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]

Below is a typical Christian deflection.

A critique of science.

I have not done so.

Not a detailed exposition of biblical creation mythology.

Since you have not indicated that you wanted that, but merely asked for a comparison. When I asked about the criteria for the comparison, you did not answer.

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

I thought that this was a comparison, not a defense. At least that is what the OP asked for.

No one ever does.

I can not speak to all of your experiences. However, some of that might be do to your framing honest inquiry as diversion, as you have on this thread. That said, it appears that my posts so far do not fit your "typical Christian deflection". So, do you think we might have a discussion, without the presumption of a stereotype?

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.

If you wanted a defense of that assertion, it might have been good to include that in the OP. I have never made that assertion, so I do not intend on defending it. So, do you want a comparison of Genesis to scientific theory, as you stated in the OP, or are you calling for a defense of a philosophical position that has only been presumed up to this point.

[bluethread]

[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.

What is this an inquisition? I am not pretending at all. If you wish to go through Genesis 1 line by line, we can do that. Other than that, I have no idea what you mean when you ask for "the details of the biblical creation mythologies".

[StuartJ]

Let's have a look at the biblical details of the creation of the mud-man -- the world's first human -- by the mythological Yahweh Elohim (Lord God):

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth a and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6but streams b came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the Lord God formed a man c from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Source: Genesis Chapter 2

Independently verifiable evidence: zero

Human evolution:

Human evolution is the evolutionary process that led to the emergence of anatomically modern humans, beginning with the evolutionary history of primates – in particular genus Homo – and leading to the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of the hominid family, the great apes. This process involved the gradual development of traits such as human bipedalism and language,[1] as well as interbreeding with other hominins, which indicate that human evolution was not linear but a web.[2][3][4][5]

The study of human evolution involves several scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, neurobiology, ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.[6] Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago, in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene, around 55 million years ago.[7]

Source: Wikipedia

Independently verifiable evidence: take your pick from 551,000,000 results - https://www.google.com.au/search?q=huma ... e&ie=UTF-8

[StuartJ]

Now let's look at the details of the creation of the world's first woman by the same mythological deity:

18The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.�

19Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam f no suitable helper was found. 21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs g and then closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib h he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Source: Genesis Chapter 2

Independently verifiable evidence: zero

Please refer to the previous post for comparisons.

[StuartJ]

Putting creation mythology up against evolutionary science is quite straightforward.

Unless you are trying to dodge doing so ....

Perhaps I haven't presented the creation mythology correctly.

Or perhaps Yahweh and the mud-man and the rib-woman really do exist outside the imaginations of believers.

Perhaps there really is independently verifiable evidence that this is how humans first appeared on the planet.

The door is wide open.

[Divine Insight]

Now let's look at the details of the creation of the world's first woman by the same mythological deity:

18The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.�

19Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam f no suitable helper was found. 21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs g and then closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib h he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Source: Genesis Chapter 2

Independently verifiable evidence: zero

Please refer to the previous post for comparisons.

May I speak to this from a purely theological perspective?

It seems to me that even as pure theology this story fails miserably.

The first question that comes to mind is "What was Adam supposed to be doing that required help?"

The Bible doesn't say what Adam was supposed to be doing or why he required help.

And shouldn't this God have thought about this before he created Adam anyway? Creating a human woman as an afterthought doesn't seem like very good planning.

Finally, why was the woman then created with the ability to give birth to even more humans? If this God creator had wanted humans to multiply shouldn't he have given Adam the ability to procreate even prior to creating Eve?

It seems to me that this theology would have made far more sense if this God had created Eve first with the purpose of procreation, and then saw as an afterthought that perhaps she would then need help.

The idea that this religion has things exactly backwards having a useless man needing help when he has absolutely no purpose in the first place makes no sense. This makes this religion appear to be entirely the fabrication of men who were trying to create a God who favors men over women. May as well blame the women for being the instigator of sin while they were at it.

It really hard for me to understand how any women can buy into this religion. What are the men supposed to be doing that they need help with???

It certainly couldn't have been Adam's job to "save humans from damnation" since that concept wasn't even invented until after Eve had been created.

So what was Adam supposed to be doing? What did he need help with?

Let's not forget also that the Garden of Eden prior to the "fall" most certainly wouldn't have needed to be cultivated or tended. That would require that weeds were already growing and that the Garden of Eden was already corrupt even prior to the fall.

So it seems to me that even as a pure mythological theology this religion has a lot of explaining to do for why their God created this man in the first place, and what this many supposedly needed help with.

