Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But nonetheless... Christian evolution still cannot explain the formation of Eve....which is the main thing this thread is about
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.
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]
I'll respond.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
...except to confuse the ignorant masses, which is the only way any form of creationism will ever be believed?
That's a childish statement. Are you always so bitter and sarcastic?Originally posted by npetreley
I guess you were there, then. Did you take any baby pictures? Can we see them?
Originally posted by sbbqb7n16
So you believe the Bible, but say she was born of a woman? Can you find a verse for me??
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....
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
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."
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?
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...
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."
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?
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!
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!
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?
Originally posted by Annabel Lee
That's a childish statement. Are you always so bitter and sarcastic?
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
How can you be so sure that evolution wasn't God's method for creating man?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?