Are Adam and Eve Incompatible with Evolution?

[Brian2]

It would could happen with first child.
Where'd this presumption of perfection come from?

Just thinking how inbreeding might last a while without too many problems and assuming that God would have made Adam without problems.

 

[Brian2]

You are ASSUMING these anecdotes are factual.

Studies have been done seeking the anecdotes and looking at the evidence. No assumptions, just looking at the evidence. Are you assuming that the anecdotes are lies?

Science DOES NOT say life can only come from pre existing life.
As before, this error on your part displays a very fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, and how it works.
Zero rational in your approach. You dont get to
appropriate the rational high ground just by
claiming you have it.

No doubt science does not say that life only comes from pre existing life. However that is all that science knows. Anything beyond that is hypothesis,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,an area where many want to live and further the experience by saying that science might produce life from chemicals one day.
Life only from pre existing life does mean an initial life giver. Better to live in hypothesis world I guess.

 

[Left Coast]

How about those with 'more knowledge' about Genesis?

More knowledge of Genesis won't help a person understand whether the idea in the OP holds any weight in terms of biology, genetics, anthropology, etc.

Genesis 4:14 : "Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

Who the hell is he worried about, if it was just him, his parents, & Able?

Maybe a cherub with a magic flaming sword? (Genesis 3:24)

It's not exactly an airtight account.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If anecdotes are shown to be true than that is evidence. If people have had conscious experiences in one room while asleep in another that is evidence.

Not if it only comes in the form of claims that it has occurred.

Where's the actual evidence? The documented rigorous studies under controlled conditions?
Answer: there are none. It's just claims piling on, as if adding more mere claims somehow validates the original claims.

If the only thing that we know is that life can come only from other life

We don't know that.
You like to believe that. Which is very different.

Also, the word "only" there, makes your claim a negative claim.
Reworded by removing the confusing bits, it would read like this: "life can not come from non-life".
This is a negative claim that you couldn't even support with any kind of evidence.

At best, you can only point at failed attempts to try and turn non-life into life and / or the lack of observation of such. But that does NOT, by any means, mean that it is impossible.

At best, it only means that we don't know.

and people want to ignore that for a hypothesis that presumes the opposite that is living by choice in a fantasy instead of living in the knowledge we have until something new is shown to be true.

Actually, we know for a FACT that life came from non-life.
How, you may ask?

Well, it's very simple.
Life didn't always exist. It factually had to originate at some point.
So at some point, life emerged where there wasn't any life before.

And since there isn't any matter in our bodies that isn't found elsewhere in the universe (in fact, our bodies are made from the most common elements in the universe), it's safe to assume that non-living matter at some point formed living-matter by *some process*.

Scientists working in abiogenesis are trying to find how that process works.
Creationists pretend to know that their incompatible/ mutually exclusive gods did it.

That's ultimately the difference.

One side (science) is actually working on the problem and trying to come up with a falsifiable, demonstrable answer.

While the other side (creationist) like to pretend as if they know it even before they asked the question.

Religionists used to pretend knowing such answers concerning a great deal of mysteries in the world. One by one, they were worked on by science and as it turns out, the actual demonstrable answer NEVER turned out to match the religious answer.

Jupiter and lightning bolts
Thor and thunder
Poseidon and tides / storms
Ra's chariot and the sunset/sunrise
Jawhe and humans (evolution)
...

Whenever science and religion went head to head on a particular problem concerning a phenomenon of reality, religion NEVER merged victorious.

I don't expect the subject of abiogenesis to be any different.

 

[viole]

It works so well that man sees no need for a God. That is what it has worked will at, seemingly eliminating the need for a God.............but only seemingly.

Well, if the methodological naturalistic premise works so well, maybe the ontological one might be true, too. And in that case, it would be an understatement that (wo)man does not need. God, and with it everything that is supernatural, would not exist.

So, in order to still need God, we need to make up other premises. Mainly intended to answer "why questions". Like "why are you here?", and stuff like that. However, they all tend to be question begging, and not necessary. Neither scientifically, nor philosophically.

Ergo, there is really no general need, nor ontological necessity, for a God. Or Goddesses, Or gods. That is just what some people need because they cannot bear the unavoidable consequences of mere naturalism.

