Who said Adam and Eve were this ugly?
Scientific knowledge does not support the existence of an Adam or an Eve.
Who is to say that "scientific knowledge" knows it all? They believe that amoebas became dinosaurs.....and many ridicule Bible believers who simply state that all that exists does not give the remotest appearance of being accidental. Science cannot begin to tell us how life began, or how it supposedly evolved into all the forms of life that have ever existed. Its all guesswork.
Do you understand how much of what science 'suggests' about the diversity of life on this planet, is based on actual fact? Not much, otherwise they would never have to use the language of supposition, which is always in their literature. When you "might have" or "could have" used to describe something that they assume to have taken place.....that is not the language of fact. Most people never see it until it is pointed out.
Let me give you an example....from
The evolution of whales
Without looking too closely at the diagram, what do you automatically assume about the creatures depicted on it?
"The evolution of whales
The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree.
Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.
These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."
Read the dialogue and look at the diagram.
The diagram looks as if all these creatures are part of an evolutionary chain, but the dialogue says that none of them are direct ancestors of the others.....
Is this misleading? I think so.
The only thing that links Pakicetus (that four legged furry creature second from the top) to a whale is a similar looking ear bone......really?
So if you do believe Adam and Eve existed, how do you square that with scientific knowledge.
I'll take the word of someone who was there over someone who wants God to disappear because he is inconvenient.
Or if you see it as an allegory, then why not see God as an allegory too? Just a story created by ancient man to convey moral ideas.
Nope...I see it as exactly what the Bible says happened...I just don't believe in the timeframe given by YEC's. There is no way that creation took place in 7 literal days and that the earth and everything on it is just over 6,000 years old. What nonsense!
We know that the earth is billions of years old....we also know that creatures that existed before man (many of which are no longer here) are also much older than we are. The way to get the Bible and science to back one another up is to separate the facts from the fiction...as both tend to proffer ideas that cannot be proven.
True science and an accurate understanding of the Bible make this possible IMO.
Or do you just dismiss scientific theory altogether?
There is a difference between true and provable science, and the theoretical kind. Once you establish the difference, you can support what science "knows", and separate it from what science merely "suggests".
They really can't prove a thing that they assume to have happened all those millions of years ago......there is no proof that common ancestors ever existed, or that the "branching" seen of the "trees" of evolution, ever took place. I don't think a lot of people have any idea how much of theoretical science is unprovable assumption based on biased interpretation of their "evidence".
The truth needs to be told....
