Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[outhouse]

If God is a myth, then science stands alone.

But if God is true, than science comes alive, for it is in the realm of science that the flesh exists and is magnified by the spirit of God.

The vehicle of the soul is the flesh and afterwards, a continuance of the souls existence after death.

The sciences remain to serve only the existence of the flesh, but after that...what possible use could it be?

The one can exist in the other, but the other can not exit in the one.

No flesh can inherit the kingdom of God....save the soul.

Frankly, I'm glad I have the hope of the here after, thanks to the sciences of the flesh as my beginning, and the spirit of God as my continuance of life.

For the flesh is temporary.

Blessings, AJ

Too date, a soul does not exist.

It was ancient mens explanation for the conscious mind. Nothing more, less the mythology surrounding the concept.

 

[Ouroboros]

No...you didn't. But, gees....did evolution decide how to create a male and female too?

In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.[49] All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled species.[1][41][50][51] Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as Bdelloidea and some parthenocarpic plants.

From Wiki.

I mean, does evolution have in its progression intelligent designs? Or is reactive to its surroundings only?

That's up to you.

I'm sorry but, male and female reproduction in the intelligent side is in itself most beautiful and much more believable than say......just happened.

It did. And it has some benefits, but not only.

There are animals that can reproduce asexually, called parthenogenesis, like hammerhead sharks.

 

[look3467]

Too date, a soul does not exist.

It was ancient mens explanation for the conscious mind. Nothing more, less the mythology surrounding the concept.

So. let me see if I get this right, according to your view.

Natural evolutionary progression created and intelligent specie, a male, and by self determination decided to evolve also into a female specie in order to procreate.

Not to mention that at some point in time along this evolutionary progression, life spontaneously erupted with a spirit of consciousness, and with abilities to make sound judgement?

And to boot, also determined that in itself it had the potential to do good and evil?

I'm sorry but, that is beyond the scope of believe-ability. Much easier to believe a myth of sorts in this discussion.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Ouroboros]

Natural evolutionary progression created and intelligent specie, a male, and by self determination decided to evolve also into a female specie in order to procreate.

Straw man and misrepresentation. That's not what evolution says.

Not to mention that at some point in time along this evolutionary progression, life spontaneously erupted with a spirit of consciousness, and with abilities to make sound judgement?

The property of consciousness is inherit in the very fabric of existence. It's also on a continuous line, not a discontinuous like an on/off switch. There are different levels of consciousness. It emerges from the processes of information in this very world. You're not born with a full consciousness, but it grows with the years. In psychology you can find answers to how children go through the growth of awareness, consciousness, mind, morality, and much more. It's not something that suddenly pops into you, but it is established through a long process through experience.

And to boot, also determined that in itself it had the potential to do good and evil?

Humans wrote the holy books. The belief that morals come from some deity through those people is just based on faith. Sociology and psychology can actually explain a lot about morality and ethics, not just philosophy.

I'm sorry but, that is beyond the scope of believe-ability. Much easier to believe a myth of sorts in this discussion.

:areyoucra

 

[Parsimony]

Natural evolutionary progression created and intelligent specie, a male, and by self determination decided to evolve also into a female specie in order to procreate.

As Ouroboros already stated, this is very much a straw-man. Evolution does not decide to choose one path anymore than gravity chooses to pull your towards the Earth. Since males cannot reproduce without females, then either females evolved first and used parthenogenesis to reproduce until males evolved or both evolved simultaneously.

It would not have to be an instant thing in order to work, either. It can happen gradually. Take note that the following scenario is one pulled from my mind and may not represent what has actually happened in the past. Instead, it is only meant to represent how it could have happened while at the same time being compatible with evolutionary thought: If you start out with a population of microbes which have a single sex (i.e. any two cells can fuse to form a zygote), then one can imagine a scenario where what was once a single cell type diverges into two different morphologies which are very slightly different from one-another, A and B. A can fuse with A to reproduce and B can fuse with B to reproduce, but both of these fusions are less successful than A fusing with B. We can start off conservatively and say that same-type fusions are 99% as fit at different-type fusions. If different-type fusions results in more rapid reproduction or healthier offspring on average than A+A or B+B, then selection pressures will act to increase the incidence of A+B fusions. One method of doing this would be to make A+A and B+B fusions increasingly unlikely through the generations until it fails to be possible at all due to physical or genetic incompatibility. This could happen if A becomes increasingly specialized in one role of the fusion process and B becomes increasingly specialized in another. Once this happens, the only way A can reproduce is by fusing with B and vice versa. Thus, you have two distinct sexes which have evolved gradually.

