Eve came from Adam, evolution does not allow this

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
If you think the mornings were dark, or evenings light, well, you should have some reason or biblical support.
I never said anything like this. I am asking you about how can there be an "exact first-day" on a globe earth. Genesis says God created light (Gen1v3), and then separated the light and darkness - creating the morning and night: the First day. But technically, because of the shape of our Earth that means only one side of the planet had "the first day". Yet we don't see this stated or clarified more. This quote shows that you can't even understand what I am arguing about.

Not sure how you missed in my past arguments that God lit the world in creation week.
Because not only is that an assertion of yours (because nothing in Gen 1:1-2 says he was a literal light source prior to creating light) but it isn't even in context to the points I am asking which is shown in Gen 1:3 where God creates light and starts "the first day" based on the first morning and night.

Gen 1:
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So now, look at verse 5.

So we know He was here and moving. We know evening and morning were here from day 1. We know He created light by day 1. Any more questions?
I understand the agony of not comprehending the light. There is help.
Yes, how can there be a 1st day for the entire earth if one face of the sphere can exp morning?

If He parted light and darkness (in a way science has no clue about) then earth would have mornings and evenings, as it did! Now we also know He (who can light the universe) was also right here over the planet. moving. It doesn't make sense to argue above your pay grade about how God lit the earth and divided the light for evenings and mornings. We either believe He did, as He says or we do not. Choose ye this day which side you are on.

But Gen 1 shows him hovering, afterwards we have no indication of any continuous movement which puts your made up guessing game of him being a literal light source unsupported (not to mention insignificant to the context of my argument). At the same time, even if I ride this creative writing of yours, the "morning" was defined based on the light (which we know is the sun).
 
  • Useful
Reactions: trophy33
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Exactly. The whole idea of one organism being the ancestor of all organisms... is an assumption that is assumed without it being written.

Comes down to evidence. You lose.
 
Upvote 0

dad

Undefeated!
Supporter
Jan 17, 2005
44,904
1,261
✟25,524.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I never said anything like this. I am asking you about how can there be an "exact first-day" on a globe earth.

Well God said the evening and morning were the first day. That does it for me. Not sure where your problem is.
Genesis says God created light (Gen1v3), and then separated the light and darkness - creating the morning and night: the First day. But technically, because of the shape of our Earth that means only one side of the planet had "the first day". Yet we don't see this stated or clarified more. This quote shows that you can't even understand what I am arguing about.

No. It means your concept of a day is small. It was day one for earth and this day had an evening and a morning. A day included both the evening and the morning. A day was not just the morning when it was light.

Because not only is that an assertion of yours (because nothing in Gen 1:1-2 says he was a literal light source prior to creating light) but it isn't even in context to the points I am asking which is shown in Gen 1:3 where God creates light and starts "the first day" based on the first morning and night.
You are talking about things you do not know about. How would you know if God Himself who was here and moving parted the light in a way that resulted in evening and morning, or whether He Himself lit the world where He was over? The point is He was here and there was an evening and a morning and the parting of light at that time. No sun was required. When He later created the sun, then it fit right in, and worked with His plan and will, that there were evenings and mornings. Your mistake is to obsess and focus only on that sun now, and how it now works, and try to lock God into having had to fit your model.

So now, look at verse 5.


Yes, how can there be a 1st day for the entire earth if one face of the sphere can exp morning?
Simple. In Hebrew a day is this

twot
day, time, year
  1. day (as opposed to night)
  2. day (24 hour period)
    1. as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
    2. as a division of time 1b

On this planet in that period of time that was a day, there was evening and morning. Together, that was the first day.
But Gen 1 shows him hovering, afterwards we have no indication of any continuous movement which puts your made up guessing game of him being a literal light source unsupported (not to mention insignificant to the context of my argument).

Since there was both an evening and a morning that first day something apparently was moving! If not God..who was here and moving by the way, then what would you suggest? I have already suggested an alternative, and that was that maybe God willed the light to part on earth into evening and morning. This I suggest God could do without a sun. The bible seems to contain higher science than modern so called science.
At the same time, even if I ride this creative writing of yours, the "morning" was defined based on the light (which we know is the sun).

No, the light was obviously not the sun before the darn thing was even created! The sun now defines it for us, and really we know of nothing else. But we were not there watching Him work before man was created now were we?

