I do not remotely consider Genesis useful for any purpose, It is an ancient tribal myth that plagues humanity with false notions of the Fall and Original Sin. Humans have always been human for more than a million years.
Agreed that Genesis and the invention of the Abrahamic god have done mankind net harm, but I find value in the myths of Genesis. They're a study in psychology. Why does this creation account have a calendar in it? Why did this god need six days to create, and why did it need to rest thereafter? These seem to be qualities beneath a tri-omni god. And why a commandment to obey the Sabbath? Who benefits?
My answer: this represents the creation of the work week and weekend necessary once the Hebrews converted from nomadic tribes to large settlements with central synagogues and the need for people to gather there regularly for instruction and to bring money for the priesthood and to support the synagogue.
What motivates the demeaning description of this deity in the flood story, who is depicted as cruel, unjust, and not too smart for drowning the world for the sins of one species for which sin nature the deity was responsible and them tried to correct the problem using the same breeding stock. What motivated that story?
My answer: Finding seashells and marine fossils on mountaintops implied their submergence once and needs explaining. God obviously flooded the earth, and being a good god, man must have deserved to be nearly extinguished as such a flood would surely caused.
The myths taken collectively reveal a pattern: Bad things happen in a world ruled by a tri-omni god, so they must be punishments, and that means human sin and wickedness was the reason. Man lives a life of toil, suffering, and death instead of a paradisiac life, so sin is the reason. Man speaks multiple languages, most unintelligible to most people, so once again, those must be a punishment and man must have sinned to deserve it. Some astronomical impact apparently demolished the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, so once again, this could only happen if God caused this, God is good so the punishment must have been deserved, and it's man's fault again.
Those were valuable insights for me.
The lack of communication is willful. Every single point I make is ignored or intentionally misinterpreted. They are handwaved and used to create straw armies. They are not addressed and when they are it's an exercise in word games and twisting of definitions. I no longer expect much else.
You're correct to expect nothing to change, because you don't change, and you don't believe what you are told. You've been told repeatedly that your science is wrong and your use of language vague, but it is you ignoring "every single point" like that made to you. I don't think that will ever change since none of the words spoken to you on that matter to date have had any discernible impact on your posting.
When religion steals a concept like "sin" it doesn't magically cease to have a referent.
Religion invented the concept of sin, which is defined as a violation of God's law, which defines it as immoral and worthy of punishment.
"Sin" is merely another abstraction that has been appropriated by religion that means "behavior detrimental to the commonweal"
Secular society uses different language. Human beings decide what is immoral for themselves, and human laws also define what behavior is acceptable and what will punished, but there is no supernaturalism or deity there, and the word sin doesn't apply.
Murder is sin whether you worship Peers or Priests. Destroying property, lives, and misappropriating wealth or labor are sins.
Not in my moral code, and not in secular law. Acts can be immoral and/or illegal, but to use the word sin here is to use it metaphorically, not literally, and is this a different definition.
I've never heard the argument that ancient herders just went out and gathered up goats, pigs, and cattle. I'm surprised such unfit and timid creatures could exist in nature.
That's what Darwin found - animals unafraid of him.
Science has a metaphysics but Evolution does not.
There's an example of a vague and unintelligible claim. I don't know what you mean by science (you say it's dependent on experiment, so it can't what the scientific community means by the term), nor what you mean by metaphysics, so there's no reply possible to that comment except that I don't know what you mean.
"Evil" is the intentional propagation and support of things that are harmful to the commonweal for any reason at all.
Another term from Abrahamic religion (and maybe other traditions) like sin describing a universal principle in conflict with another called good, represented by God and Satan. I don't use that word for that reason. Malice will suffice and implies nothing more than ill will arising from a human mind.
All life is individual and conscious.
Another unanswerable comment. I still don't know what you are calling consciousness, but it can't be what the majority mean by the word, because most life lacks consciousness. How would consciousness be selected for in a tree? What competitive advantage does that tree have over an unconscious one?
And imagine the horror of being a conscious tree. It sounds like a punishment from mythology. A man was turned into a tree and remained awake, but locked in, unable to act. There's a medical condition like that. It also described incompletely anesthetized general surgery patients - conscious and able to experience terror and physical pain, but unable to act.
But through experiment we have come to learn a great deal about reality in a way that is reproducible.
Through reason applied to evidence. Experiment isn't always possible when observation is. Moon science began when man first began observing the moon, but the experimental part had to wait for man to develop the technology to get experiments to the moon such as the laser reflector and to return moon rocks to earth for analysis.
Life resides in the premise that everything is trying to live and this "trying" manifests through consciousness.
This is teleology. Nothing in nature is known to try to do anything until consciousness and volition arise.
I am observing that all life seeks to survive and prosper.
That's the theory of evolution with the teleologic element added. Remove that and you have the science, which is supported by the same evidence you claim supports your claim.
Are people reading these posts?
You should know the answer to that. They're reading AND reviewing them, and the reviews all look alike. The consensus is that your knowledge of science is lacking and your use of language vague
modern humans are not exactly under the natural selection spoken of by Darwin. Humans are more under manmade or artificial selection due to will and choice.
No. Humans are still subjected to Darwinian natural selection even if he can select artificially, as with developing biological or nuclear weapons. Man is demonstrating his increasing biological unfitness in his present condition as he marches toward imminent destruction of the biosphere through artifice (developing weapons, cooking the planet) and his choices (artificial selection), and if they continue, nature will select against them in Darwinian fashion soon enough.
A science theory needs proof.
That's wrong and undermines your credibility when discussing science. What a scientific theory needs is to be falsifiable and to have sufficient supporting evidence to be considered correct beyond reasonable doubt, which ideally includes confirmed, otherwise unlikely predictions. Evolutionary theory is supported by many such predictions being demonstrated correct as well as the absence of falsifying finds after over a century-and-a-half.
You might want to lose that word
proof. "Proof" is a shibboleth* that identifies the scientifically illiterate as surely as saying, "It's only a theory" or "That's just your opinion." Why don't you know that proof isn't part of science? Whatever the answer, I must assume that your science education doesn't include an understanding the philosophy of science.
*Did you see
Inglourious Basterds (sic)? This man is an allied soldier trying to pass for German in Germany during WWII: Then he orders three beers like this. Apparently, Germans would put up the thumb and the two nearest fingers to indicate three, not the middle three like this. THAT'S a shibboleth, an unwitting self-identification:
When I was a boy, I was told that people crossing the Canadian-American border were instructed to recite the alphabet. Americans ended with zee, and Canadians with zed - another shibboleth.