Which is crazier: we women came from some dude's rib or having a common ancestor with an ape?

Question

I don't like either ( don't get me wrong I'm all for evolution)..anyone has a better idea?

Answer 1

I am with you - I don't like either, myself. Here's what I think. I think God is simply the energy that powers this existence - not male, not female, but energy of pure spirit. I think we have only to take a breath to know that there is some unknown force at work in our lives. I think that if God is an ocean, then we are all individual glasses of God, come here to learn something specific of our own choosing - and I think that the rules are (1) use your mind to connect with home to affect your journey (prayer or intentioning) and (2)when we die, look for the way 'home' (and return to a spirit existence). And I think that all religions actually are sending the same message - with the addition of specific cultural references and something close to the Golden Rule - which incidentally I don't think God cares one way or the other how we behave. If we have a sentient creator, he loves us to pieces and can hardly wait for us clever kids to get home and tell him all about our trip, what we learned and how well we did.

Peace!

Answer 2

Common ancestor with an ape makes much more sense. Some people who answered this question need to read it more carefully. It does not say from an ape. It gives the scientifically accepted idea of humans and apes having a common ancestor.

Answer 3

What's even crazier is that we are conditioned to decide between the two. What's wrong with admitting we don't know? I know I'll lose some points from the Bible people here, cause they tend to give me thumbs down when I don't agree with them, but I have to honestly say, "There is absolutely no reason a human should believe in anything they have not seen; it's in our nature to do so.". To ask for faith in a religion with blinders is silly. On the other hand, I don't feel like a monkey, although I do see the resemblance at the zoo.

Answer 4

That is a common misunderstanding. Evolution does not say that humans did not come from apes, and anyone who told you so is simply confused. Notice, for example, that there are STILL APES.

Rather, humans and apes have a common, simian ancestor, who, according to the fossil record and modern molecular geology, was closer to the lemur than to the ape. Our relationship with apes is more like a distant cousin than a descendent.

Answer 5

LOL where do all these nutty thoughts come from? I'll take the ape, but only because in CLASSIFYING humans, those seem to be the closest "relative" to us. Although, about as much the same as a domestic cat and a tiger!

I think it is a misnomer to think that God made one and then the other. I think He made man and woman simultaneously. The rib thing was just a story made up so that man is reminded not to "put women above his head" (on a pedastal) nor t"o tread her underfoot" (an object to be used), so in this way, that story is useful.

Answer 6

It makes more sense that an organized, intelligent being made everything (since He did it in such an organized, intelligent way), than that it came out of nothing, by the power of nothing, and evolved more and more complex as time passes. Not only that, but many of the changes would have to take place simultaneously in order to work for the life of that individual so that it could pass it on. And then there are those traits that would have developed twice in 2 different species.

An intelligent being would have created the universe just like He did, and a FALL would explain the death, and sickness, the groaning of the world as in labor. The facts fit what He says happened. I have faith he did what He said He did. He said it. It's true. So, I believe it. But, meanwhile, it fits the evidence (as we now see it) as good as, if not MUCH better than, any other belief, and will continue to do so.

The evolutionist, while dogmatically believing in evolution, is constantly changing his story about how it happened as new information is found. Scientific theories can be proved or disproved, when contrary evidence shows up about evolution the results are disqualified or explained away. No matter what the facts the dedicated evolutionist will believe in his chosen faith (2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust)* (Is there even one thing that if discovered, would prove evolution wrong?) Much of the evidence presented at the Scopes (man to monkey or supposedly vice versa) trial has since been found to be false. Evolution is NOT science, it is a belief that is trying to prove itself by science and is failing miserably. It is sustained by lies and dogma. (I would feel unjustified in calling it lies - rather than mistaken - if their educational materials didn't continue to teach what they have proved false.)

PS someone mentioned changes in forms in the past. There IS evidence for change. But most of it can CLEARLY be seen not as evolution but as its opposite (you might call it de-evolution). The change aren't caused by more info, but a loss of info. Many species are a sub species - they have lost enough information that they can no longer procreate with others of their species. One example is the species of birds we learned about in HS biology, They circle the globe near the Arctic circle. Each sub-species can procreate with the birds to the east and west of them, but not across the world from them. This does not show an increase in information, but a loss of it. And now there is no way they can recuperate the info they have lost in future generations. Dogs may some day get to the point that they could not procreate (i wouldn't advise a female chihuahua to make friends with a St.Bernard now), but that would not be because of a gain of information but because of a loss of info.

PSS I believe the Genesis account. Being created first would have given Adam a chance to realize his need for another, taking her from his rib would have shown him her place and importance to him. The way the sections of Genesis is laid out it is clear that it was meant to be believed as written, not just as a story, from the perspective of a few throughout. God, Adam, Seth, Noah, Shem, Terah, Abram, etc.

Answer 7

As a woman..... you owe it to yourself to ask.... which came first..... the chicken or the egg...

The correct answer........ without one, there cannot be the other. A Man cannot exist (procreate) without a woman. A more realistic explanation is that the two evolved together.... rather than an independent creation.

The simple task of asking which one came first is a matter for the religiously insane.

Let's face it. The basic principle of religion is to explain what we cannot explain. As we move further toward the 'truth', religion will change and eventually disappear.

There is no reason to consider my comment agnostic, or atheist. As science approaches the 'truth' beneath life, we may discover a greater power or 'God'....... but either way, we are moving closer to an understaning of how life really came about on planet Earth.

Even if we evolved from chimps.... we are humans, and we are capable of a greater understanding. Our desire to undersand and change our environment makes us unique. Unfortunately, we are unique from the other species in our ability to decieve.....

Chimps don't deceive. We should be proud to be descended from the Chimps.....

Answer 8

You notice how not many creationists answered this question.... cause it is way to hard to believe... And as for The-Voice... The DNA would have made another male... You have to realize that when the bible was written, people had no clue as how we came to be on this Earth.. So they wrote far fetched tales to help try and explain the way things were... Evolution was the way, but I believe God created the means for evolution to work...

Answer 9

Cloning have happened, genetic modification have happened, but we haven't yet see apes or anything else macroevolve into something else.

However, our forms in the past were radically different from our forms in the present, so we did evolve in some ways or another.

But I refused to accept those 'bones' we found were our ancestors, at least not directly.

Answer 10

The idea of coming from an ape is easier to accept than ripping out some guy's rib, covering it with dirt and making it a woman.