As mentioned, the bible illustrates God's absolute command over light and darkness in specific miracles recorded. The bible also point blank says that God will light that 1500 mile long, wide and high city of gold in the future. That same God was right here moving over the planet before the sun was created, and He says there was also evening and morning at the time! The bible also points out that Job (we can add you and modern 'science' also) did not know which way light was parted.


Hoo ha.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Dad wrote:
God knows how to part light. Science doesn't. For creation realities we cannot look to demon science. The quest of demon science is to cast doubt on the very word of God.

And here we have the nub of the problem 'Dad' is experiencing. We should be sympathetic, he is really struggling to defend his version of the faith.

"God knows how to part light". You're right, in that God knows how to 'do', everything, but that does not mean that you know exactly how God did everything, insisting that you get this 'understanding' of everything from a 'book' called the Bible. The bible does not tell us everything.

This mindset causes YEC's to deny that we know anything about light or indeed anything about reality, except what we can read in the bible. The entire electromagnetic spectrum to them is 'devil's science', because they do not trust it, because it is not contained within the pages of the bible, the way they read it.

Science has no interest whatever in debunking 'the bible'. Science is in a quest for TRUTH, using different methods than those used in THEOLOGY and without the need for faith, (except faith in the fact that the universe seems to behave in a logical and predictable manner). If we are logical in our understanding of it we will discover the truth. Eventually, if both science and theology are indeed quests for 'truth', then they will inevitably reach the same conclusions. That Jesus Christ is indeed THE TRUTH and that all things will come together in him. Eph.1:10, Col.1:16.

We should not allow ourselves to be beguiled by the demons of 'religion' which would prefer to keep us scientifically ignorant. That ignorance has inflicted plague, darkness and misery upon the human race for millinnia. Matt.4:16. Christ came that we might know the TRUTH, He is the TRUTH and were he here on earth today he would not be 'casting out science', he would be still casting out demons of ignorance.

It is ignorance that is the enemy of the human race. We lack wisdom. Freedom consists in knowing the truth. John 8:32. For scientists it is found in the logical analysis of facts. For believers it is found in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the logical analysis of facts. I suggest that Dad failed in only the last clause of the previous sentence.
.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: lasthero
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"God knows how to part light". You're right, in that God knows how to 'do', everything, but that does not mean that you know exactly how God did everything, insisting that you get this 'understanding' of everything from a 'book' called the Bible. The bible does not tell us everything.

True the bible doesn't tell us everything. But, it does tell us certain things. From these certain things we can rule out or rule in what God did or how God did something.

For example the text of the bible clearly doesn't say God used evolution to form man. At the same time the text clearly says God didn't use evolution to create man.

If the bible has words such as "from the animals I formed man" you might have a point. But the language states man was formed from the dust then Eve from mans rib. That's about as far away from evolution you can get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
AAll that does is push it back. Who made the alien?

You'd have to ask the guys who think we were made by "the designer." Maybe he's sitting on the back of a giant turtle, or something...
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
True the bible doesn't tell us everything. But, it does tell us certain things. From these certain things we can rule out or rule in what God did or how God did something.

For example the text of the bible clearly doesn't say God used evolution to form man. At the same time the text clearly says God didn't use evolution to create man.

If the bible has words such as "from the animals I formed man" you might have a point. But the language states man was formed from the dust then Eve from mans rib. That's about as far away from evolution you can get.

It actually says that man is made from the same stuff the animals were made of and that he goes back to being the same stuff that they go back to as well. It is only the breath of God in them that is or ever was 'immortal'. It was that that 'died', it is that that is resurrected in us and that that will stand before the judgment seat to give account for our deeds done upon earth.

Rauch, breath, spirit, πνεῦμα pneuma; from 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc.,
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Comes down to evidence. You lose.
Are you so blind that you missed the irony of their post?

Let me set it up:

They said:
Cis.jd said:

Why are we going to assume that when it's not written?

Which implies that someone has a belief in something that was not written.


Then, you have this same person arguing for concepts that are not written, themselves... "evolution"

The creation as a YEC sees it, is actually written down. The evolutionist has to claim that this written account is allegorical, metaphorical or some sort of parable... Due to the simple fact that it IS.... written down as six literal days.

