New documentary: Dismantled: A Scientific Deconstruction of the Theory of Evolution
The online premiere has ended, but you can order the DVD or Blu-ray here.
Also Available in:

Feedback archiveFeedback 2019

From a rib to a 206-bone human


What is the source of true knowledge?

Published: 24 August 2019 (GMT+10)

Skeptic, David C., sardonically asked us this question in response to our web article on whether the ear bones of mammals really evolved from the jawbones of reptiles:

“Thanks Matthew, do you have a diagram to help illustrate Eve’s transition from Adam’s one rib bone to a 206-bone human?”

Dr. Matthew Cserhati responds:

That’s a good question. The answer is that we do not know exactly how Eve became a human after being taken from one of Adam’s ribs, as described in the Bible. This is purely because this is a supernatural event, happening outside of natural processes. We still believe this really happened, because this event was recorded by eyewitnesses and we believe the Bible is a record of these historical events. We have written about Eve created from Adam’s rib on our website. We encourage you to browse our website, since we may have already answered your question previously.

I think it would be fair to ask you a series of questions about your own belief system. You appear to be an atheist. So, for example, would you be able to provide us with some diagrams illustrating the following:

We’d also like to invite you to answer 15 questions for evolutionists.

I think that you will have tremendous difficulties in trying to answer these questions, because the large-scale process of macroevolution is an unobserved process, which falls outside of observational science. Evolution is not the same as experimental lab science. Your atheist worldview dictates to you that everything must necessarily have a natural cause. But everything we actually know about real, observable and testable processes shows that these things do not actually happen. They are religious beliefs about the past. The religion of atheism excludes supernatural causes a priori.

Belief in a supernatural Creator is not unscientific. When one considers the origin of the universe, for example, either the very scientific laws you profess (like the law of causality) have to be broken, or a more satisfactory explanation is that a supernatural being (God, who is not ‘natural’ and therefore not constrained by natural law), preceded the universe that He made, and He continued to interact in it.


Creation science does not study the actual process of supernatural creation, rather it studies God’s handiwork. Since God is omniscient, He alone knows all facts. Only God can order all facts into a meaningful worldview framework. On the other hand, if atheists are consistent, they would have to doubt everything. Therefore, they can ultimately know nothing—everything would be questionable. Since atheists reject God, they reject true knowledge.

An atheist is like a man who rejecting God, leaves the house of the Lord, which is the source of all true knowledge. But when the atheist leaves the house of God, he locks the door shut behind him, and proceeds to throw the key into the river, forever cutting himself off from true knowledge.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” (Proverbs 1:7)

