The Mud-Man & His Rib-Woman

[StuartJ]

Yahweh Elohim (Kurios Theos/Lord God) in contradiction of Genesis 1, created a human male from mud, as the first living creature (not the last).

After failing to find a suitable good helper for the mud-man by creating animals from mud, the not-so-omniscient mythological Jewish deity then created the planet's first human female from one of the mud-man's ribs.

Can this be put up against evolutionary science?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 60 by William]

viewtopic.php?p=935570#935570

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 55 by Inigo Montoya]

You just really like the idea of consciousness being something far beyond what we presently know and renaming it.

It is not a matter of what I like or do not like. It is the matter of accepting the truth as it is. Consciousness and GOD are the same in that both are a mystery.

The weight of an object that was left in my bathroom this morning is also a mystery.
Therefore, consciousness, the gods and my bathroom matter are the same because all are a mystery.

You just need to accept the truth as it is.

[bluethread]

But I would disagree if by "man" you are referring to modern human beings, because we know now that modern humans did, in fact, evolve from a series of earlier hominids and did not suddenly appear on the scene as fully-formed, modern Homo sapiens as some religions postulate (eg. the creation myth of Genesis in the Christian bible).

As I have said before, Genesis is not a scientific treatise. The atheistic evolutionist should be in agreement with "mud-man". What it is saying is that man is of the earth. What the atheistic evolutionist should disagree with is the origins of "the breath of life"(spirit). That one would say that, if man does have a spirit, that was an out growth of the development of cognition in the central nervous system, via mutation and natural selection. The theistic evolutionist would say that process was guided by a deity. Whether all this happened in a literal day or over millions of years, is not what Genesis 2 is addressing.

So how is that in conflict with the statement that man was created from the dust of the earth?

I suppose it depends on your definition of "dust." If that can include some sort of single-celled organism (or whatever the first population of life forms were on earth) then that would not be inconsistent, as long as some 4 billion years of time and the evolutionary process was then allowed to arrive at "man." But if by dust you mean literally dirt, or mud, or fine sand, or similar, then it is in conflict because modern humans did not appear suddenly, fully formed, without any predessors (ie. earlier hominids).

Well, what we are looking at is an idiomatic phrase "dust of the ground", not a specific word that represents a specific periodic element of group of elements. That is the problem. Genesis 2 is speaking of philosophical concepts not scientifically defined processes. It is differentiating between the physical and the spiritual. It is saying that they are not the same, but both part of man. This is what Aristotle and Plato discussed. The Emiprist argues that life is just an out growth of the physical. The Mystic argues that the life is in the Spirit, which animates the physical. What Genesis 2 is saying is that both are from the same source and nessary for there to be "living soul".

My comments in post 50 were in response to yours in post 49 where you asked what caused natural selection, then suggested that it was the environment and other life forms. My point was that evolution (and natural selection) have no relation to what caused the environment, if by environment you mean planet earth and its atmosphere, oceans, land masses, etc. I read your comments to suggest that evolution was somehow tied to how these things came about, but maybe that is not what you meant.

That is the difference between the evolutionary prospective and the prospective of the Scriptures. The Scriptures see them one and the same, i.e. that which created life also sustains it. Evolutionary theory differentiates between matter and motion in creation, and genetic variation and natural selection. This latter is a bit of a cheat. It retains the underlying concept of a "natural" process that requires no outside influence, while sidestepping any justification for that concept. In short, what makes "natural" processes "natural"? Is it just matter and motion, or is there some outside influence.

[bluethread]

Since there are atheists with morality and good values, theism is not a basis for such things.

Societies forming such concepts is a working theory. Feel free to provide more if you wish, but theism is shown to not be a requirement.

The first sentence is a fallacy, the latter is more correct. The fact that atheists have morality and values, good is relative, does not mean that theism is not a basis for morality or values. It means that theism is not necessarly the only basis for morality and values. That said, you appear to be arguing that morality and values are the result of social evolution. The problem is that social evolution undermines the argument against "natural" rights. This was the defense at Nuremberg. There can be no natural rights, because all rights are the result of social evolution. Therefore, any morality is justified, as long as a given society approves of it.

[William]

[Replying to post 62 by Clownboat]

The weight of an object that was left in my bathroom this morning is also a mystery.
Therefore, consciousness, the gods and my bathroom matter are the same because all are a mystery.

Why are you resorting to conflation Clownboat?

Can you weigh consciousness? The reason you have mystery about the weight of the crap on your floor should be obvious to you. So should the stupidity of using such analogy as argument against what I wrote.

[William]

[Replying to post 63 by bluethread]

The Scriptures see them one and the same, i.e. that which created life also sustains it.

That is a major problem with scripture. It attempts to conflate life with the form life occupies. It is understandable enough from a purely human level of experience where self identity is mistaken as the form, and the transference of this is passed into the scripts humans write, but when linked with ideas of GOD, these become problematic and thus 'the history of human religion', idolatry, and corruption as GOD becomes separate from LIFE.

The key is in 'the breath of life' which is essential to the animation of the form. The animation of the form is then mistaken as the life/living and thus the form becomes the living thing, rather then the 'breath of GOD' within the form.

This allows for the belief that one is 'created' rather than one is an aspect (breath) of the creator and snowballs from there into religions which are basically saying that a GOD created them in this way for that purpose...to confuse them into thinking that they were created, by placing them into forms which made it extremely difficult for them to know any better.

Mud and ribs are not what we are. They are simply dead things created as forms in which to be occupied and animated by the only non-thing able to do so. GOD.

[StuartJ]

Quick review of the posts here:

Not one person of faith has put up one iota of evidence that the tale of the mud-man and the rib-woman has any basis in reality.

The tale may be useful in comparing quaint creation mythologies.

The tale has no use whatsoever in the study of the science of evolution.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 65 by William]

Moderator Comment

OK, that's enough. Please cease this before it escalates further.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[William]

[Replying to post 68 by otseng]

Sorry - my bad. I should have reviewed the post before sending...

[Clownboat]

Since there are atheists with morality and good values, theism is not a basis for such things.

Societies forming such concepts is a working theory. Feel free to provide more if you wish, but theism is shown to not be a requirement.

The first sentence is a fallacy, the latter is more correct. The fact that atheists have morality and values, good is relative, does not mean that theism is not a basis for morality or values. It means that theism is not necessarly the only basis for morality and values. That said, you appear to be arguing that morality and values are the result of social evolution. The problem is that social evolution undermines the argument against "natural" rights. This was the defense at Nuremberg. There can be no natural rights, because all rights are the result of social evolution. Therefore, any morality is justified, as long as a given society approves of it.

My argument is that theism is not a requirement for those things.
You failed to argue against this point, therefore it still stands.