One could then ask, with good reason, why cells would bother to evolve into two sexes if one works just fine. One of the possible answers is to avoid inbreeding. I read a news article recently (which I really wish I could find again) which reported that computer simulations were run comparing a single-sex population with a two-sex population. The two-sex population was more successful because it was able to avoid inbreeding better. The reasoning here being that the nearest neighbors to a cell tend to be siblings which resulted when the parent split into two via mitosis. If a cell can fuse with any other cell, then it can also fuse with any of its nearby siblings. In a two-sex scenario, however, a cell can only fuse with those siblings which are of the opposite sex. This means that potential for inbreeding is reduced. So there is an imperative for the development of more than one sex (some organisms have even more than two sexes).

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

So. let me see if I get this right, according to your view.

Natural evolutionary progression created and intelligent specie, a male, and by self determination decided to evolve also into a female specie in order to procreate.

Not to mention that at some point in time along this evolutionary progression, life spontaneously erupted with a spirit of consciousness, and with abilities to make sound judgement?

And to boot, also determined that in itself it had the potential to do good and evil?

I'm sorry but, that is beyond the scope of believe-ability. Much easier to believe a myth of sorts in this discussion.

Blessings, AJ

So. Let me see if I get this right, according to your view, 6,000 years ago, a magic space wizard made a dirt-man and a rib-woman, where they were tempted by a magic talking snake to eat a piece of fruit... So the magic space wizard became his own son, and committed suicide as a sacrifice to himself to save the future descendants of the dirt-man and rib-woman from his own wrath for something they didn't actually do, and then flew back into outer space where he lives in a magic golden space-palace? I'm sorry, but that's beyond the scope of believe-ability. See... I can set up straw-men too.... But if you honestly think that this is actually more "believable," then by all means, have at it.

 

[Thief]

very embarrassing

No really.....time is not a force or a substance.

And you claim to favor 'facts'?......VERY embarrassing!

 

[look3467]

Triumphant_Loser;3731936]So. Let me see if I get this right, according to your view, 6,000 years ago, a magic space wizard made a dirt-man and a rib-woman, where they were tempted by a magic talking snake to eat a piece of fruit...>>>Triumphant_Loser

You got that right.

So the magic space wizard became his own son, and committed suicide as a sacrifice to himself to save the future descendants of the dirt-man and rib-woman from his own wrath for something they didn't actually do, and then flew back into outer space where he lives in a magic golden space-palace?

Yes, your getting the jest of the story.

I'm sorry, but that's beyond the scope of believe-ability. See... I can set up straw-men too.... But if you honestly think that this is actually more "believable," then by all means, have at it.

Yes you can set up a straw man too.

And it is your choice to believe what you want.

And there.....

I can't prove it right and you can't prove otherwise, the origin...I mean.

So it comes down to a matter of choice.

Blessings, AJ

 

[outhouse]

And you claim to favor 'facts'?!

Yes because your mythology does not explain scientific reality.

 

[outhouse]

So it comes down to a matter of choice.

It comes down to willful ignorance, or acceptance of facts regarding human origins.

Something NO religion has ever done.

 

[shawn001]

No...you didn't. But, gees....did evolution decide how to create a male and female too?

I mean, does evolution have in its progression intelligent designs? Or is reactive to its surroundings only?

I'm sorry but, male and female reproduction in the intelligent side is in itself most beautiful and much more believable than say......just happened.

Blessings, AJ

There are more ways then male and female reproduction for life to reproduce.

 

[shawn001]

So. let me see if I get this right, according to your view.

Natural evolutionary progression created and intelligent specie, a male, and by self determination decided to evolve also into a female specie in order to procreate.

Not to mention that at some point in time along this evolutionary progression, life spontaneously erupted with a spirit of consciousness, and with abilities to make sound judgement?

And to boot, also determined that in itself it had the potential to do good and evil?

I'm sorry but, that is beyond the scope of believe-ability. Much easier to believe a myth of sorts in this discussion.

