Christian Evolutionists....

[Didaskomenos]

But nonetheless... Christian evolution still cannot explain the formation of Eve....which is the main thing this thread is about

Sure it can! Eve was either an unhistorical archetype of women, or at least the first woman who was God-conscious. In the latter case, her "creation" in Genesis had more to do with the creation of God-conscious women (rather than ape women). You may not like it, but that's an explanation.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Sure it can! Eve was either an unhistorical archetype of women, or at least the first woman who was God-conscious. In the latter case, her "creation" in Genesis had more to do with the creation of God-conscious women (rather than ape women). You may not like it, but that's an explanation.

It's almost as though we forget that there was more to the story after the original creation... First off... an "archetype" who also had unhistorical children, caused the fall of man, etc. Genesis doesn't just record (which by the way would make her a historical person) her creation, but also her major events of life... and if she was the first woman who was God-conscious, why did she come from a rib and not a mother?

An explanation lacking a lot... and a double optioned explanation too. Nothing is answered yet... any other theistic evolutionists care to respond?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by WinAce

Yet for all this blabber that we can never admit we're wrong.... [blah, blah, blah defending science against a joke]

Boy do you have issues.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16


It's almost as though we forget that there was more to the story after the original creation... First off... an "archetype" who also had unhistorical children, caused the fall of man, etc. Genesis doesn't just record (which by the way would make her a historical person) her creation, but also her major events of life... and if she was the first woman who was God-conscious, why did she come from a rib and not a mother?

An explanation lacking a lot... and a double optioned explanation too. Nothing is answered yet... any other theistic evolutionists care to respond?

I'll respond.
Because Eve did not come from a "rib". She was born of woman, like every other human being.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Annabel Lee

I'll respond.
Because Eve did not come from a "rib". She was born of woman, like every other human being.

I guess you were there, then. Did you take any baby pictures? Can we see them?

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Originally posted by WinAce
Yet for all this blabber that we can never admit we're wrong, you can't present a single piece of evidence that is inconsistent with evolution. You also can't present any evidence against quantum mechanics, so scientists must be biased when they get confident in that area too, right? They just can't admit that fairies might be responsible for particle mass or electricity.

And the second law of thermodynamics states what again? What about the law of entropy? Everything is shown to be moving to disorder, but to suit the evolutionists, everything is "now" coming to order from nowhere....interesting  

But you see, your problem is that multiple fields unrelated to biology, from physics to geology to astronomy, all converge on the same old age of the universe and earth. Methods such as astrochronology/measured rates of sedimentary deposition/observed plate tectonic movement/ice cores/you name it, as well as other radiometric dating methods, all converge on the same results. You would have to show why they are all wrong yet highly consistent before any other interpretation would be possible.

And your problem now turns out to be that the God of all creation, says He created you, but nooo you're too smart for that. You would have to appear to "show why [/i]HE is wrong, yet highly consistent before any other interpretation would be possible."

Not really. However, given a trillion pieces of evidence that the earth is old which agree with each other, a single bad result in any given method is ridiculous to base doubts off of.

And these pieces of evidence are from who? Scientists whose sole dependance at being a scientist derives answers? How did they date the earth again? And you know them to be correct every time? because they are all infallible, right?

Enlighten me how 'aliens planting life here' is supernatural. Or how 'interdimensional travelers made this universe' is. Both, as well as a variety of other hypotheses, are ad hoc, unfalsifiable rationalizations consistent with the data which give us no explanatory or predictive power whatsoever, just like your God. They don't, however, involve anything supernatural; and the kicker is that you can't show how they make less sense than a supernatural explanation!

Except that... where did the alien life come from again?   And actually God does give explanatory statements... in the Bible which you don't believe...

Let's see. A scientist, who didn't know a single thing about the complexity of the protobiont abiogenesis would create, or how many different configurations would work for life, and ignoring the fact that chemicals naturally arrange themselves into certain complex patterns under the right conditions, calculated the 'odds' nevertheless.

