inconsistent Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, I'm not French, I'm from Quebec, haha!

(Thank you.)

AngelRho asked me if science had disproven the story of Adam and Eve. Well, these are the facts so far as I know:

We have many transitional forms in the fossil record of humans evolving from apes, with the older fossils more ape-like with a clear progression over time towards more human-like features in more recent fossils.

There is genetic evidence that humans are NOT descended from a single breeding pair (Adam and Eve). Also, it is known to scientists and educated people (but apparently not to creationists) that it is populations that evolve.

The nested hierarchies of many different types of data indicate common ancestry with other living things Such patterns do not imply similarity due to a common designer. The nested patterns of endogenous retroviruses and of pseudogenes in the DNA of humans compared to other species show what is expected if evolution happens. Different types of evidence (DNA, the fossil record, etc.) corroborate each other and all point to the same reality.

Human chromosome 2 shows many clear signs of being two ape chromosomes fused together end to end. It is practically a smoking gun showing our common ancestry with the other great apes.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As for Noah, we do not have any of the type of evidence we would expect to find if there ever was a global flood, but we DO have much evidence of the type we would expect to find if such a flood did NOT occur. AngelRho proposed that God hid the evidence to wipe the slate clean. But then, why would God have us keep the story of what happened while at the same time erasing all physical evidence and planting false evidence to make it look like it never happened? Is God trying to mess with our minds? That's not very nice if we could end up burning in Hell forever because we fell for God's pranks.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So again I ask, why should I trust the Bible as a reliable authority about anything if it claims to be the word of God yet it is contradicted by the evidence of the world? So far as I can tell, based on EVIDENCE not opinion, the story of Adam and Eve is contradicted by the facts we can observe and measure. Also, the story of Noah is contradicted by the facts we can observe and measure. So why should I trust what the Bible says about Jesus? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Secondhand accounts written decades after these alleged events occurred are not very convincing to me.

What amazes me is that so many people take scripture literally, when it makes much more sense taken symbolically. This is the problem with fundamentalism. It requires so much departure from reason and logic. But a symbolic view of spirituality doesn't carry this danger. It nurtures wisdom, not crazy twists of the mind. It can find peace in coexistence with science quite easily.

Asking if "science has disproven the Adam and Eve story" is like asking if "science has disproven Jack and the Beanstalk. or Snow White".

It doesnt have to be "disproven". The story doesnt even make any litereal sense in the modern worldview to begin with.

There is a difference. I doubt very many people think Jack and the Beanstalk or Snow White are meant to be read as history, but apparently many people do think that about Adam and Eve. Also, we don't hear about equal time for Jack and the Beanstalk in science classrooms, or for the real science we know about beanstalks to not be taught because it conflicts with the fairy tale.

I don't care if people believe in Jack and the Beanstalk until they mess with public education and policy, trying their best to legislate ignorance, dumb down our schoolchildren, and possibly doom our country, our species and our planet. I cannot see any good coming from what the anti-evolution crowd is trying to achieve. I don't think they realize what they are doing because they are so badly misinformed about this subject.

What about of nonsense. Your conclusions are based on intuition and not scientific facts.The nucleotide bases that comprise our DNA and RNA originated beyond Earth in molecular clouds(there is astronomical evidence for this and if you insist I'll cite my sources in the next post). However, it is highly unlikely that life on Earth originated on Mars. Phospholipids however, do have the tendency to form micelles(an enclosed membrane) when they are immersed in water. So once these molecules are formed, they do indeed form cellular structures.

What modern chemistry suggests is that the first living organism on Earth where (photosynthetic)cyanobacteria; the most ancient phylum preserved in the fossil record. These bacteria swarmed the oceans and changed the composition of the atmosphere from CO2 to
molecular oxygen and nitrogen. Life most likely began in tide pools along the shores of volcanic islands. Even before continents rose from the Sea.

There is no reason the Garden of Eden could not have been prepared on an already existing Earth pepoled with evolved humans. This been discussed at length in this very forum

Uhh... Excuse me...

