Where is the Evolutionary Adam and Eve

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

one question I have yet to see any evolutionist answer to any satisfaction is this. Where did the sexes come from? How in the world do you explain two sexes evolve at the same time to work perfectly for reproduction on not just one type of creature but tens of thousands of creatures. This has never made sense to me...

It never made sense to me either and there's a good reason for that. It's because it DOESN'T make any sense.

'This doesn't make sense to me.... so... GOD did it.'

Perhaps the reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you haven't thought about it? Or maybe because you haven't done any research on it? Oh, I get it. Your ignorant intuition is greater than that of a scientist who has dedicated their entire life to studying the evolution of sexes among organisms.

Prove that it's not.

The whole point is that such intuition is not dealt with by those scientists at who's alter you worship. They make foolish assumptions based on naturalistic reductionism, and waist their intellects and time coming up with complex and convoluted speculation instead of accepting simple and consise explainations simply due to the unnecessary and irratinoal methodological restrictions they're forcing upon their interpretations.

There are some things, although may go against natural human intuition, that are true, and you have to accept this.

If they're proven to be true. Notice how you're not doing that. Instead you're bluffing with insults and bluster.

That sort of unsubstantiated passion is clearly the work of unsubstantiated faith, not evidence, so this is demonstrably not one of those things that's true.

To the scientists of middle-aged Europe, it was inconceivable that the earth could be anything but a flat landscape, more or less a sphere. Since this landscape was finite, wouldn't people fall off the edge if they drifted to far? As it turns out, the earth was a lot larger than was originally conceived. Not only that, it was, in fact a sphere! In spite of all pre-conceived notions, after doing some scientific investigation, scientists were able to figure out that force of gravity from the earth was enough to retain all objects on its surface!

Hey guys, did anyone ever consider the flat earth theory before and how it relates to our mindless superstitions?

This just blew my mind.

Thank you for liberating us from our medieval ignorance with this refreshing burst of flat earth parallelism.

I'm not an expert in the field of evolutionary biology, so i do not have a satisfactory answer to your question. Instead of sitting around basking in your ignorance, I would suggest doing some research or perhaps reading a book by a scholar in the field.

If you're not even well-versed enough to answer the question, what makes you think you're right?

[Isaiah 6:8]

It was a question as I don't know the answer! I wanted to see if any evolutionists knew but no real answer yet!

[Guest SDGS]

I am of the camp that believes God set it all in motion. But I cannot accept creationism because the earth is not only 6000 years old. That is a fact.

Another problem for me is that Genesis gives two stories about Adam and Eve, and the church chose the one they like, the one keeping women "in their place", while pretending the other version is not there at all.

[Guest shiloh357]

I am of the camp that believes God set it all in motion. But I cannot accept creationism because the earth is not only 6000 years old. That is a fact.

Another problem for me is that Genesis gives two stories about Adam and Eve, and the church chose the one they like, the one keeping women "in their place", while pretending the other version is not there at all.

It is logically impossible for God set an impersonal naturalistic process in motion. That is a self-defeating argument. Secondly, Natural Selection is inconsistent with God's nature and characteristics. An all-knowing God who can only operate in flawless perfection would not create a less than perfect creation that needs to evolve to get better.

Thirdly, there are not two creation stories in Genesis. Chapter two is a summation or recap of chapter one. In addition it narrows the focus on the events of Gen. 1:26-29. It basically expands and gives more indepth information than chapter one, but is not a separate or different Creation account. There is nothing in Genesis 1 or 2 that is demeaning or discriminatory toward women; quite the opposite really.

[Guest SDGS]

It is logically impossible for God set an impersonal naturalistic process in motion. That is a self-defeating argument. Secondly, Natural Selection is inconsistent with God's nature and characteristics. An all-knowing God who can only operate in flawless perfection would not create a less than perfect creation that needs to evolve to get better.

God is God. He can do anything.

The second part makes no sense. If God made things perfect, and cannot operate in a non perfect creation, then why the need for Jesus? Or the Noah/flood? To name just two. After all, He cannot work in a non perfect environment He made. That makes no sense to me.

[Guest shiloh357]

God is God. He can do anything.

You are wrong. God cannot sin. God cannot lie, and He cannot be untrue to His Word. Cannot violate His own integrity. God cannot cannot create that which violates His own nature and character. To say that God created the world by an impersonal, unplanned process like natural selection is internally inconsistent. It is self-defeating. You are saying that a personal, supernatural God personally creeated through a process that is impersonal and naturalistic. You cannot have a personal Creator creating by impersonal means. The two simply cannot be true at the same time. Either God is responsible for life on this earth, or something else is. You simply cannot have it both ways, when you break both the Bible and Evolution down to their core, fundamental claims.

The second part makes no sense. If God made things perfect, and cannot operate in a non perfect creation, then why the need for Jesus? Or the Noah/flood? To name just two.

But I did not say that God cannot operate in a non perfect creation. Stop putting words in my mouth. What I said was that God cannot create imperfection. God cannot operqte except as a wholly perfect being incapable of creating imperfection. The theory of Evolution argues that all life is imperfect and it is natural selection that determines what is fit or unfit for survival. So the Bible and Evolution begin at two incompatible premises. The Bible says that God created a perfect world which has fallen into sin and decay. The theory of Evolution says that the world is evolving and getting better via natural selection. Those are two mutually exclusive polar opposite positions for which there is no reconciliation. To hold that both can be true is irrational.

