Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

[larkin31]

You are most likely right. Here’s some out-of-context quotes from your link.

This type of writing can be found in some of the research on the origin of the human species.

“Different methods of radiometric dating vary in the timescale over which they are accurate and the materials to which they can be applied.”

“The basic equation of radiometric dating requires that neither the parent nuclide nor the daughter product can enter or leave the material after its formation. The possible confounding effects of contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created.”

“Accurate radiometric dating generally requires that the parent has a long enough half-life that it will be present in significant amounts at the time of measurement (except as described below under “Dating with short-lived extinct radionuclides”),”

" After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years so little carbon-14 is left that accurate dating cannot be established."

“The unranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.”

Is your point that science admits that it is not 100% certain? Is THAT your point?

 

[jmcrae]

Is your point that science admits that it is not 100% certain? Is THAT your point?

It’s quite a lot less than 100% accurate, in fact. We can know that something is 60,000 years old or more (but by how much more, we can’t know) because at 60,000 years, it runs out of carbon.

This assumes it was a pure sample, to begin with. Things get buried on top of each other, so carbon from one thing might get mixed up with the carbon from another thing, falsifying the results.

 

[grannymh]

Is your point that science admits that it is not 100% certain? Is THAT your point?

My point is a bit more subtle in lower case.

Those who have access to actual research regarding a real Adam and Eve need to pay particular attention to the published paper’s sections on materials and methods, especially the accepted assumptions.

 

[larkin31]

My point is a bit more subtle in lower case.

Those who have access to actual research regarding a real Adam and Eve need to pay particular attention to the published paper’s sections on materials and methods, especially the accepted assumptions.

Of course. I read them every time. And everyone who knows anything about science knows that it is empirically based on best estimates (with explicit ranges stated–like the estimates for the years when Jesus lived, if he did exist) which are refined and updated and tested and re-tested.

So which radiometric (and there are other kinds used beyond radiometry) dating process do you reject? Or do you accept their “estimates”?

And which “estimate” for the age of Adam/Eve you you accept? I have actually never heard of an estimate for this age, but if you consider them real, then they must have existed and died over a certain span of years that can be dated. So I am curious.

 

[larkin31]

It’s quite a lot less than 100% accurate, in fact. We can know that something is 60,000 years old or more (but by how much more, we can’t know) because at 60,000 years, it runs out of carbon.

This assumes it was a pure sample, to begin with. Things get buried on top of each other, so carbon from one thing might get mixed up with the carbon from another thing, falsifying the results.

Do you know your science? Carbon-dating isn’t used for those older fossils. This is so well-known that it calls into question your understanding.

Try actually clicking on the link I provided.

Then read it all.

Then comment.

 

[grannymh]

Of course. I read them every time.

Since I specifically referred to “actual research regarding a real Adam and Eve” I am interested in the ones you have read --title, authors, date, journal, pages.

So which radiometric (and there are other kinds used beyond radiometry) dating process do you reject? Or do you accept their “estimates”?

This question does not apply to me at this time.

And which “estimate” for the age of Adam/Eve you you accept? I have actually never heard of an estimate for this age, but if you consider them real, then they must have existed and died over a certain span of years that can be dated. So I am curious.

My faith requires me to believe that Adam and Eve were the two sole parents of the human species. Their age and when they lived are not issues.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is a message of hope sent by God.

 

[larkin31]

Since I specifically referred to “actual research regarding a real Adam and Eve” I am interested in the ones you have read --title, authors, date, journal, pages.

This question does not apply to me at this time…

What does this mean?

 

[grannymh]

What does this mean?

That your questions about radiometric and estimates do not apply to me at this time; therefore, I will not answer them.

 

[larkin31]

That your questions about radiometric and estimates do not apply to me at this time; therefore, I will not answer them.

What does “apply to me” mean? Can’t you tell what I am asking? Radiometric dating “applies to” fossilized specimens. I know that YOU are not the one being dated with the processes. I am asking you what you know about these other methods that are used for older specimens-- you only pointed out the obvious about the limits of one form of dating (carbon-based). Scientists use other methods for other materials. So I am asking what you know and think of these.

 

[grannymh]

What does “apply to me” mean? Can’t you tell what I am asking? Radiometric dating “applies to” fossilized specimens. I know that YOU are not the one being dated with the processes. I am asking you what you know about these other methods that are used for older specimens-- you only pointed out the obvious about the limits of one form of dating (carbon-based). Scientists use other methods for other materials. So I am asking what you know and think of these.

1 The obvious comment about carbon-based dating came from your link.
2. I do not know enough about dating to discuss the subject. Sorry about that.
3. I am old enough to be a fossilized specimen.

Blessings,
granny

 

[larkin31]

1 The obvious comment about carbon-based dating came from your link.
2. I do not know enough about dating to discuss the subject. Sorry about that.
3. I am old enough to be a fossilized specimen.

