The Creation of Woman

[QuestioningMind]

My bad!

I didn't realize physics, chemistry, and the making of technology was part of the atheistic evolutionary system. I have got to be more careful in the future. A guess a is a Christian atheist then.

When I see a post like yours with the avatar moniker you have, I am flat on the ground laughing at a hundred miles an hour.

No, it's called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, silly boy. You DO realize that it's the EXACT SAME scientific method that's used in physics, chemistry, AND evolution. Or were you under the foolish impression that they use some OTHER method when it comes to evolution. It's so sad when supposedly intelligent people can be so phenomenally ignorant when it comes to all of the scientific miracles you enjoy every single day. Again, it's NOT like your religion where you get to pick and choose which parts you agree with. Now get up off the ground and stop laughing... you're just making a fool of yourself by exposing how little you actually know about how science works. .

 

[Polymath257]

Not where evolution is taken to mean or defined as having to do with the origin of life on earth, or any common ancestor to man. That is belief based.

Well, evolution does not deal with the origin of life on Earth. it deals with how biological species change over time. And, yes, the evolution of humans is a validated scientific position.

 

[Polymath257]

Since He made stars and the sun after the earth we are not stardust. Your premise was wrong, so the conclusions about woman built on that premise were wrong.

Once again, it is scientifically validated that the Earth was formed *long* after the first stars and *is* a product of the atoms forged when those (and other) stars went supernova. Yes, that contradicts your Bible. So much the worse for the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My bad!

I didn't realize physics, chemistry, and the making of technology was part of the atheistic evolutionary system. I have got to be more careful in the future. A guess a is a Christian atheist then.

When I see a post like yours with the avatar moniker you have, I am flat on the ground laughing at a hundred miles an hour.

The problem is that you seem to conflate science with atheism. One does not need to be a denier of reality to be a Christian. There are many many more Christians that accept the theory of evolution than there are atheists in this world. In fact worldwide most Christians seem to accept the theory of evolution. Bible literalism is largely, but not exclusively, an American error. One does not need to believe the obvious myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Since He made stars and the sun after the earth we are not stardust. Your premise was wrong, so the conclusions about woman built on that premise were wrong.

Once again, it is scientifically validated that the Earth was formed *long* after the first stars and *is* a product of the atoms forged when those (and other) stars went supernova. Yes, that contradicts your Bible. So much the worse for the Bible.

This ^^

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

 

[Enoch07]

Says you. So when Adam is called the first man, that really means..'absolutely not the first man'?

Citation?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Adam and Eve if you trace the geneology were created to bring Jesus into the world,

If that were the case, that would mean god created Adam and Eve with the deliberate intention of having them sin to create the need for a Messiah.

Not where evolution is taken to mean or defined as having to do with the origin of life on earth, or any common ancestor to man. That is belief based.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. It explains how the life developed once it was here, and how the complexity and variety yet striking similarities we see came out. Biogenesis is an entirely different issue, a question that remains unanswered.

 

[Enoch07]

If that were the case, that would mean god created Adam and Eve with the deliberate intention of having them sin to create the need for a Messiah.

Not neccessarily. They still had free will and to make the choice to not eat of the apple. Which would mean Jesus would not have been needed.

 

[Grandliseur]

One does not need to believe the obvious myths of the Bible to be a Christian.

So says an atheist !

I think I mentioned it before. I am a bit of a nerd, into math and physics, reading about astrophysics, and what not. But, my time of serious study is more or less over due to serious problems in my life. I still keep up with the LHC and what not, read some science articles that pop up now and then.

Just trying to enjoy my last few years as things melt down around me.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I simply think the bone was like containing stem cells and that the removable of a bone does not carry itself across reproduction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So says an atheist !

I think I mentioned it before. I am a bit of a nerd, into math and physics, reading about astrophysics, and what not. But, my time of serious study is more or less over due to serious problems in my life. I still keep up with the LHC and what not, read some science articles that pop up now and then.