This was NEVER "discussed at length" here.

On one occasion you asserted this idea of yours- that humans and the world had evolved,AND THEN there was the garden of eden event.

I asked you to explain the obvious contradictions and absurdity of that idea.

And you never responded in anyway!


But now that youve broken your deafening silence- could you explain now please!

Ok: the planet had been evolving for billions of years. The human race branched off from the chimps six million years ago. Anatomically moderns humans evolve. Finnally- at around 4000 BC when there are millions of people on the earth-one couple in this neolithic world is randomly plucked by God and placed into a little garden stocked with plants and animals.

Then these two almost immeadiately get booted out of the garden because they disobey god.

Since millions of other humans already exist- and had existed for thousands of years- adam and eve would not have been "the first people" ( by definition they couldnt be first because they were fully "evolved").

Their disobedience was supposed to be the "original sin"- but humans had already been around acting both as virtuous and as sinful as they do now for thousands of years. And one of the punishments for this non original original sin was mortality. But you're admittng that mortal humans had already existed and been mortal for thousands of years.

And what kind of protective bubble did god put over this garden anyway ( lets not even worry about the talking snake).

In short: how could one couple cause the Fall of Man if the human race was already extant?

Where is there any logic in your scenario?

Adam and Eve couldnt store the genetic diversity we find in humans. Two people don't have the ability to store that many alleles so at best they are magical beings of some kind. Magical beings need to supply their own evidence.

No, I don't think life on Earth originated on Mars, either. I wasn't aware that there was actual evidence of this but it makes much more sense than life occurring on earth alone as a random event. What's troublesome about this hypothesis, though, is that molecular clouds tend to be MASSIVE--in space, there really isn't any such thing as "just a little" of something. Something like that should have at least left a trace of itself somewhere else in our solar system. We should expect to find something like that on Mars, and we should even expect to find that life on Earth and Mars developed concurrently if only at dramatically differing paces.


Well, yeah..."soap bubbles."


Well, sure--that's probably basic middle school life science by this point. Exactly how does that falsify Genesis, though?

OK, so you can at least admit your knowledge is limited. This is a good start.


This is actually debatable.


Oh, so species do NOT evolve from common ancestors. Got it.


So which is it? Common ancestry or not? Now YOU are being inconsistent!


Actually, I said no such thing. So now you're not only inconsistent, you're dishonest.


Here's the thing: You set out to show inconsistency among creationists, and you're inconsistent yourself. You tried to cover your tracks by using an ad hoc explanation that "populations evolve."

Further, your claim about "extraordinary claims" is easily refuted. The idea that there is no God and/or that Jesus is not to be believed is an extraordinary claim in the mind of someone who already believes. You haven't provided sufficient extraordinary evidence that someone should suspend faith in favor of your views. So who really has the burden of proof here? All your reasons why someone should suspend faith in the Bible really boil down to a kind of "Because I said so" argument. And because you show yourself inconsistent and dishonest, the main problem you'll run into persuading a believer in favor of your views is a matter of credibility. Otherwise, you're just another proselytizer and no better than the YC fundies you whine about.

The Genesis account records two separate creative acts in dealing with human beings. The first is Genesis 1, where God simply created humans as image-bearers of Himself, and He gives them the command to "multiply" and "fill the earth." Genesis 2 deals with Adam and Eve specifically. It could be that Adam and Eve are not actually the first humans ever, but rather a special creation intended as intermediaries between humankind and God, so what they do affects all people. If they sin by acquiring knowledge of good and evil, they are compelled by God's justice to spread that knowledge. If human nature is changed, it's something that's inherited and parents continually are held accountable for teaching children at least basic morality.

At any rate, the existence of humanity prior to Adam and Eve explains genetic diversity. I mean, if God despises incest, then where did Cain's wife come from? Noah's family could suffice for your genetic diversity.

Speaking purely from the aspect of Creationist Science, most of the material that I have witnessed (Video, Audio and written prose) from organizations attempt to readily discredit Evolution, over actually trying to prove that Creationism is an exact science explaining how the earth came into existence.