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

Gian Carlo G.
"Do you have a diagram to help illustrate Eve’s transition from Adam’s one rib bone to a 206-bone human?” Yes, we do. Ever heard of how a undifferentiated, multi-cellular blastocyst develops into a 206 bone human? Well likewise, the same could happen to a single rib bone (actually, it was more, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume God only needed one rib). It's the same process, only difference here is God genetically engineered the cells of the rib's muscle and skin cells and accelerated the cellular reproduction the same way a blastocyst divides, only faster, and then you finally have a 206 bone female human, where all of its sex chromosomes from before were genetically modified to be XX. So you see, we do have a feasible developmental biology diagram for the transition of Adam's one rib to Eve, even referencing well known biological processes. We at least are able to admit and identify the Designer of this process. In the evolutionary scenario where no designer has intervened, there is no feasible mechanism where a single celled organism mutated abundantly to give the diversity we observe without overcoming error catastrophe and mutational meltdown which would doom two or three generations before even chimps could arrive.
Richard P.
David C continues to launch his facetious challenges for Matthew to demonstrate how aspects of creation were brought to completion, while ignoring Matthew's counter-challenges to illustrate how complexity in nature was attained without the help of a creator. But there is a big difference. If we are restricted to random naturalistic processes alone, then certain things (and especially the provision of information, along with its chemical storage, retrieval, copying and checking systems) ought to be impossible. Yet if we believe in a God who directs all creation with perfect wisdom, then none of this is impossible. David's request for diagrams seems to imply that even God should be limited to naturalistic step-by-step procedures which we are able to understand. But He is not! Thus Matthew is under no obligation to supply such demonstrations of gradualistic procedures anyway, since they are not part of his belief system which David is challenging.
David C.
Oh yes apologies. I forgot to add a thank you for pasting the links to quantum fluctuations etc I will look these up and perhaps you can work on the birth growth of Eve diagrams. Cannot be that difficult. Start with rib as vertebral column....
Matthew Cserhati
Hello again David,
The way evolutionary theory is so confidently portrayed as absolute fact I thought that you can already show us a diagram of how the big bang produced life on earth. But we still remain skeptical. Here is an articles as to why.
David C.
"When I look back, the Garden is a dream to me. It was beautiful, surpassingly beautiful, enchantingly beautiful; and now it is lost, and I shall not see it any more. The Garden is lost, but I have found HIM, and am content. He loves me as well as he can; I love him with all the strength of my passionate nature, and this, I think, is proper to my youth and sex. If I ask myself why I love him, I find I do not know, and do not really much care to know; so I suppose that this kind of love is not a product of reasoning and statistics, like one's love for other reptiles and animals. I think that this must be so. I love certain birds because of their song; but I do not love Adam on account of his singing—no, it is not that; the more he sings the more I do not get reconciled to it. Yet I ask him to sing, because I wish to learn to like everything he is interested in. I am sure I can learn, because at first I could..." Try reading Samuel Langhorne Clemens' version Matthew. It helps nurture a bit of empathy where it's due and perhaps at the next creationists AGM you will consider backing off branding Adam and Eve as the primary cause of eye worms and bone cancer.
Matthew Cserhati
Hello David,
Disregarding the quote, which is not Scripture, we have already dealt with the origin of evil many times on our website. Here is another resource.
Egil W.
Even a mediocre student of human anatomy have charts of female and male skeletons. Surgeons use these and other charts all the time to get things right vs wrong, correct vs errant and healthy vs damaging. And then some people would think it outlandish that One who is by definition of being, omniscient and omnipotent (and omnibenevolent), should have - among other things - a conceptual blueprint of a female skeleton in mind? In that case it would only reveal a epistemological materialistic-naturalistic bias ... bigger than universe. If a mere humans can chart human anatomy, then an omnicient being can of course both have it all within the mind and also be the One to invent it all in the first place. Its almost surprising that some skeptics are unable to do this simple calculation on their own. Have they been pulling down their blinds for too long? Is light unwanted?
Andrew C.
Hi Matthew,
I get where you are coming from - it is a megaphone that drowns out different views. I've watched people I love battle cancer and die from it and I'm not saying it is good. What I was trying to get across is that blaming everything on the fall is stretching the truth and therefore you need a different way to explain natural suffering. The main thing which wound me up was Dan M. comments. Atheists are not looking to pass the blame for their actions. They have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion, that is all. Dan M. mentions Atheists as having a closed mind and there are many Christians and Atheists who have closed minds, but the irony of his comment, is that it proves he is the one with a closed mind. If Christians looked at all of the evidence with an open mind they would say "I can understand why atheists believe what they do, but I can see more evidence for a God of Creation". If an atheist look at all of the evidence with an open mind they would say "I can see why creationists believe what they do, but I can see more evidence for natural creation". This is what it is to have an open mind!
Matthew Cserhati
Hello Andrew,
Well then, the big question is, which way does the evidence really point? "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." (Psalm 19:1), furthermore, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:18-23)
This means that if the atheist's minds were not so affected by sin, then they would see evidence for God all around them. They would quit making up just-so stories like evolution. In apologetics, a presuppositional approach is much more powerful. The Christian worldview is much more powerful. Furthermore, since God revealed it to us, it has to be true. But atheists take doubt in everything. This lead the philosopher Rene Descartes to doubt everything except his own existence. With atheism you are left wit a mere nothing. You can't be sure of anything. Atheism leaves you without any knowledge whatsoever. But the fear of god is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). If today the evidence overwhelmingly points to the Bible then you will be a Christian. But if tomorrow it points to atheism will you reject God? Faith isn't a teeter-totter.
Andrew C.