Just trying to enjoy my last few years as things melt down around me.

So say most Christians. For example, most of them realize that claiming the Noah`s Ark story is true is also a claim that God is a liar. It is wiser to treat it as morality tale than as a historical event.

 

[Grandliseur]

So say most Christians. For example, most of them realize that claiming the Noah`s Ark story is true is also a claim that God is a liar. It is wiser to treat it as morality tale than as a historical event.

It's funny, I don't believe in a flat earth for obvious reasons, but in regard to evolution versus creation with all that entails, we might as well be living on a flat earth, you guys on one side and we on the other, and we have been unable to gap the distance communication vise. Both sides say the same thing to each other without letup.

If and when e.g. I am interested in an explanation of abiogenesis and ask for it, then having you explain this might be interesting, or if and when you have questions about the Bible's dogma, not church, then I would oblige and explain this to the extend we have been told. Otherwise, I found that my two atheists friends where I live, were much more entertaining over a good game of chess - at least the R.A.T. was, and his humor was truly funny at times. He just up and died once. Why he had to do that. . .! I think perhaps I am on that road too.

Between atheists and creationists, a game of chess is the best possible outcome, and a cup of coffee, mind you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's funny, I don't believe in a flat earth for obvious reasons, but in regard to evolution versus creation with all that entails, we might as well be living on a flat earth, you guys on one side and we on the other, and we have been unable to gap the distance communication vise. Both sides say the same thing to each other without letup.

But there is no real difference between your beliefs and the beliefs of Flat Earthers. You both make the mistake of interpreting part of the Bible literally that was not meant to be believed that way. Neither of you have any valid evidence for your beliefs and there is no evidence against you opponents. So you claim of "obvious reasons" appears to be rather bogus.

If and when e.g. I am interested in an explanation of abiogenesis and ask for it, then having you explain this might be interesting, or if and when you have questions about the Bible's dogma, not church, then I would oblige and explain this to the extend we have been told. Otherwise, I found that my two atheists friends where I live, were much more entertaining over a good game of chess - at least the R.A.T. was, and his humor was truly funny at times. He just up and died once. Why he had to do that. . .! I think perhaps I am on that road too.

First off you lose the debate when you shift the goal posts. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. But if you admit that you are wrong about evolution I will gladly discuss abiogenesis with you.

Between atheists and creationists, a game of chess is the best possible outcome, and a cup of coffee, mind you.

Or you could try to learn the basics of science, including the scientific method and what is and what is not evidence. Then we could have an actual discussion. Instead all we can do is to continually point out your errors.

 

[Grandliseur]

The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. But if you admit that you are wrong about evolution I will gladly discuss abiogenesis with you.

I know this claim you make. In my quote above, did I say that. However, the difference in atheistic dogma and believer dogma is that there is no god. We believe that God is the creator of all, and all life. You don't. That you don't commit to knowing in the case of abiogenesis is your problem. It is nonetheless the main difference between believing in a Creator and believing there is none.

Even in the Bible, there is no explanation as to how the world apart from the human creation came to be, except that God when it came to animals created each kind. How he did it is not disclosed. Thus the problem of Evolution comes perhaps down to finding out first what things, and how things, were done. This is beyond what I know and can do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know this claim you make. In my quote above, did I say that. However, the difference in atheistic dogma and believer dogma is that there is no god. We believe that God is the creator of all, and all life. You don't. That you don't commit to knowing in the case of abiogenesis is your problem. It is nonetheless the main difference between believing in a Creator and believing there is none.

Even in the Bible, there is no explanation as to how the world apart from the human creation came to be, except that God when it came to animals created each kind. How he did it is not disclosed. Thus the problem of Evolution comes perhaps down to finding out first what things, and how things, were done. This is beyond what I know and can do.

It is more than just a claim. What I wonder is why you and other creationists are so afraid to discuss the concept of evidence.

