you can show any real evidence that would make Adam and Eve a myth.

There is no reason to believe that. In fact you appear to be totally unaware of how we know that we are getting more and more correct. The mistakes in science do not become "huge". In fact over time what we see is that the mistakes in science get smaller and smaller.

As a Christian you should be happy that the Adam and Eve myth is false. It is a pity that you do not understand it fully. If you did you would see that God is the bad guy in that myth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those human 'parents' are about 140,000 years apart. Google mitochondrial Eve and Y-Adam.

... which kinda works in the Biblical narrative if you squint a bit.

If the Bible were literally true, the bottleneck for the Y chromosome would be Noah, not Adam.

... so there should be a gap, just not 140,000 years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There’ll be no bite from me today or Fryday, so use the time to find some more theoretical science that’s not so easy to pull apart.

Myeah....
I think I'm gonna go for Poe / satire here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry, that is a very weak argument, nothing substantial supporting your claim. Can you give any solid to support your belief?

It's not an argument. It's just the facts.

 

[F1fan]

What error should be fixed in the Bible?

The New Testament has had edits and errors in copying over the cnturies before the printing press. By then many errors were established, so there is no one true correct version. And then there are the many translations and interpretations, and readers can pick one and call it the "Word of God", which is ironic.

The real errors is in how diverse Christians interpret the Bible. The more conservative the Christian the more likely they are to interpret various bits literally. It's laughable that Christians will interpret Genesis literally when even Jews don't do that, and it's their book!! To my mind Christians shouldn't interpret the OT in any way that deviates from how Jews interpret it. So the interpretations are what need fixing.

I don't think there is any meaningful error. Some translations may have small mistakes, but i wouldn't count that an error in the original Bible.

Well does it matter when different Christians have wholey different interpretations that are inconsistent? I often suggest that nothing in the Bible can be interpreted literally, and however a believer sees any meaning in the stories they are better interpreted symbolically. Even the whole Jesus myth is absurd at face value, but can work symbolicially. I think one of the reasons Christians ar so cinfused and inconsistent in their beliefs is that they are trying to make all these stories make literal sense wen they just don't.

 

[nPeace]

Maybe. But still, science says, we evolved from other species. Bible seems to say, Adam was made with clay at once.
What would say about this part?
And the fact that, human existed much longer than 6000 years ago.

It depends on what one calls science, for one thing, and for another, what we know scientifically, is that man is from the dust.

All the elements - 41 chemical elements - found in the human body, are found in the dust of the earth, yet not all the elements in the earth are not found in the human body.
The Elemental Composition of the Human Body
Of the 118 elements on Earth, just 21 of them are found in the human body. Together, they make up the medley of divergent molecules that combine to form our DNA, cells, tissues, and organs

People argue that the Bible account about Adam is simply an allegory, or a parable, rather than historical fact.
Bible writer Luke, however, lists Adam along with 74 other men in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. (Luke 3:23-38) If one of these was simply allegorical, what about the others?
They must be allegorical, as well, including Jesus, on which Christianity depends.
So what are professed Christians really indicating, when the claim Adam and Eve myth?

We don't know that humans existed more than 6000 years.
Some scientists do believe that, but they debate many things concerning "human origins".
For example in this article...
Modern humans and Neanderthals may have overlapped, shared culture in Western Europe
But findings, based on a reevaluation of radiocarbon dating data, aren’t swaying some experts
Other scientists, however, say the wide margins of error for many of the dates analyzed in the study undercut strong claims about the identities of the inhabitants and whether they indeed overlapped. It’s “a good starting point,” but the conclusions could change based on more accurate dating, says Sahra Talamo, a chemist who directs a radiocarbon laboratory at the University of Bologna.

Evidently they are not really sure of those things they believe.
Even if some feel certain, it's not the case that all the experts agree.

 

[viole]

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

It isn’t.

ciao

- viole

 

[Quagmire]

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

I think it can be if you read it metaphorically.

 

[Jose Fly]

People argue that the Bible account about Adam is simply an allegory, or a parable, rather than historical fact.
Bible writer Luke, however, lists Adam along with 74 other men in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. (Luke 3:23-38) If one of these was simply allegorical, what about the others?
They must be allegorical, as well, including Jesus, on which Christianity depends.
So what are professed Christians really indicating, when the claim Adam and Eve myth?

If the Bible relies on the Adam and Eve story being literally true, then the Bible is wrong.

We don't know that humans existed more than 6000 years.

Yeah we do.

Some scientists do believe that, but they debate many things concerning "human origins".
For example in this article...
Modern humans and Neanderthals may have overlapped, shared culture in Western Europe
But findings, based on a reevaluation of radiocarbon dating data, aren’t swaying some experts
Other scientists, however, say the wide margins of error for many of the dates analyzed in the study undercut strong claims about the identities of the inhabitants and whether they indeed overlapped. It’s “a good starting point,” but the conclusions could change based on more accurate dating, says Sahra Talamo, a chemist who directs a radiocarbon laboratory at the University of Bologna.

Evidently they are not really sure of those things they believe.
Even if some feel certain, it's not the case that all the experts agree.

What in the world? You're actually arguing that because there's debate about exactly when and where modern humans and neanderthals overlapped, that means we don't know if humans existed earlier than 6,000 years ago?

I guess that's "creationist logic" for you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It depends on what one calls science, for one thing, and for another, what we know scientifically, is that man is from the dust.