Chemicals actually do not just up and arrange themselves in complex patterns though... "An object in motion tends to remain in motion and an object at rest tends to stay at rest....unless acted upon by an outside force."

Is there anything analogous here to saying that since the Ancient Egyptians wouldn't be able to build the Empire State building, they could build nothing at all? In other words, is this objection intellectually honest or yet another example of YEC white lies for the faith?

You made up the example why don't you tell us.... because we don't even know that the Egyptians existed except by the buildings they built, and their effect on other civilizations...

Also, and this is something that has been said many times, divine creation, alien seeding or abiogenesis, as well as a wide variety of other explanations for the origin of the original lifeform(s), have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of evolution, which deals with what happens once you already have that lifeform.

Actually... God said He created man from dust. If man came from evolution that makes God a liar. And God does not lie... therefore either God is right and evolution is false, or evolution is right and God is made up... And in line with your last statement "you already have that lifeform" ... why do we still  have other lifeforms then? if these bacteria evolved... why are there still bacteria? If monkeys evolved into whatever, why are there still monkeys?

...except to confuse the ignorant masses, which is the only way any form of creationism will ever be believed?

Ah but alas you are the ignorant one... I know God created man, and you just don't know that yet... but one day you'll learn then you won't be ignorant no more!

 

[Annabel Lee]

Originally posted by npetreley


I guess you were there, then. Did you take any baby pictures? Can we see them?

That's a childish statement. Are you always so bitter and sarcastic?

 

[sbbqb7n16]

So you believe the Bible, but say she was born of a woman? Can you find a verse for me??

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
So you believe the Bible, but say she was born of a woman? Can you find a verse for me??

So, you believe the Bible, but say the earth moves around the sun? Can you find a verse for me? Or are you just using common sense and observation to tell you about the physical properties of the world?

I still say you should read Augustine's work on the meaning of Genesis.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Job 26:7, Psalm 136:8

Can you find a verse that says to use a microwave? I never said that the Bible was an exhaustive source of science, but it does tell about creation...not evolution....

And why do you keep diverting the question? You still haven't answered me yet...

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16

Can you find a verse that says to use a microwave? I never said that the Bible was an exhaustive source of science, but it does tell about creation...not evolution....

So? It also tells, in about 8 places, of an immobile earth, and refers to the moon as a thing which emits light. It makes lots of statements which, if you take them as descriptions of the physical world, are just plain false.

If, on the other hand, you ignore that, and look instead at what those statements would communicate about God, you can get some productive work done.

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Or if you do both, you have what we call "faith"

 

[Jerry Smith]

Does that include "faith" that the evidence is wrong on evolution?

 

[sbbqb7n16]

And you just happen to read over the exact posts which I answered your question eh? The actual word didn't mean moved as in moved from here to there... or like one gets "moved" during a speech.... you have to define moved.... which I did for you already! So quit bringing it up!

 

[sbbqb7n16]

Or faith that God was right when He said He created us from dirt..

or faith that evidence is right.. it's all in how you look at it...

Faith also has many definitions would you like for me to give you definitions for those too Seebs (sorry D)?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
And the second law of thermodynamics states what again? What about the law of entropy? Everything is shown to be moving to disorder, but to suit the evolutionists, everything is "now" coming to order from nowhere....interesting  

The 2nd law applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system.

Didn't your body, a highly ordered system, develop from relatively unordered food, air, and water? Does that mean that your own body violates the 2nd law? By your logic, your own existence is impossible.

And your problem now turns out to be that the God of all creation, says He created you, but nooo you're too smart for that. You would have to appear to "show why [/i]HE is wrong, yet highly consistent before any other interpretation would be possible."

The problem is that what God allegedly said he did and the evidence he left behind are in conflict. Given what we know about the development of religous writings in general, I'll stick with the evidence, thank you.

