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]

Evolution only addresses the mechanism by which life diversified after it appeared via some means to begin with. It makes no claims about, or has any dependence on, HOW that first life arose. And it has virtually nothing to do with how the environment itself (assuming you are referring to planet earth ... the oceans, land masses, weather, etc.) came about.

However, I said that evolution pretty much says that we are made of the dust of the earth, but over a long period of time. Therefore, it does not mean that there is no deity involved, but that is what Inigo Montoya was enquiring about. So, I referred to scientism and you corrected it by giving a definition for evolution. If you are now going to object to my pointing out that all is matter and motion, as scientism asserts, then let's go back a step and note that the theory of evolution says nothing about a deity. Therefore, it need not be in conflict with the Scriptural assertion that man was created from the dust of the earth.

Without a creator, one is left with nothing more than a meaningless infinite regression.

We know a great deal about how and when the earth came in existence (4.6 billion years ago), but we don't know the mechanism, yet, for how the first life forms arose. But there is no infinite regression as far as evolution is concerned because it doesn't care how that happened, only that it did. So if you walk backwards in time you can stop at the first population of organisms that did represent life as far as evolution is concerned. Anything before that, as well as the mechanism for how that life form arose, are not at all relevant to the theory of evolution as it only applies once there is a population of life forms to operate on. It has a definite starting point.

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

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 51 by bluethread]

If you are now going to object to my pointing out that all is matter and motion, as scientism asserts, then let's go back a step and note that the theory of evolution says nothing about a deity. Therefore, it need not be in conflict with the Scriptural assertion that man was created from the dust of the earth.

I don't disagree with that at all. I agree that evolution says nothing about a deity, and it need not be in conflict with any religious stories about how life originated on this planet, because evolution only requires that life did appear by some means ... independent of the mechanism (eg. a god could have created the first population of life forms and that is not inconsistent with evolution).

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).

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).

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.

[Clownboat]

Ok. Even if I accept evolution says, in a really generous round about way, that man came ultimately from matter (we'll leave out rib-woman) but without a deity, you have personally inserted a deity into the explanation.

I'm asking why.

No, I have not. The OP is asking for a comparison. Genesis recognizes a deity as the cause in the same way that Scientism recognizes matter and motion as the cause. Both are explanations in the absence of sufficient information. Scientism simply presumes that perpetual motion over a long period of time will eventually result in a complicated biological system. This is the infinite monkey theorem. The problem I find with this theorem is that it provides no guidance with regard to morality, values or consciousness. Theism, real or imagined, provides a basis for covenant morality, contractual values and identity consciousness. The first chapters of Genesis explain the development of these consepts in a mythopoetic format. In case you have not been been made aware of the mythopoetic format, it speaks to principle, without concern for whether the details of the account can be verified or not.

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.

[William]

It seems to me that ancient humans in their understanding of life on earth at the time (as related in the biblical account of creation of the human form as per the OP) that they saw something intelligent involved in that process - a process nowadays referred to as biological evolution.

Indeed, 'dust of the earth' is comparable with 'stardust' so from one perspective the ancients were not that far from the truth of the matter, as best they could understand things.

Of course the story itself has it that a GOD in the sky (or thereabouts) - not an earthling but an extraterrestrial ...or as some Christians argue, an inter-dimensional being... created biological forms and then 'breathed life into them'... the breath synonymous with 'spirit' or 'ghost' which has its links with 'consciousness' - that invisible non-thing which is real...or real enough at least to give that impression.

As to women made out of bone, one thinks of DNA - again something which was not known about by the ancients but is well enough understood by modern humans. This itself allows for the possibility that science was involved in creating humans and the scientists may have been extraterrestrial, which also accounts for the many stories - and not just biblical ones - of the ancients to do with 'the gods' coming from 'the sky' and mucking about with humans.

What is remarkable about biological evolution is that female and male pairs are more the norm than not, and in relation to so-called 'random mutation' one would expect such to be more a case of many ways in which procreation can take place rather than a main way.

This leads me to point again to the intelligence behind the process. Mindless random mutation would not 'settle' for a tried and true methodology in order for procreation to take place. A mindless thing simply cannot 'settle' for anything.

Which is why, when I see a picture of the Earth taken by an astronaut from the USofA I see the form of a living, breathing, thinking, self aware super-intelligence, which without, no astronaut would have ever gotten to the moon.

There is the evidence for a GOD.