All the elements - 41 chemical elements - found in the human body, are found in the dust of the earth, yet not all the elements in the earth are found in the human body.
The Elemental Composition of the Human Body
Of the 118 elements on Earth, just 21 of them are found in the human body. Together, they make up the medley of divergent molecules that combine to form our DNA, cells, tissues, and organs

People argue that the Bible account about Adam is simply an allegory, or a parable, rather than historical fact.
Bible writer Luke, however, lists Adam along with 74 other men in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. (Luke 3:23-38) If one of these was simply allegorical, what about the others?
They must be allegorical, as well, including Jesus, on which Christianity depends.
So what are professed Christians really indicating, when the claim Adam and Eve myth?

We don't know that humans existed more than 6000 years.
Some scientists do believe that, but they debate many things concerning "human origins".
For example in this article...
Modern humans and Neanderthals may have overlapped, shared culture in Western Europe
But findings, based on a reevaluation of radiocarbon dating data, aren’t swaying some experts
Other scientists, however, say the wide margins of error for many of the dates analyzed in the study undercut strong claims about the identities of the inhabitants and whether they indeed overlapped. It’s “a good starting point,” but the conclusions could change based on more accurate dating, says Sahra Talamo, a chemist who directs a radiocarbon laboratory at the University of Bologna.

Evidently they are not really sure of those things they believe.
Even if some feel certain, it's not the case that all the experts agree.

So you're claiming that "we don't know humans existed more than 6000 years" while providing an article indicating that we have existed for much longer than that?

 

[Alien826]

People argue that the Bible account about Adam is simply an allegory, or a parable, rather than historical fact.
Bible writer Luke, however, lists Adam along with 74 other men in the genealogy of Jesus Christ. (Luke 3:23-38) If one of these was simply allegorical, what about the others?
They must be allegorical, as well, including Jesus, on which Christianity depends.

No, that doesn't work.

If my family has kept careful records for hundreds of years and back maybe a hundred years ago a mistake was made, that makes all previous entries in the family tree that led to that person incorrect. It has no effect on entries that come after that point, and I still exist.

 

[nPeace]

So you're claiming that "we don't know humans existed more than 6000 years" while providing an article indicating that we have existed for much longer than that?

Is this Déjà vu? I'm sure I saw this before. I hope I am mistaken.

 

[Alien826]

Men and women have the same number of ribs, therefore the story is false.

There is no reason to suppose that the removal of Adam's rib had any effect on his progeny. I believe the discovery that men and women had the same number of ribs did upset some people at one time (don't remember the reference) but they had no reason to be surprised. Surely they had observed that the loss of a limb, for example, did not cause a man's children to be short that limb.

 

[nPeace]

No, that doesn't work.

If my family has kept careful records for hundreds of years and back maybe a hundred years ago a mistake was made, that makes all previous entries in the family tree that led to that person incorrect. It has no effect on entries that come after that point, and I still exist.

If your family kept a careful record for hundreds of years in the past, no mistake will be made.
If they kept a careless record, yes.
Read Luke 1:1-3, and Luke 3:1-2.

Also, if another family member kept their own record of the family tree, and you matched them up, and saw that they agreed, you could verify that your family did keep a careful record.
True?

Luke's was not the only record.

 

[nPeace]

There is no reason to suppose that the removal of Adam's rib had any effect on his progeny. I believe the discovery that men and women had the same number of ribs did upset some people at one time (don't remember the reference) but they had no reason to be surprised. Surely they had observed that the loss of a limb, for example, did not cause a man's children to be short that limb.

Maybe he should have lost an arm, and see if his offspring would all be one armed.
I wonder what would have happened if Adam lost his male member on his way out the garden.

 

[Alien826]

If your family kept a careful record for hundreds of years in the past, no mistake will be made.
If they kept a careless record, yes.
Read Luke 1:1-3, and Luke 3:1-2.

Also, if another family member kept their own record of the family tree, and you matched them up, and saw that they agreed, you could verify that your family did keep a careful record.
True?

Luke's was not the only record.

That's not my point. You said, referring to the list of people leading up to Jesus,

"They must be allegorical, as well, including Jesus, on which Christianity depends".

My point is that if one entry on a list is incorrect (or allegorical) that doesn't imply that all entries are incorrect (or allegorical). In other words, if Adam is allegorical, it doesn't follow that Jesus is also allegorical.

 

[Alien826]

Maybe he should have lost an arm, and see if his offspring would all be one armed.
I wonder what would have happened if Adam lost his male member on his way out the garden.

Loud complaints from Eve, I imagine.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is this Déjà vu? I'm sure I saw this before. I hope I am mistaken.

Umm, I don't know. The only deja-vu I'm having is with you not answering a question posed to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it can be if you read it metaphorically.

Yes, it still works that way. And it also allows one to legitimately wave away the cruelty and incompetence of God if one reads the story literally. I can't understand why believers do not jump at an explanation that cures some of the worst problems of the Bible and improves the PR of their God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If your family kept a careful record for hundreds of years in the past, no mistake will be made.
If they kept a careless record, yes.
Read Luke 1:1-3, and Luke 3:1-2.

Also, if another family member kept their own record of the family tree, and you matched them up, and saw that they agreed, you could verify that your family did keep a careful record.
True?

Luke's was not the only record.

Yes, and the record in Luke contradicts the record in Matthew. Do you know what is a much more reasonable explanation than "One was Joseph's record and one was Mary's (by the way, there is nothing in the Bible that supports that belief, it is merely an excuse to an obvious error in the Bible)? Sorry, side tracked myself. I will ask again. Do you know what a more reasonable and rational explanation is for those "records"? the rather obvious answer is that both of them were made up in an attempt to make their stories more believable. And of course no one here has to date properly dealt with the problem of the ten year difference in the birth dates found in Matthew and in Luke.