As a Christian who now has doubts I would say both Christians and Atheists are both blinkered and can't accept good points from each other. Christians like to "blame" human nature for everything because their "faith" won't let them genuinely question either God's goodness or whether he exists. Atheists can't accept anything spiritual or supernatural even if it is the most likely cause because their "faith" won't let them go there. Since this is a Christian website I'll talk about some good reasons for someone to question the Christian view. God created 2 innocent people and then let the devil play with them. Would you let Hitler play with your Children? They didn't stand a chance! At least Jesus had a chance to see the mix of good and evil before he was tempted by evil. God should take some responsibility for what happened - or did he want the fall to heppen? 50% of suffering is due to humanity, the other 50% is down to illness, the body failing, getting old, natural disasters etc… If you study science and the bible it is clear that the fall didn't change the natural world that much - Genesis doesn't use the same language as Revelation - Genesis say Farming will be more difficult and women will have more painful births - that's it! Please stop reading more into it and accept that the other 50% of suffering was in creation before the fall. When God says "it was good" he must have meant it in a different way to how we think it. If God, in his infinite complexity and wonder can "just exist" or "just happen", then so can creation and life out of non-life. The atheist world view isn't crazy or just to avoid accountability to God, it is understandable. A lot of atheists feel guilty about their actions, feel accountable, and try to make amends.
Matthew Cserhati
Hello Andrew,
Thanks for your comment. This is a Christian website, so we support the Christian position, especially since atheists have the megaphone 24/7. I do think you are quite mistaken about suffering being good. Your position is very inconsistent. If hard work and pain during childbirth is bad, then why would you say that cancer is good? Have you had a loved one battling through cancer? Have you ever watched over their bedside in the hospital, not knowing whether they would make it through this illness? Why is one form of suffering bad, and not the other? Will we suffer in heaven? Do you look forward to it? Jesus came to heal the sick, did He not? God is not responsible for the Fall, nowhere do we read in Genesis 3:14-19 that God would have punished Himself for letting man fall into sin.
Rich H.
CMI has given out the very best in knowledge available almost daily due to the diligence of real scientists that continually dig nuggets of Truth for everyone that will listen. If people really, truly knew what God has for each and every one on the planet, the blessings, peace, comfort and wisdom only He can provide. If they only knew, if they would only honestly look at the evidence without bias and examine their own hearts, it is absolutely possible to find The Truth.
Linda W.
It seems to me that all science whether “creation science” or “natural science” can only study that which has already come into being. How what we study got there is debated, particularly by those who do not want to be accountable to the designer/maker who has identified himself as God. Your questions to atheists as to how their origins can be explained show this quite well. Of course it makes less sense to believe you derive from random, unknowable acts of chance than from an all powerful designer. But the fear of having to answer to that designer keeps the atheist willingly ignorant. And this all started from a taunt in a perfect garden... Thank you CMI for being so willing to expose the “naturalistic” view for what it is, a lie to humanity, not much different than the one proffered in the garden a few millennia ago.
Chris R.
"We still believe this really happened, because this event was recorded by eyewitnesses and we believe the Bible is a record of these historical events. " There were no human eyewitnesses; Adam was asleep at the time and Eve not yet.
Matthew Cserhati
Hello Chris,
God was the eyewitness.
Terry D P.
One question I would like to ask evolutionists: Is there alternative diagram that illustrates the evolution of the symbiotic male-female reproductive system? How did the human male-female reproductive system evolve from a single sex reproductive system?
Jimmy C.
Dr. Cserhati writes "We still believe this really happened, because this event was recorded by eye witnesses and we believe the Bible is a record of these historical events." I take exception to this statement. As far as I can tell only God and the angels were in attendance. Now we have no books written by angels but we do have a book authored by God. This book is the Bible and if I understand it correctly by those who put ink to parchment, then the eyewitness account is a first person account. If the early Jewish Rabbis were correct, then God dictated the first five books to Moses letter by letter.
Dan M.
Good responce Matthew. The only time atheists believe in God is when stuff go's wrong and people suffer. This is so they can pass the blame for suffering, when suffering is our refusal to obey his commandments. They are incredibly close minded people and thus can't see the truth of our loving Creator. May God have mercy on them in that day of judgment. I guess, I must be stupid in their, (atheists) eyes because the Bible makes perfect sense of the world to me.
Roy L.
I don't know but could it be that the rib that was taken was the part of the X chromosome that made it a Y chromosome and from the Hox genes God made the lady Eve. He took the rib because of the rejuvenation properties of the part and the genetic information contained.
Matthew Cserhati
Hello Roy,
Thanks for your comment. That could possibly be the case. Although it was a direct act of God, so therefore the whole process could have been miraculous. Just like the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ.
Jeff M.
Here goes..... I was once a single-celled entity, inside my mother. Then I met with another single-celled entity from my father. We got on very well and began to divide.Over many months I became an embryonic human, now an elderly one. Simple! It's happening all the time. Jeff
John C.
This was a very thought provoking challenge. Although David's question was loaded, the subject is interesting to think about. We (that is, all who have read) already know that every cell has the capacity to become any cell for any tissue or organ in the body until it is coded (pluripotency). That this feature of our cells has already been proven by causing a person's own cells to regain their pluripotency after specialization. These adult stem cells can then be used to replace or build up any tissue in the body. Adam's rib, a gold mine of however many billions of cells, in the hands of the Original Genetic Engineer, were thus miles ahead of stupid, guideless, goalless evolution in bringing life from non-life. An excellent article, dear Matthew
Matthew Cserhati
Hello John,
Thanks for your comment. That is a good idea that stem cells can be possibly acquired from bone marrow. Let us just remember to give a reason to the hope that is in us with respect (1Peter 3:15).
S H.
As quoted elsewhere (source unknown, unless anyone else knows...) "Atheism: the belief that there was once absolutely nothing. And nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded (for no reason), creating everything and everywhere. Then a bunch of the exploded everything magically re-arranged itself (for no reason whatsoever) into self-replicating bits that then turned into dinosaurs." OK, so a bit tongue-in-cheek but it does bring home a reality! You could easily and strongly argue that (a) only belief in God provides an explanation for humanity, meaning and our universe (b) that scientific evidence increasingly points to God, not away from God and (c) therefore it is atheism that is making the most un-scientific, outlandish and non-evidential claims. I do not ridicule people who are atheists in any way, but logic alone (even without what we know is true) points to God.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.