SMBC Comic regarding Eve coming from Adam's rib

[addo]

I saw this comic today:

Mainly it's supposed to be funny, but it brings up an interesting point of which I've never thought before.

So, did Eve have the same DNA as Adam since she was made from his rib?

I know it's silly, but please take it seriously.

God bless you,

Emanuel

 

[Bouke285]

Ha, we cannot approach this question seriously. Scripture doesn't reveal the specifics of how or for which part God used Adam's rib. Adam was man and Eve was woman God made her to be different however He did it.

Adam was made from dirt, does this mean he was never alive? It's the by God part we need to focus on .

 

[artybloke]

Maybe, just maybe, the story's not meant to be taken literally and is in fact mythical...

but very funny...

 

[Greg1234]

Maybe, just maybe, the story's not meant to be taken literally and is in fact mythical...

but very funny...

Does the electric universe doctrine secretly mean the big bang?

 

[artybloke]

Do you ever make sense?

 

[Bouke285]

Maybe, just maybe, the story's not meant to be taken literally and is in fact mythical...

but very funny...

Start questioning creation and you open a whole liberalist can of worms. Your ideas begin to become more and more obscure. There is no hint that Genesis is an illustration. All signs point to history. We all have our assumptions, and we all have misconceptions. I don't claim to be 100 percent sure about many things, but those things are not foundational to my faith. I live on plausibility, not possibility, and I don't consider the majority of the old earth theories to be plausible in light of the flood. Unless you take the Genesis flood into account, a flood covering the entire world, which there is evidence for, you will never be able to approach young earth in its truth. Science has little grounds before that date, especially when the flood is ignored. Uh oh what did I just do

 

[Calminian]

I saw this comic today:

Mainly it's supposed to be funny, but it brings up an interesting point of which I've never thought before.

So, did Eve have the same DNA as Adam since she was made from his rib?

I know it's silly, but please take it seriously.

God bless you,

Emanuel

The conclusion doesn't follow. How does using Adam's rib mean God made Eve a bio-identical twin? Especially when the text says God made Eve so that she was female? I would assume that if God could make a male out of dirt, he could also make a female from a male rib. I suppose the kid could make the argument that Adam and dirt were bio-identical.

The argument doesn't follow. It's silly on its face.

 

[Bouke285]

The conclusion doesn't follow. How does using Adam's rib mean God made Eve a bio-identical twin? Especially when the text says God made Eve so that she was female? I would assume that if God could make a male out of dirt, he could also make a female from a male rib. I suppose the kid could make the argument that Adam and dirt were bio-identical.

The argument doesn't follow. It's silly on its face.

Ha see post number 2

 

[pgp_protector]

Nhaa it Eve wasn't gay, but their must of been lots of incest going on in Genesis.

 

[Papias]

Calminian wrote:

It's silly on its face.

If I were a literalist, I'd be pretty reluctant to throw around the term "silly" when talking about a story where God performs mouth to nose resuscitation on a mud-man, and then makes a rib-woman from the mud-man.

I think it is reasonable for a person reading the text to wonder about the DNA being the same (if the story is taken literally), especially since the text itself explicitly says that Adam noted that Eve was "flesh of my flesh". Isn't that exactly how the text would say they had the same DNA, since it is being written for an initially bronze age audience (and the term "DNA" hadn't been invented yet) ?

As far as silliness goes, how does taking the story as literally including a mud-man compare in "silliness" to noting that the story actually says "flesh of my flesh"?

Papias

 

[Calminian]

Calminian wrote:


If I were a literalist, I'd be pretty reluctant to throw around the term "silly" when talking about a story where God performs mouth to nose resuscitation on a mud-man, and then makes a rib-woman from the mud-man.

I think it is reasonable for a person reading the text to wonder about the DNA being the same (if the story is taken literally), especially since the text itself explicitly says that Adam noted that Eve was "flesh of my flesh". Isn't that exactly how the text would say they had the same DNA, since it is being written for an initially bronze age audience (and the term "DNA" hadn't been invented yet) ?

As far as silliness goes, how does taking the story as literally including a mud-man compare in "silliness" to noting that the story actually says "flesh of my flesh"?

Papias

Your post is even sillier. The issue is not the text or the literalness of the text. The issue is the logical argument made in the cartoon, that a female made from a rib is followed logically by identical DNA. The logic of the argument doesn't follow. If it did, then we'd also have to conclude that mud and male humans are identical. Basic logic. That's the problem the cartoon faces. Has nothing to do with the text.

It's a silly argument, and your defense of it is even sillier.