Blessings, AJ

"life spontaneously erupted with a spirit of consciousness"

No life evolved a nervous system and brain and then consciousness it was NOT spontaneous in the slightest.

NOVA | The Electric Brain

 

[shawn001]

So many things don't add up in Genesis. Like the Sun and stars, not only were they created after the Earth, but created after plants? But then, I was wondering; Adam gets kicked out of Eden and has to till the soil? This is based on Gen 4:23 and 4:2 where Adam is sent out to "cultivate" the ground and his son Cain was a "tiller" of the ground. What did they till it with? Did God make them a plow and a hoe or something? And then Abel, why was he keeping flocks? Weren't they vegetarians? Was it for wool? Did God make Eve a loom and Abel some shears?

I see Genesis as religious poetry, but some Christians, and I guess some Jews, see it as literal. Ken Ham on his TV show Answers in Genesis, insists that it must be taken literal, that it is foundational, without it the whole of the Bible falls. What do you think.

Birds didn't come before land animals either.

Plus we have an almost exact match of the story with a different religion from the Babylonian creation story.

Comparing the Genesis and Babylonian stories of creation

 

[Thief]

Yes because your mythology does not explain scientific reality.

Your refusal of acceptance doesn't make it so.

And I believe in God because of science.

 

[outhouse]

Your refusal of acceptance doesn't make it so.

And I believe in God because of science.

You can believe in god because my yellow ducky says so, or not.

Your reasons for belief are not relevant to any debate.


My refusal is due to hard facts that show the mythology in a literal genesis interpretation have never taken place.

All you have ever brought to the table is your personal faith. It is neither a debate or evidence. It is only evidence towards your personal belief. Which we really don't care about.

 

[gnostic]

Your refusal of acceptance doesn't make it so.

And I believe in God because of science.

You still don't get do you?

Without EVIDENCES, science become a bunch of unverifiable hypotheses, conjectures and opinions.

You speak of "cause-and-effect", and yet you don't realize or recognize that for science you WOULD REQUIRE evidences to support both CAUSE and EFFECT. Without EVIDENCES, then it is truly not scientific cause-and-effect. Without evidence, then it is just personal opinions of yours.

You have admitted this yourself that you only have faith, and faith without evidences are nothing more than your personal opinions and personal belief, see post 1067 of Genesis 2 thread, below:

And you already know.....faith requires no proving.

Just opinion.

Since FAITH required no proving or no evidence, then IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

FAITH is nothing more than one's personal opinion.

 

[metis]

And since faith doesn't rely on any objectively-derived evidence, it is the polar opposite of science. As much as I wish it wasn't this way, the reality is that there is no objectively-derived evidence for a God or Gods, but that doesn't mean there can't be any.

So, as for myself, I'll call whatever caused this universe/multiverse "God" and pretty much just leave it at that.

 

[Thief]

You can believe in god because my yellow ducky says so, or not.

Your reasons for belief are not relevant to any debate.


My refusal is due to hard facts that show the mythology in a literal genesis interpretation have never taken place.

All you have ever brought to the table is your personal faith. It is neither a debate or evidence. It is only evidence towards your personal belief. Which we really don't care about.

No point here.

 

[Thief]

You still don't get do you?

Without EVIDENCES, science become a bunch of unverifiable hypotheses, conjectures and opinions.

You speak of "cause-and-effect", and yet you don't realize or recognize that for science you WOULD REQUIRE evidences to support both CAUSE and EFFECT. Without EVIDENCES, then it is truly not scientific cause-and-effect. Without evidence, then it is just personal opinions of yours.

You have admitted this yourself that you only have faith, and faith without evidences are nothing more than your personal opinions and personal belief, see post 1067 of Genesis 2 thread, below:

Since FAITH required no proving or no evidence, then IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

FAITH is nothing more than one's personal opinion.

Snatch some grass out of your lawn and smell it.

Then tell yourself....life just happens.
Then go look in the mirror and call yourself manure.

It just happens .....right?

Personal opinion?....not really.
Personally?....not at all.

Reality is more than 'you'.

God did it.

You could at least....play along.

 

[Thief]

Science offers cause and effect.

I believe it....you should too.

I won't let go of that.

And the universe is the effect......God is the Cause.

Won't let go of that either.