After all, He cannot work in a non perfect environment He made. That makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense because you are misstating and misrepresenting what I said. You have taken my words and twisted them into an irrational, nonsensical postion that I am not advocating for and never said. You need to go back and reread my words in the light of this response. You need to respond to what I said instead of reacting to some weird concoction you have assigned to me.

[Guest SDGS]

God is God. He can do anything.

You are wrong. God cannot sin. God cannot lie, and He cannot be untrue to His Word. Cannot violate His own integrity. God cannot cannot create that which violates His own nature and character. To say that God created the world by an impersonal, unplanned process like natural selection is internally inconsistent. It is self-defeating. You are saying that a personal, supernatural God personally creeated through a process that is impersonal and naturalistic. You cannot have a personal Creator creating by impersonal means. The two simply cannot be true at the same time. Either God is responsible for life on this earth, or something else is. You simply cannot have it both ways, when you break both the Bible and Evolution down to their core, fundamental claims.

The second part makes no sense. If God made things perfect, and cannot operate in a non perfect creation, then why the need for Jesus? Or the Noah/flood? To name just two.

But I did not say that God cannot operate in a non perfect creation. Stop putting words in my mouth. What I said was that God cannot create imperfection. God cannot operqte except as a wholly perfect being incapable of creating imperfection. The theory of Evolution argues that all life is imperfect and it is natural selection that determines what is fit or unfit for survival. So the Bible and Evolution begin at two incompatible premises. The Bible says that God created a perfect world which has fallen into sin and decay. The theory of Evolution says that the world is evolving and getting better via natural selection. Those are two mutually exclusive polar opposite positions for which there is no reconciliation. To hold that both can be true is irrational.

After all, He cannot work in a non perfect environment He made. That makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense because you are misstating and misrepresenting what I said. You have taken my words and twisted them into an irrational, nonsensical postion that I am not advocating for and never said. You need to go back and reread my words in the light of this response. You need to respond to what I said instead of reacting to some weird concoction you have assigned to me.

I didn't intend to twist your words. I was answering to how I understood them.

I just cannot accept the bible as literal. I do believe God can do anything. I just don't agree with all that is said here. It is okay to disagree.

[Guest shiloh357]

SDGS,

I didn't intend to twist your words. I was answering to how I understood them.

Yes, I realize that, but your understanding was flawed. You make the same mistake with me that you make with the Bible. You decided to take my words on based on YOUR understanding instead of reading what I said. You completely misread my words and attributed to me an argument that was entirely different than what I said based on a nonliteral reading of my words. You decided what I meant instead of letting my words convey my intentions. That is the same thing people do with the Bible. They don't like the literal meaning, so they make up a meaning of their own and attribute it to the Bible. It is an unfair and flawed treatment of the text.

I just cannot accept the bible as literal.

Tell me this: What do you think "literal" means? I am a grammarian and I have found that people throw the word literal around and really have no idea what it means to read a piece of literature and understand the "literal" intent of the author.

Seondly, what is wrong with taking the Bible literally. If God really did create the world if the flood of Noah really happened, would that bring about a negative or adverse situation in your life? Would your life be worse off if the creation story really did happen the way it is described in the Bible? What part of your life would suffer if the Bible's claims are true?

I do believe God can do anything.

Based on what? Based on a Bible that you refuse to take literally??? What is your basis for believing God can do anything?

I have already shown that God cannot do anything. The Bible never says God can do anything, God cannot lie, He cannot break His promises, and He cannot sin. The Bible says He cannnot even look upon sin. That is four things God cannot do. God cannot do anything and you have no biblical basis for saying so. So I am wondering how you arrive at that conclusion? Remember: You cannot use the Bible to prove God can do anything, because you, by your own words, have already disqualified it as a source for your understanding about God.

I just don't agree with all that is said here. It is okay to disagree.

It is okay to disagree, but it one needs to have a sound rationale for disagreement. So far, your statements demonstrate a flawed understanding of the Bible and of God. Why would you want to base your disagreement on flawed, internally inconsistent views about God and the Bible??? What good is it to disagree if your position is a fundamentally and logically flawed?

[Fraught]

I am of the camp that believes God set it all in motion. But I cannot accept creationism because the earth is not only 6000 years old. That is a fact.

Another problem for me is that Genesis gives two stories about Adam and Eve, and the church chose the one they like, the one keeping women "in their place", while pretending the other version is not there at all.

Then I have some really good news for you. A) scriptures leave room for the earth being older. Genesis begins with the earth already there. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, (tho i am not taking a side on this)

and B) some say the 2nd version of Adam is actually a prophecy of Jesus. much is deep and deep in scripture.

edited to add not only prophecy of Jesus but possibly of us in Jesus. When you read scripture, you must read prayerfully and remember that, according to Jesus, He spoke only in parables and the prophets also spoke in parables. You must have the light right when you read, she said parabolically.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I am of the camp that believes God set it all in motion. But I cannot accept creationism because the earth is not only 6000 years old. That is a fact.

I don't think the earth has to be 6,000 years old exactly, but I do think it's thousands not billions, and the suggestion that billions is a fact is so very often put forth and never successfully defended.

I submit, materialism has blurred what people define as facts, so that it can claim speculations and philosophies as facts.

Another problem for me is that Genesis gives two stories about Adam and Eve, and the church chose the one they like, the one keeping women "in their place", while pretending the other version is not there at all.

I don't understand what this is driving at, but I think it's probably safe to say it's off topic, unless you can relate this thought back to evolution.