So....... who is assuming something that is not "written down"?



 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Barbarian observes:
Comes down to evidence. You lose.

Are you so blind that you missed the irony of their post?

I'm just pointing out that evidence overrules your new revision of God's word. That's all.

Cis.jd said:

Why are we going to assume that when it's not written?

Which implies that someone has a belief in something that was not written.

Specifically, the YEC additions to scripture? Yep. As noted many times.

Then, you have this same person arguing for concepts that are not written, themselves... "evolution"

Which is why I said that evolution comes down to evidence. You lose.

The creation as a YEC sees it, is actually written down.

No. Creation as YEC sees it, requires many, many revisions to Genesis. It's a very modern alteration to God's word.

The evolutionist has to claim that this written account is allegorical, metaphorical or some sort of parable...

As Christians knew well over a thousand years ago. It's not a literal history, and they knew it, even then. Your new belief is no older than the 20th century, when YEC was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Due to the simple fact that it IS.... written down as six literal days.

Nope. As Christians point out, if it was six literal days, there wouldn't be mention of mornings and evenings before there was a Sun to have them.

So....... who is assuming something that is not "written down"?

Young Earth Creationists.
 
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Exactly. The whole idea of one organism being the ancestor of all organisms... is an assumption that is assumed without it being written.
Yes. But on the context of what you are quoting it's for the sake of pointing out the hypocrisy of dad's initial stance. My argument is that we can't reject scientific theories such as evolution because (we think) it contrasts the Bible.

The book of Genesis is true but we also have to realize that God did not create the Bible to exactly reveal everything about his design. So what we have are compact-general details, because God intended the Bible to be 1,200+ pages with the majority of the content to be about the relationship between him and man.

I think he may have known that giving us a book that not only tells us about him but gives every scientific explanation of his design was too much for our brains to handle at the same time. Which is why these scientific questions should not be sought out through scripture. The writers explained these things based on their current understanding of the universe and not because of any secrets from the Holy Spirit.

Which is why we can't use the Bible to confirm or deconfirm certain scientific theories such as Evolution, Big Bang, or whatever else that happens. The church has done this by trying to defend the Heliocentric theory, flat earth, to YE, and it always just ends with us christians losing it's credibility.

This is the point i'm presenting to Dad. Genesis doesn't take in mind a sphere earth which is why we have no scientific clarification as to how a "1st-day" can logically be when one side of the sphere would be the 1st to exp the day. We don't know how Adam and Eve originally looked. Maybe the looked holy, and after the fall, their bodies devolved into the "ape-looking" in where we will now have to progress-evolve back to the image that God originally wanted us to be. We don't know because the Bible just made it's creation story straight to the point so it can go and talk about how everything leads to the Messiah.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Cis.jd

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2015
3,613
1,484
New York, NY
✟140,465.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
True the bible doesn't tell us everything. But, it does tell us certain things. From these certain things we can rule out or rule in what God did or how God did something.

For example the text of the bible clearly doesn't say God used evolution to form man. At the same time the text clearly says God didn't use evolution to create man.

If the bible has words such as "from the animals I formed man" you might have a point. But the language states man was formed from the dust then Eve from mans rib. That's about as far away from evolution you can get.

Yes, but this is where you argument is getting problems. The Bible doesn't tell us everything, it doesn't tell us the earth as a sphere, it doesn't say how many planets are in our solar system, it doesn't say the earth is tilted.. yet i assume you accept these are facts. So why can't you apply this with evolution?

The Bible could even contain scientific invalid content, but likewise that shouldn't diminish it's credibility as being true. If we just stop viewing it as some mach-daddy of all the answers of the universe and just use it for what God intended us to use it for then we wouldn't be looked negatively for absurdity.
 
Upvote 0

ExTiff

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2018
481
99
78
Southampton
✟41,282.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Are you so blind that you missed the irony of their post?

Let me set it up:

They said:
Cis.jd said:

Why are we going to assume that when it's not written?

Which implies that someone has a belief in something that was not written.


Then, you have this same person arguing for concepts that are not written, themselves... "evolution"

The creation as a YEC sees it, is actually written down. The evolutionist has to claim that this written account is allegorical, metaphorical or some sort of parable... Due to the simple fact that it IS.... written down as six literal days.