 

[philadiddle]

Your post is even sillier. The issue is not the text or the literalness of the text. The issue is the logical argument made in the cartoon, that a female made from a rib is followed logically by identical DNA. The logic of the argument doesn't follow. If it did, then we'd also have to conclude that mud and male humans are identical. Basic logic. That's the problem the cartoon faces. Has nothing to do with the text.

It's a silly argument, and your defense of it is even sillier.

While I agree that the argument in the cartoon is not logical, your perspective is just as subjective. How many examples do you have of people being made from a rib who have different DNA from the person the rib was taken from?

It seems with this hypothetical situation someone has just as much right to assert they had the same DNA as someone who asserts they didn't. This is why literalism kills brain cells, it makes actually discuss this kind of nonsense.

 

[Bouke285]

Nhaa it Eve wasn't gay, but their must of been lots of incest going on in Genesis.

And by what standard is "incest" forbidden? Genetic, sociological, and God's command. In Genesis none of these disallowed procreation within the family, so no incest as defined to be an act against law did not exist in Genesis.

While I agree that the argument in the cartoon is not logical, your perspective is just as subjective. How many examples do you have of people being made from a rib who have different DNA from the person the rib was taken from?

It seems with this hypothetical situation someone has just as much right to assert they had the same DNA as someone who asserts they didn't. This is why literalism kills brain cells, it makes actually discuss this kind of nonsense.

Foolishness

 

[Calminian]

While I agree that the argument in the cartoon is not logical,......

Then what are we arguing about??

your perspective is just as subjective. How many examples do you have of people being made from a rib who have different DNA from the person the rib was taken from?

How many examples do we have of people being made from a rib with identical DNA?

It seems with this hypothetical situation someone has just as much right to assert they had the same DNA as someone who asserts they didn't.

Exactly!! You just made my point. When an argument can be used equally effectively by both sides, it's invalid and fallacious. That's the whole point. Why would I want to use an argument that my opponent could turnaround and use just as easily?

By definition this is a silly argument.

 

[philadiddle]

Foolishness

Care to elaborate? Are you expecting some kind of advanced biological/philosophical discussion to ensue after we read that comic?

 

[philadiddle]

Then what are we arguing about??

Just arguing for the sake of arguing

Exactly!! You just made my point. When an argument can be used equally effectively by both sides, it's invalid and fallacious. That's the whole point. Why would I want to use an argument that my opponent could turnaround and use just as easily?

By definition this is a silly argument.

Turtles=Seven

 

[Papias]

Calminian wrote:

That's the problem the cartoon faces. Has nothing to do with the text.

News flash for Cal - the whole premise of the cartoon is the text. How is it not based on the text? If Genesis didn't exist, the cartoon would have nothing to talk about.

How many examples do we have of people being made from a rib with identical DNA?

The closest cases we have are cases where one animal body is made using part of an animal body. We do have hundreds of cases of that, and they do have nearly identical DNA (without getting into minor telomere differences). Right? Do you have other examples where one animal body is made starting from part of an animal body? Is the DNA different?

Papias

 

[Calminian]

Calminian wrote:

News flash for Cal - the whole premise of the cartoon is the text. How is it not based on the text? If Genesis didn't exist, the cartoon would have nothing to talk about.



The closest cases we have are cases where one animal body is made using part of an animal body. We do have hundreds of cases of that, and they do have nearly identical DNA (without getting into minor telomere differences). Right? Do you have other examples where one animal body is made starting from part of an animal body? Is the DNA different?

Papias

You still don't understand, frankly. The cartoon is talking about the text, but makes an illogical argument from the text that does not follow. Read over some of the posts. You'll get and no doubt backtrack if you're honest. (IF)

The cartoon is silly. Defending it is even sillier.

 

[philadiddle]

if you're honest. (IF)

http://www.christianforums.com/t7561897/#post57535170

 

[Papias]

Calminan wrote:

You still don't understand, frankly. The cartoon is talking about the text, but makes an illogical argument from the text that does not follow. Read over some of the posts. You'll get and no doubt backtrack if you're honest. (IF)

The cartoon is silly. Defending it is even sillier.

Cal, do you really think that trash talking, followed by simply repeating your line, is an argument in a rational discussion? I hope not, because if you do, I pity you.

I'm glad to see that you now realize that the cartoon is actually about Genesis, instead of denying that - at least we are making some progress. You didn't answer the questions about making an animal from part of an animal, nor about DNA in my last post. That might be a good place to start.

And I'm not saying that the conclusion of the child is perfect - only that it makes at least as much, or more, sense than the idea that humans came from God performing mouth to nose resuscitation on a mud man, and that the rib woman wouldn't have the same DNA as the rib, since that's what the text actually says if taken literally.

Yes, the child's position is a bit silly, but for a literalist to call it silly is the pot calling the kettle black.

Papias