By the way, you just broke the Ninth Commandment. When you make such ignorant claims of "atheist dogma" you are making a claim that you cannot support. And also why do you conflate the theory of evolution with atheism? It is no more atheistic then the theory of gravity. To be consistent you should reject gravity as well.

By the way, it is not necessary to know how "God did it" to form a testable hypothesis. All that is needed for those on your side is to come up with a testable hypothesis that explains the observed evidence. Those that can actually do science on your side know that they can't do this. They know that what they push is not scientific at all. I know that you can't come up with a testable hypothesis. You don't have the necessary training. But when there are those on your side that have the training it shouts volumes that they do not put their money where their mouth is in the world of science.

For example I can tell you why various models of the Noah's Flood story fail because of the observable evidence. Assuming that your God can't lie then we can trust the evidence. And the evidence tells us very clearly that there was no flood. You might need a little more education to understand why we know that life evolved. The question is why don't you learn instead of falsely attacking those that can support their claims.

And once again, when you bring up abiogenesis in a discussion on the theory of evolution you are announcing to everyone that you lost. If you admit that you are wrong about the theory of evolution I will gladly discuss abiogenesis with you. Until you do I will merely point out your error every time that you bring the subject up.

 

[Grandliseur]

And once again, when you bring up abiogenesis in a discussion on the theory of evolution you are announcing to everyone that you lost.

You did. I have not wanted to discuss evolution at all in this post. You want it. My point is and has been that God created all things. End of story.
I am not interested now or ever in evolution.
This post from the beginning was and is about the creation of woman, not evolution of woman.

It is always a difference of God the creator, or no creator. There is no other difference. There is no gain in this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did. I have not wanted to discuss evolution at all in this post. You want it. My point is and has been that God created all things. End of story.
I am not interested now or ever in evolution.
This post from the beginning was and is about the creation of woman, not evolution of woman.

It is always a difference of God the creator, or no creator. There is no other difference. There is no gain in this.

Women, just like men, are a product of evolution. Most Christians have no problem with reality, why do you?

 

[Grandliseur]

Most Christians have no problem with reality, why do you?

My reality is not yours. My reality is founded on the Bible.

You seem very zealous for what you believe in; yet, there is no hope offered by it. There is no benefit from it at all, for the individual or for society in general. The only thing we get from this belief without god is that we all are doomed with global warming and atomic warfare.

My belief system gives me hope, and I believe it true. The only thing that can be shared is a chess game over coffee or tea.
This is the reality of the situation, I cannot persuade you, and neither can you persuade me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My reality is not yours. My reality is founded on the Bible.

You seem very zealous for what you believe in; yet, there is no hope offered by it. There is no benefit from it at all, for the individual or for society in general. The only thing we get from this belief without god is that we all are doomed with global warming and atomic warfare.

My belief system gives me hope, and I believe it true. The only thing that can be shared is a chess game over coffee or tea.
This is the reality of the situation, I cannot persuade you, and neither can you persuade me.

I live in the real world. And yes, my reality is your reality whether you like it or not. Gravity affects you, whether you like it or not. You are the product of evolution, whether you like it or not.

And those facts should not affect your religious beliefs. Go ahead and have all the hope for an afterlife that you like. The theory of evolution should not change that. But you should not deny reality, and you should definitely not make false statements about your fellow man.

And if you could be honest and put away your fear for a while you could learn why we know that life is the product of evolution.

Think of it this way. Let's say that your God was real. What good would it do to explain to his early followers how they came into being? Would they understand? Obviously without a basic science background they could not. Would it do any good? Again, no. How life evolved should not be a question that concerns your salvation. Whether you are evolved or not the Jesus story still should work out, if true.

 

[Grandliseur]

have all the hope for an afterlife that you like.

Sorry, to bust your balloon, but death is destruction, the return to non existence.

The promises are so much different. Here the promise is one government for all of earth, all nations under one government impartial to this or that race, no more wars, no more illness, even most deaths may be avoided. The return of the earth to a paradise state, instead of us destroying it.