What was Adam supposed to be doing that he needed a help mate?

And if this God wanted humans to procreate and multiply, then why in the world would he have created woman as an afterthought? She should have been the first thing he created.

This religious theology has extreme problems that it needs to address before it can even begin to compete with known reality and things like evolution.

[StuartJ]

190 members have viewed this post and not one person of faith has put up one defence of the position of faith that they claim to hold.

Or had the courage to admit they are dealing with the creation mythology of a mythological god.

Or admit they don't really know much about what they believe.

Or admit they have been brainwashed by priests and pastors and parents.

[bluethread]

Let's have a look at the biblical details of the creation of the mud-man -- the world's first human -- by the mythological Yahweh Elohim (Lord God):

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth a and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6but streams b came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7Then the Lord God formed a man c from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Though I do not think this this is a detailed scientific explanation. Evolutionary theories are not in agreement as to where surface water came from. One theory is that it came out of the ground from pressure pockets of hydrogen and oxygen. So, it is possible that the first water was not in the form of rain. Evolutionary theory also does not appear to contest that no plant life would have existed at such a time. Plant life only occurred after surface water. It is also scientifically verifiable that humans are composed of a combination of minerals and gases. So, though it is a rather general explanation, it is not inaccurate with regard to what can be scientifically verified. Again, I do not believe that is it's purpose, but you asked for a comparison.

Human evolution is the evolutionary process that led to the emergence of anatomically modern humans, beginning with the evolutionary history of primates – in particular genus Homo – and leading to the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of the hominid family, the great apes. This process involved the gradual development of traits such as human bipedalism and language,[1] as well as interbreeding with other hominins, which indicate that human evolution was not linear but a web.[2][3][4][5]

The study of human evolution involves several scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, paleontology, neurobiology, ethology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.[6] Genetic studies show that primates diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago, in the Late Cretaceous period, and the earliest fossils appear in the Paleocene, around 55 million years ago.[7]

Ok, if that is how you wish to define it for the sake of this discussion, we can go with that. So, far I seee no reason why one can not hold accept both of these, if one wished to do so.

Now let's look at the details of the creation of the world's first woman by the same mythological deity:

18The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.�

19Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam f no suitable helper was found. 21So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs g and then closed up the place with flesh. 22Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib h he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Again, not a detailed scientific explanation. However, it does not that animals are not suffient companianship for the human male. Also, not just humans, but all living things are made of what Carl Sagan called, "star stuff", i.e. minerals and gasses. So, animals having been created from the dust of the earth, while a bit simplistic, is pretty accurate. The point of the passage is that animals are not suffient companions for the human male. Women are far superior, because they are the same life form.

I know that there are some who see this as a singular event. Well, scientifically, there is really no way of knowing. No need there be. Evolutionay theory does not confirm or deny singular events, but speculates on thrends from intermittent information. That said, even evolutionary arguments in favor of the primacy of male/female relationships are beingrejected by much of our post modernist society. So, in that regard, this account is as good as an evolutionary explanation.

190 members have viewed this post and not one person of faith has put up one defence of the position of faith that they claim to hold.

Or had the courage to admit they are dealing with the creation mythology of a mythological god.

Or admit they don't really know much about what they believe.

Or admit they have been brainwashed by priests and pastors and parents.

Maybe that is because there are quite a few non-theists here. More importantly, it might be because you did not ask them to put up a defense of the "position of faith" that they claim to hold. You just asked for a comparision of Genesis 1 to evolutionary theory. Yet, you misstate Genesis one, by asserting that man was the first animal created and then focus on Genesis 2. In fact, you did not even present a specific viewpoint that you presume one would hold until the top of the second page, which may not be the view point of the members viewing this thread. Maybe it might be more productive to ask people what "positon of faith" they hold, rather than presuming that they hold a particular "positon of faith".

Regarding the things you apear to require people to "admit", again, is this an inquisition or a discussion? If it is a discussion, you might consider responding to my inquiries. If it is an inquistion, good luck getting anyone to volunteer for that.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 28 by bluethread]

You didn't back the biblical mythology with evidence.

No one ever does ....

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 28 by bluethread]

You didn't back the biblical mythology with evidence.

No one ever does ....

Evidence of what? Why are you ignoring every attempt I make to determine what it is you are looking for? I can not read your mind. Do you want me to give you evidence that water first came out of the earth. I can't, because science has not determined if that is actually the case? That is one of several theories. Evidence that women are better companions than animals? Do you really need evidence for that? Evidence of a singular event regarding the origins of man? How does one do that? Do you have evidence related to the specific time when apes became human?