And these pieces of evidence are from who? Scientists whose sole dependance at being a scientist derives answers? How did they date the earth again? And you know them to be correct every time? because they are all infallible, right?

The evidence for evolution and an old Earth comes from many different fields and is vast in its depth. Are you suggesting it is all made up?

Except that... where did the alien life come from again?   And actually God does give explanatory statements... in the Bible which you don't believe...

...because it doesn't jive with the evidence.

Chemicals actually do not just up and arrange themselves in complex patterns though... "An object in motion tends to remain in motion and an object at rest tends to stay at rest....unless acted upon by an outside force."

I take it you've never seen a snowflake.

Actually... God said He created man from dust. If man came from evolution that makes God a liar. And God does not lie... therefore either God is right and evolution is false, or evolution is right and God is made up

Even if evolution is false, God is still a liar because he made it look like life evolved. Such is the failing of your overly literal theology.

... And in line with your last statement "you already have that lifeform" ... why do we still  have other lifeforms then? if these bacteria evolved... why are there still bacteria? If monkeys evolved into whatever, why are there still monkeys?

Because not all monkeys (or bacteria) were subject to the same selective pressures. You are wrongly assuming that all individuals in a species are subject to the same survival challenges.
A probable scenario is that some monkeys found themselves in an environment where intelligence greatly enhanced their chances for survival. Those monkeys with larger brains had an advantage and over time they became dominant in that environment. Other monkeys lived in a different environment where intelligence was not such a benefit. In that case, the cost of a larger brain (more food, birthing problems) may very well have been a disadvantage. These monkeys stayed more "monkey-like".

Ah but alas you are the ignorant one... I know God created man, and you just don't know that yet... but one day you'll learn then you won't be ignorant no more!

How can you be so sure that evolution wasn't God's method for creating man?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
And you just happen to read over the exact posts which I answered your question eh? The actual word didn't mean moved as in moved from here to there... or like one gets "moved" during a speech.... you have to define moved.... which I did for you already! So quit bringing it up!

Ahh, so we *can* change how we understand "movement".

Frankly, only one explanation makes any sense: When talking to people who believed that the earth was large and immobile, God used the immobility of the Earth as a metaphor to communicate immovability, even though it was not a literally accurate description.

When talking to people who probably had a very similar creation myth already, God used that creation myth as a way to communicate that He made everything, and to tell us that we were important, but that we were sinful, and so on, even though it was not a literally accurate description.

Fine by me.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by sbbqb7n16


It's almost as though we forget that there was more to the story after the original creation... First off... an "archetype" who also had unhistorical children, caused the fall of man, etc. Genesis doesn't just record (which by the way would make her a historical person) her creation, but also her major events of life... and if she was the first woman who was God-conscious, why did she come from a rib and not a mother?

An explanation lacking a lot... and a double optioned explanation too. Nothing is answered yet... any other theistic evolutionists care to respond?

OH!  Silly me.  I suppose what you really wanted was a cookie-cutter answer that explains every detail and makes you feel comfortable living inside your little box.  All I can say is - "woops!"  My world doesn't function like that.  There are not always direct answers to all questions, especially spiritual ones.  Tell me, within your worldview, is the Bible *ever* unclear on *any* point?

I think you are trying to over-analyze the point of the myth.  You're trying to make it a direct allegory.  Go read the last few posts on that other thread (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19293) where humblejoe and I talk about what myth really is and does.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Annabel Lee

That's a childish statement. Are you always so bitter and sarcastic?

Are you always so sure of yourself, even when you contradict the Bible?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

How can you be so sure that evolution wasn't God's method for creating man?

Because that's not what He said He did, and that assertion goes way beyond the word "create" and all its forms.

You may think you can explain away all of the parts of the Bible that evolution would contradict, but I choose not to. So, as far as I'm concerned, either G~d is a liar, or He didn't use evolution. Since I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of G~d, and the Bible says it is impossible for G~d to lie, then I can safely assume He didn't use evolution as the method for creating man.