• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It would be better for you to remain truth and not make stuff up. Your credibility gets ruined with such claims

I am truthful. What stuff do you think that I made up?
I don't call Him a liar.
But you do. You are merely too uneducated to understand this. Tell me, if a person says that God lies, but does not understand how he said that God is a liar, is that person still in trouble with God?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sorry, I think that is not working explanation. And I don't believe in such development. However, if there is not first human(s), then it means we don't have a good definition for a human.
Due to the fact of evolution there is no "absolute" definition of any species. This is well understood. And it is continuously supported by nature. The problem is that you want a creationist type of definition and reality keeps showing that those definitions are incorrect.

This is why there is no such thing as an informed and honest creationist. There are many "honest" creationists. I used scare quotes because in many ways I do not think that maintaining willful ignorance is not honest. But when it comes to creationists that actually understand the science that they try to abuse, they do have to openly lie to maintain their beliefs. That is why creationism is held in so much contempt by those in the sciences. In the sciences being wrong is not a problem. Everyone is wrong at times. But lying is harmful to scientific advancement. It can be the one "unforgivable sin" of science.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
It depends on what is meant with science. If science is what really can be observed, it is not against Adam and Eve story.
ergo, scientific/forensic police, trying to solve a crime without eye witnesses, is an oxymoron, right? They cannot possibly use science to solve their case, if science is not applicable in case of lack of observers Of what really happened.

are you guys really so desperate that you need to redefine words like “science” to be able still hang on that very thin hair?

why do you do that? Why don’t you simply reject science entirely, instead of castrating it? Or making a mockery thereof? It would be much simpler.

ciao

- viole
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
ergo, scientific/forensic police, trying to solve a crime without eye witnesses, is an oxymoron, right? They cannot possibly use science to solve their case, if science is not applicable in case of lack of observers Of what really happened.

are you guys really so desperate that you need to redefine words like “science” to be able still hang on that very thin hair?

why do you do that? Why don’t you simply reject science entirely, instead of castrating it? Or making a mockery thereof? It would be much simpler.

ciao

- viole
I can answer that for you. Because the scientific method produces more reliable results than just about any other method it is well respected. They crave that respect for their bad ideas. But of course the scientific method shows their beliefs to be wrong. So they are in a bit of a bind. They want the respect that the scientific method engenders in topics, but to get that respect they would have to ruin the scientific method.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I certainly respect skepticism
You probably already agree that the faith-based thinker (and much of the lay public) uses the word to mean something different than the critical thinker, who simply means that all claims should be subject to critical analysis before being believed. The faithful generally mean that they don't believe an idea when they use that word. When I say I'm skeptical, I mean that I don't accept anything as truth just because it was said or written, that there is an empirical test that must be passed before belief. When the creationist uses the same word, that's not what he means. He means that he has already rejected the idea usually with the wave of a hand because it conflicts with his faith-based beliefs.
Another mistake made is to assume a day in the Bible is an earth Day.
I just had to comment on what I think is the first post from you've I've read that wasn't a criticism of American liberals. But I also wanted to make the argument for why you are probably wrong. The biblical creation myth authors like all other creation mythicists, took their best guess as to how all of this got here, and guessed wrong. I'm sure that that's something that you would agree with if we were talking about any of the now defunct religions from history, but not if it appears in your scriptures. Then it cannot be error, so the motivated reasoning begins to try to make the language conform with the science better, and it includes a day not being a literal day, because we know that that is incorrect. But the evidence against that reading is threefold. First, there is no reason to assume that the word doesn't have its literal meaning, no indication that it is a metaphorical usage. Second, the days of creation contain a morning and an evening. And third, the seventh day is a day of rest, and one is commanded to emulate God by resting from one sunset to the next - 24 hours.

"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women."