Ciao

- viole

 

[exchemist]

Are you saying that it has been found that spiders learn how to spin a web by watching other spiders?
Being innate is not how a spider learned how to spin a web.

Oh dear, you can't read English, it seems. This is going to be very difficult.

No, I'm saying the opposite. I am saying we have evidence, from observing spiders, that they do not learn to spin a web by watching other spiders. So that means we have evidence it is innate behaviour, not learned behaviour.

There is a range of innate behaviour known to exist in other arthropods, notably in insects. The genetic basis of this has been studied: Insect Behavior - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. But it is not an easy area to research.

 

[gnostic]

Life only from pre existing life does mean an initial life giver.

It mean, parents and child. The parents would be the initial life givers, silly.

For humans, it involved sex, fertilization of egg, pregnancy, then birth...which is the natural process.

If the only thing that we know is that life can come only from other life and people want to ignore that for a hypothesis that presumes the opposite that is living by choice in a fantasy instead of living in the knowledge we have until something new is shown to be true.

Excuse me, (highlighted in red) but that’s strawman.

Biology have shown that offspring are reproduce sexually, and in some cases with other organisms, reproduction can asexually.

So with humans, reproduction occurred after sex, that could possibly result woman being pregnant, and later give birth to infant child.

There are nothing unnatural or supernatural with this process.

But in Genesis 2, god creating living adult human from lifeless dust...then that’s very unnatural.

Dusts are life waste product. A dust cannot transform into organic matter, like a cell.

If you actually believe this creation is possible, then it only you, who believe in fantasy.

Do you know what a sperm or egg are?

They are cells - more specifically they are both gametes, which are haploid cells. When they combined (conception), the egg is fertilized, and the cell, divide multiple times, forming new cells, until it becomes an embryo.

The haploid cells are not dust. All the cells in our bodies are not dust.

But when cells died, the cells would disintegrate, and if it become dry husk, it will turn to dust.

Only ignorant people would think that non-living dusts can transform into living human beings, especially a fully grown adult, like Adam. That’s the silly fantasy.

Genesis 2 have only demonstrated that the author, have no idea of human biology. Whoever wrote Genesis, have no understanding of science.

You have no understanding of biology.

 

[Audie]

If anecdotes are shown to be true than that is evidence. If people have had conscious experiences in one room while asleep in another that is evidence.
If the only thing that we know is that life can come only from other life and people want to ignore that for a hypothesis that presumes the opposite that is living by choice in a fantasy instead of living in the knowledge we have until something new is shown to be true.

IF is the operative word. Your NDEs are not verified. See " fantasy" Simple.

Life is only known to have come from
pre existing life. This not in dispute.

The fantasy is belief in " knowledge" that abio is impossible.
This " knowledge" that it cannot is fantasy.
It is an unadulterated falsehood to say " we know life can only come from..."

Please correct this. It is an absurd statement.

And the very presupposition you falsely attribute to science, and a h
good example of teligious beliefs contrary to the interest of advancing science.

In the event, basic research in organic chemistry
continues and will continue to produce actual
facts and info, free of presuppostion, anecdote,
religious prejudices, and imaginary " laws" that
preclude any advances.

I took time BTW to address all of your ideas, you
might return the courtesy of noting that you have
been corrected on them rather than ignoring inconvenient facts

 

[Audie]

The first human that God created.

Presupposition City

 

[Audie]

Just thinking how inbreeding might last a while without too many problems and assuming that God would have made Adam without problems.

Assume assume
Do you understand why if there had been
a " perfect" Adam and Eve" their very first child could have had Downs syndrome?

 

[Audie]

Studies have been done seeking the anecdotes and looking at the evidence. No assumptions, just looking at the evidence. Are you assuming that the anecdotes are lies?



No doubt science does not say that life only comes from pre existing life. However that is all that science knows. Anything beyond that is hypothesis,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,an area where many want to live and further the experience by saying that science might produce life from chemicals one day.
Life only from pre existing life does mean an initial life giver. Better to live in hypothesis world I guess.

You are assumimg the anecdotes reflect actual events.
I say that the evidence that they do is absent.

