Why does science always upstage God?

[Fake Messiah]

presented that biology disproved Adam and Eve. When I asked how biology even explained how life came,......silence.

Yeah, why should you get close to a biology textbook -- let me guess, your pastors tell you it is satanism and you will lose your Christianity.

Nevertheless here are a few examples:

From the composition of just two human genomes, geneticists have computed the size of the human population 1.2 million years ago from which everyone in the world is descended.

They put the number at 18,500 people, but this refers only to breeding individuals, the “effective” population. The actual population would have been about three times as large, or 55,500.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/science/19human.html



theologians pretend that the scientific results, which show that humans didn’t evolve from a single pair of ancestors, simply mean that we must reinterpret the Genesis story of Adam and Eve. But, as usual, theology cannot solve this problem, though Haarsma pretends that diligent theological study and proper interpretation of Scripture will yield an answer. It’s a prime example of how religious tenets are not only disproven by science, but, more important, how religion, unlike science, is powerless to find truth.

The facts first. Sheehan et al., building on earlier work by Li and Durbin (references in margin), calculated that the minimum population size associated with the worldwide expansion of humans out of Africa roughly 100,000 years ago was 2,250 individuals, while the population that remained in Africa was no smaller than about 10,000 individuals. For population geneticists, this is the “effective population size,” invariably smaller than the census size, so these are minimum estimates, and ones derived from conservative assumptions. The population sizes are estimated by back-calculating (based on reasonable estimates of mutation rates and other genetic parameters) how small an ancestral population could be and still give rise to the observed level and structure of genetic variation in our species.

This means, of course, that Adam and Eve couldn’t have been the literal ancestors of all humanity.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115759/a...e-and-fail


But there is more than just biology that disproves Adam and Eve. There is also archeology that didn't find the Garden of Eden (or any other event described in the Bible); Astrophysics that shows how the universe was not created in six days; geology that shows how the deluge never happened, etc.

Then when I threw in how we even got human sexual reproduction,.....silence.

Again, if you bothered to read a book on evolution you would learn that humans got sexual reproduction like they got other things like eyes, walking, and running - from their animal ancestors. Apes were already having sex, and since we are apes - there is no big mystery.

NONE of you have science to even support how we got the universe naturally?

Let's see, what here is not supported by science?

"I don't know if the universe was fine-tuned for life"

I've shown you clearly don't know a LOT of things except for lying. THAT you know well. You must be proud.

Actually, you are the one who is silent. When I told you that the universe is mostly dead matter and that the only life in the universe is on one planet out of trillions of billions of planets that came about only after billions of years of universe existance, life looks more like life is a fluke, rather than the whole universe being devoted and fine tuned for life. I told you that even the Earth is not fine tuned for life where sun gives you cancer and other deadly stuff -- and you remain silent.

We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max.

Lol! What a word salad. "1LT creation, 2LT creation, you stupid!" Seriously, what are you trying to say here? I have to play a guessing game. Are you trying to say that the order can not arise from disorder because of 2nd law of thermodynamics? Because if you are, then you are wrong because order comes from disorder every day.