So....... who is assuming something that is not "written down"?

So....... who is assuming something that is not "written down"?

ALL allegories, parables, types and similies, in the bible are 'written down'. That does not stop them being allegories, or make them definitively 'historical'. How you interpret the meaning of the text and the context it was written in, and the type of literature it actually is and was for the author, those are the determining factors. Plus how it accords with what the human race has learned scientifically, over the last 6,000 years, to be logically probable. We are still discovering what the bible has to tell us of The Truth, which is God. If we already knew everything and got it right, we would have already reached the New Jerusalem.


.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It actually says that man is made from the same stuff the animals were made of and that he goes back to being the same stuff that they go back to as well.

Perhaps you can interpret it that way, but it doesn't matter and it doesn't help the concept of evolutionism. You see Eve was made from Adams rib and as I pointed out earlier....that isn't evolution.


It is only the breath of God in them that is or ever was 'immortal'. It was that that 'died', it is that that is resurrected in us and that that will stand before the judgment seat to give account for our deeds done upon earth.

Rauch, breath, spirit, πνεῦμα pneuma; from 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc.,
.

According to your bible..Adam had parents. Maybe even brothers and sisters. Did they all receive the spirit at the same time?
During the process of evolutionism did all those photo-humans receive the spirit when their DNA evolved to a certain level?

I'd like to entertain your thoughts...but as you see you must reject what the scripture says and leave it all behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
ALL allegories, parables, types and similies, in the bible are 'written down'. That does not stop them being allegories, or make them definitively 'historical'. How you interpret the meaning of the text and the context it was written in, and the type of literature it actually is and was for the author, those are the determining factors. Plus how it accords with what the human race has learned scientifically, over the last 6,000 years, to be logically probable. We are still discovering what the bible has to tell us of The Truth, which is God. If we already knew everything and got it right, we would have already reached the New Jerusalem.


.

Why would God create in one way then tell us He did it in a different way?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, but this is where you argument is getting problems. The Bible doesn't tell us everything, it doesn't tell us the earth as a sphere, it doesn't say how many planets are in our solar system, it doesn't say the earth is tilted.. yet i assume you accept these are facts. So why can't you apply this with evolution?

The bible doesn't tell us the earth is not a sphere. The bible doesn't tell us there is not 9 planets. The bible doesn't tell us the earth is not tilted.
As i said the bible clearly tells us god didn't use evolution.

For example 1st Tim 2:13 says "For Adam was formed first, and then Eve." Are you going to tell me God evolved males before human females?

The Bible could even contain scientific invalid content, but likewise that shouldn't diminish it's credibility as being true. If we just stop viewing it as some mach-daddy of all the answers of the universe and just use it for what God intended us to use it for then we wouldn't be looked negatively for absurdity.

I do. The bible says God created man from the dust then women from his side. The bible says the women called Eve would be the mother of all. If populations evolve the Eve could not be the mother of all.

now, if you want to believe in evolutionism, have at it. Just don't teach the bible supports it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes. But on the context of what you are quoting it's for the sake of pointing out the hypocrisy of dad's initial stance. My argument is that we can't reject scientific theories such as evolution because (we think) it contrasts the Bible.

We don't. We reject evolutionism because it's impossible. A process containing random mutations...where very, very few would be considered as beneficial and enhancing the fitness of the population can't create the information contained in the genetic DNA code. It's not surprising that the bible supports this finding that evolutionism is impossible.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

-57

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2015
8,699
1,957
✟70,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Are you so blind that you missed the irony of their post?

Let me set it up:

They said:
Cis.jd said:

Why are we going to assume that when it's not written?

Which implies that someone has a belief in something that was not written.


Then, you have this same person arguing for concepts that are not written, themselves... "evolution"

The creation as a YEC sees it, is actually written down. The evolutionist has to claim that this written account is allegorical, metaphorical or some sort of parable... Due to the simple fact that it IS.... written down as six literal days.

So....... who is assuming something that is not "written down"?

Parables.

The interesting thing is all the parables are written in a way to reflect actual events or events that could actually happen.
In the case of Adam and Eve the actual event is that creation of Adam from the dust then Eve from his rib. Perhaps the parable is the understanding that a wife belongs next to a mans side or they are one flesh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0