Political Crossfire Forums

[Silkheat]

If God took a rib bone from adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?

[Todd D.]

Silkheat wrote: If God took a rib bone from adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?
When war vets lose a leg, are their children born without one?

I'm not saying I believe in the literal translation of Genesis, but this sounds like a pretty stupid argument.

[Silkheat]

Todd D. wrote: Silkheat wrote: If God took a rib bone from adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?
When war vets lose a leg, are their children born without one?

I'm not saying I believe in the literal translation of Genesis, but this sounds like a pretty stupid argument.

Arguing against something that is absurd may seem stupid, but people actually believe in Adam and Eve. Scary, isn't it?

[John]

Silkheat wrote: If God took a rib bone from Adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?

The Hebrew doesn't say "rib"...it says "chunck".

[Todd D.]

Silkheat wrote: Todd D. wrote: Silkheat wrote: If God took a rib bone from adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?
When war vets lose a leg, are their children born without one?

I'm not saying I believe in the literal translation of Genesis, but this sounds like a pretty stupid argument.

Arguing against something that is absurd may seem stupid, but people actually believe in Adam and Eve. Scary, isn't it?
Not really any scarier than a host of other beliefs both secular and religious, but that's not the point. All I'm saying is that your argument of "Adam lost a rib but men and women have the same number of ribs therefore the story is a lie" is not a very good argument, since people lose limbs all the time and display no genetic evidence that such a trait is passed on.

[mgwisni]

Agreed, bad argument.

[connermt]

John wrote: Silkheat wrote: If God took a rib bone from Adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?

The Hebrew doesn't say "rib"...it says "chunck".

Ah...another biblical translation error.
Should we really be surprised?!?!

But IF it were found that a man had one less rib than a women, SOMEONE would have said that people took a scientific fact (one less rib) & made up a story (God taking one of Adam's ribs) to prove it true. Then that would be 'proof' that the Adam rib story is untrue.
No matter how you look at it, people will always try to prove or disprove the bible & its stories

[thebreadloaf2003]

connermt wrote: John wrote: Silkheat wrote: If God took a rib bone from Adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?

The Hebrew doesn't say "rib"...it says "chunck".

Ah...another biblical translation error.
Should we really be surprised?!?!

But IF it were found that a man had one less rib than a women, SOMEONE would have said that people took a scientific fact (one less rib) & made up a story (God taking one of Adam's ribs) to prove it true. Then that would be 'proof' that the Adam rib story is untrue.
No matter how you look at it, people will always try to prove or disprove the bible & its stories

or to raise even more question, what if somebody did a biopsy on a male and female body, found that the male ahd one less rib (assuking he lost it, or from a diformity never obtained one of them) and used that as the base of the "rib theory"

[Secondary Oak]

John wrote: The Hebrew doesn't say "rib"...it says "chunck".
:!?:

[Random Evil Guy]

Silkheat wrote: If God took a rib bone from adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?

what i find strange is, why did he even need 'an ingredient'? couldn't he just poof a woman into existance...? :-D

[perdidochas]

Silkheat wrote: If God took a rib bone from adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?

Adam was born with the normal number of ribs, meaning that his genes were designed for the normal number of ribs. Our genes are for the normal number of ribs. If you cut my hand off, my kids are still going to have two hands. Humans don't have Lamarckian inheritance.

[perdidochas]

Random Evil Guy wrote: Silkheat wrote: If God took a rib bone from adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?

what i find strange is, why did he even need 'an ingredient'? couldn't he just poof a woman into existance...? :-D

As a metaphorist (not a literalist), the reason is to reaffirm the point that a married couple becomes one flesh.

[Random Evil Guy]

perdidochas wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: Silkheat wrote: If God took a rib bone from adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?

what i find strange is, why did he even need 'an ingredient'? couldn't he just poof a woman into existance...? :-D

As a metaphorist (not a literalist), the reason is to reaffirm the point that a married couple becomes one flesh.

should have mentioned that i was talking about a literal interpretation. as a metaphor, it isn't that bad really. :-D

[connermt]

perdidochas wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: Silkheat wrote: If God took a rib bone from adam to make Eve we as men should have less ribs than women correct?

Then why do we have the same number of ribs as women?

what i find strange is, why did he even need 'an ingredient'? couldn't he just poof a woman into existance...? :-D

As a metaphorist (not a literalist), the reason is to reaffirm the point that a married couple becomes one flesh.

I am sure there could be many metaphorical reasons for this.

[Duchifas]

Maybe Adam was created with 13 ribs. :lol:

Quote:
FAQ:
Will my kids inherit my old nose or my new nose?

Okay, if you're an expert in Mendelian genetic inheritance, don't laugh. The answer to this question isn't obvious to everyone.

If you inherited a big nose from your parents, that big nose is in your genes, your DNA, and we don't change that with a rhinoplasty. Your kids will get the same genes from you whether or not you have your nose done.

But just because you have a big nose doesn't mean that your kids will. There are lots of families where one child gets dad's large nose, and another doesn't. Children don't always inherit their parents' nasal size and shape.

http://www.facialsurgery.com/PPgfaq_nose_inherit.html

[John]

Quote: Maybe Adam was created with 13 ribs.

:lol:

[connermt]

John wrote: Quote: Maybe Adam was created with 13 ribs.

:lol:


Explain the humor

[Duchifas]

connermt wrote: John wrote: Quote: Maybe Adam was created with 13 ribs.

:lol:


Explain the humor

Adam was created with 13 ribs. Thus, when one was removed to make Eve, he ended up with 12. Which explains why guys walk around with 12 ribs these days, as opposed to 11. :lol:

An alternative explanation to the original poster is that Adam and Eve's children inherited the genes for 12 ribs from Eve, rather than from Adam. :lol:

BIO 101, my friends, that's all there is to it.

[Gilbert1908]

connermt wrote: John wrote: Quote: Maybe Adam was created with 13 ribs.

:lol:


Explain the humor

They just aren't as funny when you have to explain 'em.

[connermt]

Gilbert1908 wrote: connermt wrote: John wrote: Quote: Maybe Adam was created with 13 ribs.

:lol:


Explain the humor

They just aren't as funny when you have to explain 'em.

True - but sometimes they aren't funny to start with :wink: