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?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 7 by bluethread]

The door is wide open for you to demonstrate that Yahweh and the Mud-Man and the Rib-Woman were real.

If you could, that is what you would have done.

No, first I would determine specifically what it is we are talking about. To your credit, I see that you have asked another poster, who appears to wish to provide you with antitheist arguments to take those things to another thread and not derail this one. That indicates to me that you wish to have a focused discussion, So, let's get to that.

So far, you have demonstrated your ability to present generalizations in a creative fashion. However, to have a focused discussion we need to be doing more than that. We have to make sure that we understand one anothers arguements. So let me ask again. Are you merely asking if Genesis 1 is a better scientific explanation of the origins of life on earth than the theory of evolution, or whether there can be a comparison of any kind?

In addition, it is generally good form to acknowledge counter arguments. Do you believe that Genesis 1 says that a male human was the first living creature, as your first post stated?

[bluethread]

Hopefully, your interactions on this site will reassure you that theism is not without reasonable justification, even if you never choose to agree with those justifications.

I've been on this site since 2012 and I haven't seen a reasonable justification for Christianity yet.

First, I said nothing about Christianity. It is my hope that the OP will see that at least some theists have reasonable justifications for their positions. I am sorry, if you are not able to see that.

Also, how many times do I need to point out that if this religion has a reasonable justification there would be no reason why all Christians couldn't jump on that same boat.

You can make your point as many times as you like, this is an open forum. However, the number of times you state something does not require anyone to accept your views. One view on point is the idea that, if there is a reasonable explaination for something, everyone should accept it. Regardless of how reasonable an argument is, if the premise is not accepted, the argument is not accepted. The evolutionary theory is such an argument. It is rather rational. However, it is based on several premisies. If one does not accept any one of those premises, one might very well reject a reasonable argument in favor of the theory of evolution.

The mere fact that Christians can't even agree with each other's so-called "Justifications" only demonstrates that they aren't even convincing each other.

Where is this supposedly reasonable justification for this religion?

I havne't seen it yet.

Well, one can say the same about the theory of evolution. There are many different views regarding that theory. Does that mean that the there are no reasonable justifications for the theory of evolution?

In fact, I haven't met a theist who could reasonably justify the first 3 chapters of Genesis. Never mind the entire rest of the Bible.

Well, maybe you should sit back and allow people to discuss this topic on this thread, if that is where the OP wishes to take it. Who knows maybe you might see something you hadn't considered before?

[StuartJ]

People of faith typically dodge discussion of the details of biblical creation mythology.

There are a number of tricks employed to try and do so.

That is what has been happening here.

The mud-man and the rib-woman look very much like standard creation mythology make-believe.

I suggest certain people of faith recognise that all too well.

I further suggest, that when they do recognise it, and dodge discussion of the details in a forum like this, they need to take a close look at their moral compass.

However, if we are dealing with reality, it will be quite straightforward to close this discussion down with a few details ... and the evidence (or at least a plausible theory) to back up the details of the mud-man and the rib-woman and the leviathans and such.

Otherwise - people of faith will understand - others will consider biblical creation mythology to be just as fantastical as anyone else's.

[Divine Insight]

First, I said nothing about Christianity. It is my hope that the OP will see that at least some theists have reasonable justifications for their positions. I am sorry, if you are not able to see that.

Well, it really doesn't matter what label you give it. I haven't seen any reasonable justifications for any position that supports the idea that Yahweh should be considered to be a real God or that Jesus should be taken seriously to be his Son.

And there's no need to fell sorry for me just because no one has been able to produce a compelling reasonable position for these thing. Science, History, Academia, and even theologians themselves openly acknowledge that there is no credible reasonable explanation for the Biblical picture.

Well, one can say the same about the theory of evolution. There are many different views regarding that theory. Does that mean that the there are no reasonable justifications for the theory of evolution?

Sorry, but the claim that Evolution is "Just a theory" is about as lame as saying that it's just a theory that the earth orbits the Sun, or that the Earth is actually a sphere instead of a flat disk.

In short, for you to claim that there is insufficient evidence for evolution is really no different from claiming that the earth is flat.

Evolution really isn't open to personal opinion. The evidence for it is overwhelming. It's not "Just a Theory".

I suggest that if you think it is, then you aren't paying much attention.

Well, maybe you should sit back and allow people to discuss this topic on this thread, if that is where the OP wishes to take it. Who knows maybe you might see something you hadn't considered before?

I'm paying attention. And I'm open to any new ideas.

The problem is Bluethread that the Bible is so thoroughly self-contradictory and utterly absurd in so many ways that it's just not going to be repaired by some trivial new idea. That's just not going to happen.

But yeah, I'm open to anything. If you have something better to offer than to just claim that evolution is "Just a Theory" open to personal subjective opinion, I'm fully prepared to hear it.

But the mere fact that you have even suggested that evolution is open to personal subjective opinion already shows that you aren't taking these things seriously.

Like I say, you may as well be arguing that the earth is flat and that the sun actually revolves around the earth. That's how ridiculous it is to suggest that evolution is open to personal subjective opinion.

If you are convinced that evolution needs to be wrong in order for your religion to be true it's time to change religions. Truly.

[bluethread]

People of faith typically dodge discussion of the details of biblical creation mythology.

There are a number of tricks employed to try and do so.

That is what has been happening here.

That is not what is happening here. What is happening is that I am trying to determine what it is you wish to discuss It appears to me that the others on this thread are not interested in having a discussion, but are simply attempting to criticize a philosophy with which they happen to disagree.

The mud-man and the rib-woman look very much like standard creation mythology make-believe.

I suggest certain people of faith recognise that all too well.

Ok, do you want to discuss the nature of mythology and how it relates to science, or do you just want me to tell you that Genesis 1 is a bunch of hokum?

I further suggest, that when they do recognise it, and dodge discussion of the details in a forum like this, they need to take a close look at their moral compass.

So, are you saying that if anyone inquires as to what it is you are interested in discussing, they need to check their moral compass?

However, if we are dealing with reality, it will be quite straightforward to close this discussion down with a few details ... and the evidence (or at least a plausible theory) to back up the details of the mud-man and the rib-woman and the leviathans and such.

Well, if you are so sure that you have a complete understanding of reality, why are you bothering to even start a discussion. There is a forum on this sight where you can just state your views, without having to go through the trouble of having to actually engage in a discussion, if that is what you are really interested in.

Otherwise - people of faith will understand - others will consider biblical creation mythology to be just as fantastical as anyone else's.

It is true that people tend to think of their own philosophy as reasonable and the philosphies of others as less so. In fact, some even dismiss the philosophies of others as fanatical right out of the box, without even examining them. So, what is your point? Do you wish to have a discussion or are you just wanting to bloviate about how someone else's philosophy is fanatical?

[bluethread]

Well, it really doesn't matter what label you give it. I haven't seen any reasonable justifications for any position that supports the idea that Yahweh should be considered to be a real God or that Jesus should be taken seriously to be his Son.

And there's no need to fell sorry for me just because no one has been able to produce a compelling reasonable position for these thing. Science, History, Academia, and even theologians themselves openly acknowledge that there is no credible reasonable explanation for the Biblical picture.

I am glad to have given you yet another opportunity to expound upon your personal views on various view held by others, but that get us no closer to determining what on earth this thread is about.

Well, one can say the same about the theory of evolution. There are many different views regarding that theory. Does that mean that the there are no reasonable justifications for the theory of evolution?

Sorry, but the claim that Evolution is "Just a theory" is about as lame as saying that it's just a theory that the earth orbits the Sun, or that the Earth is actually a sphere instead of a flat disk.

In short, for you to claim that there is insufficient evidence for evolution is really no different from claiming that the earth is flat.

Evolution really isn't open to personal opinion. The evidence for it is overwhelming. It's not "Just a Theory".

I suggest that if you think it is, then you aren't paying much attention.

I never said any such thing. All I said was that there are areas of disagreement among those who accept evolution as an explanation of life here on earth. Since you stated that disagreement undermines the validity of a world view, I was just asking if that principle also applied to the evolutionary world view.

Well, maybe you should sit back and allow people to discuss this topic on this thread, if that is where the OP wishes to take it. Who knows maybe you might see something you hadn't considered before?

I'm paying attention. And I'm open to any new ideas.

The problem is Bluethread that the Bible is so thoroughly self-contradictory and utterly absurd in so many ways that it's just not going to be repaired by some trivial new idea. That's just not going to happen.

But yeah, I'm open to anything. If you have something better to offer than to just claim that evolution is "Just a Theory" open to personal subjective opinion, I'm fully prepared to hear it.

But the mere fact that you have even suggested that evolution is open to personal subjective opinion already shows that you aren't taking these things seriously.

Like I say, you may as well be arguing that the earth is flat and that the sun actually revolves around the earth. That's how ridiculous it is to suggest that evolution is open to personal subjective opinion.

If you are convinced that evolution needs to be wrong in order for your religion to be true it's time to change religions. Truly.

Speaking of self contradictory, this section appears to be a text book case. You say, "I'm open to any new ideas". Then you proceed to make several statements that indicate that you have no intention of entertaining "ideas" that might not line up with your viewpoints on those matters. So, far I have made no definitive statements regarding anything, yet you speculate that I am somehow making an argument. The only argument I am making at this point is that, if we want to have a productive discussion on this thread, we had better determine what it is actually about.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 15 by bluethread]

I would love someone to detail the details of the biblical creation mythologies.

Without straying into critiques of evolutionary science, or pretending not to know what is being asked, or any other diversionary trick.

The focused details of creation mythology may then be compared with the focused details of evolutionary science.

I suggest you know fine well what is being asked here.

Details please.

Or an honest admission.

[StuartJ]

Below is a typical Christian deflection.

A critique of science.

Not a detailed exposition of biblical creation mythology.

Not a shred of evidence to back up biblical creation mythology.

No one ever does.

CMI gives us:

So the Creation model (based on the presupposition that the Bible is historically accurate because it is the word of God) turns out to be the best starting point a scientist could have when trying to investigate how the world came to be the way we experience it today. The facts we see can more reasonably be interpreted towards a biblical creationist explanation than an evolutionary one.

Christians that have accepted the materialist explanations (to whatever degree) need to understand they have given up the authority of God’s word without need. There is no reason to fear challenges from the scientific community. Scientists that are honest will confirm the reliability of Scripture whether they believe it or not. For those that confess the author of Scripture as their Lord it should be incumbent upon them to confess and defend God’s word in all areas.

The emphasis is mine.

(We can have another discussion on the criteria for determining which human writings constitute "scripture".)

https://creation.com/creation-the-better-explanation

[Divine Insight]

So, far I have made no definitive statements regarding anything, yet you speculate that I am somehow making an argument.

You did make an argument where you suggest that even those who accept evolution theory hold different subjective opinions concerning the details. But that's hardly an argument against the topic of the OP.

The only argument I am making at this point is that, if we want to have a productive discussion on this thread, we had better determine what it is actually about.

The OP already made that crystal clear.

The question is:

"Can this (the Biblical story of the creation of Adam and Eve) be put up against evolutionary science?"

And the answer is clearly no. Period.

No subjective opinions required.

[bluethread]

So, far I have made no definitive statements regarding anything, yet you speculate that I am somehow making an argument.

You did make an argument where you suggest that even those who accept evolution theory hold different subjective opinions concerning the details. But that's hardly an argument against the topic of the OP.

Of course it isn't an argument against the OP. It is an observation regarding your assertion that disagreement indicates that something is invalid.

The only argument I am making at this point is that, if we want to have a productive discussion on this thread, we had better determine what it is actually about.

The OP already made that crystal clear.

The question is:

"Can this (the Biblical story of the creation of Adam and Eve) be put up against evolutionary science?"

And the answer is clearly no. Period.

No subjective opinions required.

To that I asked if we awere talking merely as a scientific theory or as something else. If I had gotten a direct answer like, "Yes, as a scientific theory" or "No, as (fill in the blank)." I would have either said, that the story is not a scientific theory, or I would have address the comparison according the whatever other criteria we were using.

Have your post directed toward me helped with any of that?