Dont put your fault onto me.

Your double negatives and garbled prose
cannot be directly addressed.

Are you admitting you are wrong about
knowing life can only come from preexisting life,
or denying it?

 

[exchemist]

The first human that God created.

Ah so you assume by means of a miracle, then, rather than naturally. Well if that were the case then no doubt God could also stop any defects from appearing, so all bets would be off, no science would be applicable and we could all stop researching anything.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

So your reason for believing it, is the "I already also believe other things which require me to believe these things also".


Not a very good reason, now is it?

The witness of the Holy Spirit is powerful and ineffable.

I literally cannot deny it as it is surer than sight to me.

I understand that the thought that people having faith and hope in ideas that they cannot prove may seem ridiculous to you.

I don't really care.

 

[Audie]

The witness of the Holy Spirit is powerful and ineffable.

I literally cannot deny it as it is surer than sight to me.

I understand that the thought that people having faith and hope in ideas that they cannot prove may seem ridiculous to you.

I don't really care.

It depends on what people have faith in.

Faith in an afterlife is ok. Why not.
It has plus and minus but probably mostly plus.

Faith that God has given one the power of
infallible bible reading and therefore noahs ark
is literally true, or ftm, that atheists are as
nad as the bible sez...maybe not so cool

I had one tell me he was waiting for Word
that its time to hang me and the other atheists from lampposts.

Maybe you should consider caring...?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

It depends on what people have faith in.

Faith in an afterlife is ok. Why not.
It has plus and minus but probably mostly plus.

Faith that God has given one the power of
infallible bible reading and therefore noahs ark
is literally true, or ftm, that atheists are as
nad as the bible sez...maybe not so cool

I had one tell me he was waiting for Word
that its time to hang me and the other atheists from lampposts.

Maybe you should consider caring...?

No - you are not the arbiter of truth - you cannot tell anyone what is or is not okay to believe in.

 

[Audie]

No - you are not the arbiter of truth - you cannot tell anyone what is or is not okay to believe in.

Ha. You are playing arbiter.

AND if as you indicate really feel its ok
for someone to believe God will tell him to hang me from a lamp post, i do hope you will reconsider.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Ha. You are playing arbiter.

No - I am sharing what I believe.

I don't tell other people what is okay or not okay for them to believe.

That's you.

AND if as you indicate really feel its ok
for someone to believe God will tell him to hang me from a lamp post, i do hope you will reconsider.

I never said that I was okay with anything.

 

[Audie]

No - I am sharing what I believe.

I don't tell other people what is okay or not okay for them to believe.

That's you.

I never said that I was okay with anything.

Whstevs. Word games dont amuse mr.

 

[gnostic]

Studies have been done seeking the anecdotes and looking at the evidence. No assumptions, just looking at the evidence. Are you assuming that the anecdotes are lies?

That’s depending on each individual person.

The problems with anecdotes are that people have the potentials to be truthful or dishonest, accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational, educated or uneducated, biased or unbiased, etc.

If there are evidence, then you would have to compare them against each person’s anecdote, to find out which of the above would apply to person and the person’s anecdote.

The thing is, by themselves - as in if there are no evidence - then the anecdotes are claims that we have no ways who is telling the truth. Especially if the anecdotes fall under the supernatural or paranormal, then it is more likely these people are either lying or are irrational, or being delusional or seeking attentions or any other possibilities.

This is why anecdotes are sometimes unreliable and cannot be trusted.

 

[Audie]

That’s depending on each individual person.

The problems with anecdotes are that people have the potentials to be truthful or dishonest, accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational, educated or uneducated, biased or unbiased, etc.

If there are evidence, then you would have to compare them against each person’s anecdote, to find out which of the above would apply to person and the person’s anecdote.

The thing is, by themselves - as in if there are no evidence - then the anecdotes are claims that we have no ways who is telling the truth. Especially if the anecdotes fall under the supernatural or paranormal, then it is more likely these people are either lying or are irrational, or being delusional or seeking attentions or any other possibilities.

This is why anecdotes are sometimes unreliable and cannot be trusted.

As in, listen to " coast to coast" for people earnestly telling the most ridiculous stories.