As well as this concept being reasonable, one can also think about the fact that this GOD is in 'the sky' and the human mind can boggle at the mystery as to what it would be like to actually BE the Earth, how one would go about trying to connect intelligently with the conscious lifeforms one has 'breathed' oneself into, how long the planet and the creative process of biological evolution has been happening all over that place, and perhaps even relax a little knowing that everything is as it should be, as it changes day to day.

So yes, I do see hints of truth in the stories of the ancients. I also understand that it is pointless taking them too literally, and assume that in 6000 years from now, human beings will take us - their own 'ancients' - with a grain of salt...as in not too seriously but perhaps with some gratitude, and not feel too dismayed or condescending as to our present behavior.

It is all we could ask - that they understand our ignorance as being rather normal for the time and the place.

Lets face it, even as humans traveled to the moon and looked back at the earth from the craft of their technology, - created through projects named after gods - they still quoted the Genesis story of Creation.

Sure we can lay the literal interpretation of said stories aside, as understandable expressions of human belief from more ignorant times, but consistently taking a dump on them really doesn't achieve anything positive, and I suspect the nature of astronauts and their 'right stuff' would never stoop to such lowly expressions of derision, even that some of them would no doubt be exasperated by the literal belief systems of many Christians in today's modern world.

The fear that religion is holding things back might be relevant, but science is still young and has been shown to being used in a reckless manner.

Sometimes in their enthusiasm to take a dump on religion, strong atheists don't appear to care to notice that some products of science have also been contributing to the demise of the planet, so worried they are by the distraction of the evils of theology.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 54 by William]

However we decide to use our knowledge, it IS knowledge.

The rest is gobbledygook and wishful thinking, despite the language it's wrapped in.

Gods cannot be verified, so what are we talking about?

Unless by gods you mean consciousness. Which you do. Which, guess what? Doesn't help demonstrate anything about Christianity or their god. You just really like the idea of consciousness being something far beyond what we presently know and renaming it.

[William]

[Replying to post 55 by Inigo Montoya]

The rest is gobbledygook and wishful thinking, despite the language it's wrapped in.

The above is a claim which is unverified. It is a matter of mere convenience to state such, but takes nothing away from what I wrote. All it really is, is a method of avoidance.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 55 by Inigo Montoya]

The rest is gobbledygook and wishful thinking, despite the language it's wrapped in.

The above is a claim which is unverified. It is a matter of mere convenience to state such, but takes nothing away from what I wrote. All it really is, is a method of avoidance.

Sweet. Let's do the opposite of avoidance and get that h2h going finally. I'd be delighted to debate conscious planets and astral planes and first source consciousnesses. See if we can sort the science from the woo, eh?

[William]

[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.

It is not a matter of renaming either. It is a matter of seeing the same in what has oft enough been regarded as different. Consciousness and GOD are the same subject. That is really the point on which my focus is upon.

Doesn't help demonstrate anything about Christianity or their god.

I have not been trying to do that. As already explained, [see post #40] the creator of this thread brought it up by deciding to make the call on that, re 'other ideas of GOD'.

Certainly it is a habit of the hard atheists to swipe at all ideas of GOD, not just the Christian idea of GOD, so unless and until they can agree to keep within the boundaries they can hardly complain about it when they allow for the opportunity for other ideas of GOD to be represented and argued for/in favor of.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 58 by William]

So is that a no?

God is a mystery. Jimmy Hoffa's corpse location is a mystery. Therefore they can be used interchangeably.

I'm not swiping at your god construct. I'm telling you you don't have one. And inviting you to prove me wrong on a great many of your ideas publicly.

[William]

[Replying to post 59 by Inigo Montoya]

So is that a no?

Is what a 'no'? The h2h suggestion?

God is a mystery. Jimmy Hoffa's corpse location is a mystery. Therefore they can be used interchangeably.

Why are you resorting to conflation Inigo?

I'm not swiping at your god construct.

Why are you being untruthful, Inigo? Or is it just a matter of difference of interpretation?

I'm telling you you don't have one.

I am sure you are attempting to proclaim such, but there really has been no 'telling' coming from you in the form of any coherent explanation. Simply saying so without the addition of the 'why' factor, isn't 'telling' in itself. Are you sure you want to do this Inigo?

And inviting you to prove me wrong on a great many of your ideas publicly.

This looks like it needs to be further discussed elsewhere Inigo...prior to being taken to the h2h sector. A preliminary thread where you and I can discuss the details outside this particular thread...I will leave it to you to sort where this will take place - you can start that thread...maybe in the general chat section?

We can always leave a link here to that thread...

Your move brudder.