I think that demonstrates that there has been Adam and Eve.
It does not demonstrate that there was a first mated couple, nor that these were the first human beings - just a common ancestor.
what I know about the speed how DNA is degenerating
It's not. You should look at science resources, not creationist sources, whose agenda is not truth as defined by a critical thinker, but rather, the promoting of religion by any effective means.
I think that is not working explanation.
Except that it works fine and is compatible with the available evidence. Do you have any reason for rejecting that besides faith in something else?
if there is not first human(s), then it means we don't have a good definition for a human.
We don't have a definition for human being that allows us to identify a first one. There isn't even agreement about its species. Some mean Homo sapiens, but some mean any creature of the genus Homo, which includes H. erectus and H. habilis, and some include any hominid, which goes back to the break with the chimp line and includes the genuses Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
False, and the first evidence of this was found in what is today Israel whereas what is believed to be both parents died next to the child.

The geneticists know what they're doing and how d.n.a. fits into this.
--and the fact that the two groups lived side by side for many tens of thousands of years always maintaining distinct physical and behavioral characteristics means nothing to you. We're done.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
...I am not sure how the concept of "WOKE" applies to this discussion, so I will set that aside...
You're setting it aside and at the same time you're bringing it up. Let's face it, for better of for worse I've (however inadvertantly) pushed one too many hot buttons here so I'm afraid I'll just have to step back.

Cheers.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
huh, you're asking me if the "evidence is woke" right after I just said so? OK, we're done.
It was a legitimate question. And you need a valid source if you want to claim that the interbreeding of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis is controversial. This would be the first time that I heard that claim.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
You're setting it aside and at the same time you're bringing it up. Let's face it, for better of for worse I've (however inadvertantly) pushed one too many hot buttons here so I'm afraid I'll just have to step back.

Cheers.
I am not setting it aside. Just explain how the news that we interbred is controversial.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You're setting it aside and at the same time you're bringing it up. Let's face it, for better of for worse I've (however inadvertantly) pushed one too many hot buttons here so I'm afraid I'll just have to step back.

Cheers.

No problem. Have a good evening.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
ergo, scientific/forensic police, trying to solve a crime without eye witnesses, is an oxymoron, right? They cannot possibly use science to solve their case, if science is not applicable in case of lack of observers Of what really happened.

are you guys really so desperate that you need to redefine words like “science” to be able still hang on that very thin hair?

why do you do that? Why don’t you simply reject science entirely, instead of castrating it? Or making a mockery thereof? It would be much simpler.
For me pure science means this:

The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries; see the article history of scientific method for additional detail.) It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing...
 

1213

Well-Known Member
This makes zero sense and exposed a grotest lack of understanding how genetics actually work.
So, you don't think mutations happen?
This once again makes absolutely zero sense. And is also completely besides the point of the grotesk lack of genetic variation if you have a population of just a single breeding pair.
Sorry, I don't see any good reason to think they could not have had enough genetic variation.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...
How did that occur?
Pretty much the same way biological evolution happens:
Through small changes over generations and "genetic" isolation.
Every new generation added different accents, pronunciations, new words, etc.
Yes, I can understand the idea how it would happen. The problem is, there is no good reason to believe all species developed in that way. On the contrary, there is lot of reason to think it is not possible. For example because all observable evidence shows things are degenerating, like for example y-chromosome.

Is the Y chromosome dying out?
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Also... why do you only quote that part and for example not this part:
Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.
Because it says "probably", which means it is only guessing.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
The order of creation described - if taken literally - is obviously at odds with the evidence from science. Man is described as being created before the animals.
Where it is said man is created before animals? I don't think Bible tells so, if you read it accurately.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So, you don't think mutations happen?

They don't "degenerate" the DNA and they have no bearing on genetic bottlenecks.

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to think they could not have had enough genetic variation.
Sounds like you don't actually understand or know what genetic variation is.

Once again, if you have only 2 individuals, then you have only 2 variations of that species' DNA.

It's not rocket science.
 
Top