Blessings,
granny

well, you READ the link I provided, but commented ONLY on the limits of the one method (and the one that is not used with older fossils). And you felt qualified enough to comment on that one. I really don’t understand your reasoning.

 

[jmcrae]

well, you READ the link I provided, but commented ONLY on the limits of the one method (and the one that is not used with older fossils). And you felt qualified enough to comment on that one. I really don’t understand your reasoning.

What struck me was that the other method can be accurate “within one to two hundred million years.”

That’s a heck of a window of difference.

 

[larkin31]

What struck me was that the other method can be accurate “within one to two hundred million years.”

That’s a heck of a window of difference.

Which other method?

The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[12][17] An error margin of 2–5 % has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks.[18]
Uranium-lead dating is often performed on the mineral zircon (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials, such as baddeleyite.[19] Zircon and baddeleyite incorporate uranium atoms into their crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly reject lead. It has a very high closure temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. In situ micro-beam analysis can be achieved via laser ICP-MS or SIMS techniques.[20]
One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235’s decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238’s decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errochron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.
[edit]Samarium-neodymium dating method
Main article: Samarium-neodymium dating
This involves the alpha-decay of 147Sm to 143Nd with a half life of 1.06 x 1011 years. Accuracy levels of less than twenty million years in two-and-a-half billion years are achievable.[21]
[edit]Potassium-argon dating method
Main article: Potassium-argon dating
This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks. Radioactive potassium-40 is common in micas, feldspars, and hornblendes, though the closure temperature is fairly low in these materials, about 125°C (mica) to 450°C (hornblende).
[edit]Rubidium-strontium dating method
Main article: Rubidium-strontium dating
This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample.
[edit]Uranium-thorium dating method
Main article: uranium-thorium dating
A relatively short-range dating technique is based on the decay of uranium-234 into thorium-230, a substance with a half-life of about 80,000 years. It is accompanied by a sister process, in which uranium-235 decays into protactinium-231, which has a half-life of 34,300 years.
While uranium is water-soluble, thorium and protactinium are not, and so they are selectively precipitated into ocean-floor sediments, from which their ratios are measured. The scheme has a range of several hundred thousand years.

 

[grannymh]

Which other method?

When it comes to reality, the exact timing isn’t as important as the fact that there were two, original, sole parents of the human species. Adam, the created one, scorned his Creator. This first real event led to the real event of Jesus Christ being the Savior for all humanity.

Blessings,
granny

Adam and Eve are real by the grace of God.

 

[larkin31]

When it comes to reality, the exact timing isn’t as important as the fact that there were two, original, sole parents of the human species…

No one is asking for “exact” dating–that is not possible.

And we were discussing methods here, although no one seems to want to follow up further on it.

 

[grannymh]

Adam is real because his nature, as illustrated in Genesis, is
spirit/matter,
rational/corporeal,
soul/body
which is irreducibly complex.

Blessings,
granny

Adam and Eve are real people by the grace of God.

 

[larkin31]

Which other method?

jmcrae??

see above

 

[Teneas]

bump

Hoping to see some new insights to this.

 

[grannymh]

bump

Hoping to see some new insights to this.

Good bump. What areas are you interested in? So far, I have not received a reasonable answer to the question – What truth does a symbolic Adam and Eve represent.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Araninski]

I don’t agree 100% on Modern Science, but Catholic Church does, ask Catholics, what I am going to post are my beliefs.

To answer OP, well Catholic Beliefs on Science say something like (Can any Catholic Brother post me the exact quote from the Catechism please) this: " Science does not interfere with Christianity" something like that, so it accepts evolution ( We all come from amoebas which evolve in this, then that, then that, primates, until you get to humans.).

But I do believe that the events that happen in the Genesis are truth 100% as stated, no imagery or literary figures or whatever. Because if evolution did happen then that would mean that there could had been more than 100 (or any random number, as evolution is random, depending on conditions and circumstances , etc) humans at a time, and Original Sin wouldn’t be true, because we wouldn’t inherit the Original Sin. Also remember the great flood killed everyone except Noah and his people he took with him in the ark.

As for the time in which the exact date were Adam and Eve were created I would say something like 10,000 to 6000 years ago maybe much more, not sure.

However if you are talking about the age of Planet Earth and the Universe, Genesis tells God created the Earth in 6 days, it doesn’t say 24 hours, in the Scriptures a day may mean a very long period of time. For God a day is like 1000 years and 1000 years like a day. It doesn’t mean the Earth was created on 6000 years but means it was created on “6 God Days”, to know the age of the Earth we need to know how much time a “God day” is. Day in the bible may mean time. So Day = Time.

God Bless.