Though proponents of Creationist Science have too many contradicts that go along with their rather screwed up views.

AiG (Answers in Genesis) for instance claimed that Starlight was the result of a concept called c-decay, which suggested that the speed of light at the beginning of time was actually faster than it is now. I believe that AiG was also guilty of stating that the Earth is only 6000 years old, yet that minerals on the Earth are millions of years in age ( more than adequately an inconsistency ).

I remember hearing that Matthew O'Sullivan did a documentary on the subject (I think it was funded by CMI -- Creation Ministries International), Voyage that shook the earth or something like that. O'Sullivan stated to some effect that after the film was complete he was at odds with the CMI group because of their "errant" editing of his words distorting both his view, and the overall view of Charles Darwin. Because distorting things to make your view right is a good thing. Really.

When such groups exist to produce their views, and yet experience such "difficulties" its very difficult for science to reconcile that for which is so difficult to readily explain.

The universe was only five days old when God "created Man in his image" according to Genisis.

There was no mention of the human race before Adam and Eve were created. Indeed the planet itsself was only five days old so there was no time for any prior existence.

So how could Adam and Eve NOT be the first humans ( if you're going by Genisis).

And if I were you I would sweep cain's wife under the rug and not draw attention to her. Pointing out the flaws in the Bible's internal logic weakens your case. It doesnt strengthen it.

My view is that I'm not an evolution-denier, but I'm not a creation-denier either. Or even an ID-denier. I'll reference AiG sometimes if it suits my purpose, but I have a HUGE problem with what they're trying to do from a theological pov.

AiG takes the "nuclear option" when it comes to origins theories: The idea that the human intellect is imperfect and fallible, and because of that attempts to reconcile the Bible with HUMAN knowledge, e.g. science, will always fail. Now, I agree that human understanding is fallible. I don't pretend to understand how God works and how He brought everything into being. I just acknowledge that He DID. But at the same time, they're making a huge theological mistake. If God created us, and if we bear God's image, then we also possess a divinely-created intellect. Sure, we've messed up our thinking. But we haven't messed it up to the point that we can't recognize God for who He is, and we haven't messed it up so much that our thinking is wrong in it's entirety. I mean, if human reasoning is really that messed up from the outset, how can AiG even come to the conclusions that they've drawn? How do they know their own thinking IS reliable?

So I don't really CARE if they claim the earth is only 6000 years old, either. I think maybe the universe is younger than some people seem to think, and maybe it's older than 6000 years. The Biblical timeline is imprecise prior to the flood. That's not a "fault" per se, but it reflects what the Biblical author felt was most important. I'm sorry, but I don't get the impression that Moses really cared how old the earth was! Not even the creationists really know with any certainty how old the earth is. Physical evidence may dictate otherwise, but if, for the sake of argument, the earth really is only 6000 years old, all it means is that God is powerful enough to create the earth in a week. I have no problem believing that God is powerful enough to make the earth in a week some 6000+ years ago, and I can even be open-minded enough to consider that it's possible God did do this and the contrary "evidence" is just simply stuff we haven't completely figured out yet.

OC, or YC, I really don't care. The age of the earth has nothing to do with Christ and salvation.

The AiG position is roughly that if you don't believe the earth is 6000 years old, then you don't really believe the Bible and because of the failings of human understanding, it's futile to reconcile the Bible with science. Now, sure, I think that the Bible should be the standard by which we judge other conclusions we may come to. But even doing that requires trusting the brain God gave you.

You don't seem to know the Bible very well, then. The Bible never reveals how old the universe was when any of the listed creative days . In fact, the Bible doesn't even mention how much time passed between each day, only that certain things happened on various days.


The Bible says that man was created in God's image. He told man to be fruitful, multiply, and be in charge of everything living on the planet. No mention of Adam and Eve until later.


See, you have no idea what you're talking about. It helps if you actually read the Bible.


Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.