[bdeaner]

You reject the following traditions: when first created Adam had the body of what we would call a twenty year old man;

Genesis tells us that Adam was formed from dust. It doesn't tell us exactly how he was formed from dust. Science teaches us that, indeed, humans are created from dust -- we emerge from the lowliest creatures, and our earliest ancestors enjoyed life in the primordial soup of primeval mud. God breathed a soul into the human being at the moment of human evolution, which I take to be the emergence of consciousness and language.

I see no reason, based on Scripture alone, to conclude he somehow must have been 20-years-old at the time of his creation by God.

the human gestation period was very brief until the first sin;

Huh? Please elaborate.

Eve did not have the same labor pains -- which can possibly be explained, as it suggested by early human skull fossils, on the basis of a smaller skull to pelvis ratio, as was the case before the cerebral cortex grew to its current proportions. We can only speculate.

At the very least, I would say original sin simply introduced suffering into the world that was not previously known to our first parents. How exactly that happened is a mystery we can only speculate about, because we are not given a scientific account of it in the Bible.

G-d wrote the Torah and dictated it to Moses.

Moses wrote it; the Lord inspired it, and protected it from error.

How can science critique any of this?

My point is not that science is a critique of Genesis; but that Genesis is not a science book. It teaches spiritual truth, not lessons in physics, geology, comparative biology, anthropology, etc.

How would the world be different if the first man had been created 5769 years ago with the body of an adult? Really, how would things be any different at all?

The question is moot, because the universe simply was not created a mere 5769 years ago. Ever heard of carbon dating?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Genesis tells us that Adam was formed from dust. It doesn't tell us exactly how he was formed from dust. Science teaches us that, indeed, humans are created from dust -- we emerge from the lowliest creatures, and our earliest ancestors enjoyed life in the primordial soup of primeval mud. God breathed a soul into the human being at the moment of human evolution, which I take to be the emergence of consciousness and language.

You have not yet explained how the world would look for function differently if the universe had been created fully formed 5769 years ago. All I get is that you subject the formation of the universe to the physical laws that exist today because you wish to do so.

I see no reason, based on Scripture alone, to conclude he somehow must have been 20-years-old at the time of his creation by God.

First, I didn't say Adam was created twenty years old, which is an absurdity. I said he was created with the body of what we today would consider an adult of approximately twenty years old. Are you perhaps incapable of seeing the difference? Next thing you know you'll be invoking the "false memories" fairy tale.

Second, I said absolutely nothing about "scripture alone." You evidently have not been reading my posts. I have said from the beginning that it is immemorial tradition that Adam was created with the body of what we would call an adult of about twenty years age. The text says no such thing. Looks like you're the "protestant" here.

the human gestation period was very brief until the first sin;

Huh? Please elaborate.

I have elaborated on this time and time again, evidently to be conveniently ignored by you because it goes against your prejudices. According to the Talmud Adam and Eve on the day they were created "went down as two and rose as seven." They had two acts of sexual intercourse, the first of which produced Cain and a twin sister and the second of which produced Abel and two "triplet" sisters. G-d told Eve "Harbah 'arbeh `itztzevonekh veheronekh" ("I will multiply your pain and your conception"), meaning that the gestation period was increased to nine months. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

Moses wrote it; the Lord inspired it, and protected it from error.

Don't you mean J, E, P, and D wrote it and that it was later "attributed" to Moses?

My point is not that science is a critique of Genesis; but that Genesis is not a science book. It teaches spiritual truth, not lessons in physics, geology, comparative biology, anthropology, etc.

The creation of the universe and its formation prior to when the laws of nature began to function is not a legitimate field of scientific endeavor. It is altogether outside the purview of science. Cosmogony is theology. Science has nothing to say about it.

How would the world be different if the first man had been created 5769 years ago with the body of an adult? Really, how would things be any different at all?

The question is moot, because the universe simply was not created a mere 5769 years ago.

Wow. What circular reasoning. The universe couldn't have been created fully formed 5769 years ago because of the evidence of the physical sciences. I ask you how that evidence would be the slightest bit different, and you say the point is moot because the universe wasn't created fully formed 5769 years ago because of the evidence of the physicl sciences. You're gonna win a Nobel Prize before it's over.

Ever heard of carbon dating?

Yes I have. I've also heard how unreliable it can be.

I don’t reject my Church’s tradition about Adam and Eve being originally immortal. I never said I did. Their souls were immortal, as are those who are justified and sanctified in Christ.

Ah, so they weren't created physically immortal at all and the Council of Trent were a bunch of yahoos who didn't know what they were talking about. Thank you for clearing that up. (Actually, from my perspective, Adam and Eve may have been created mortal. But then, I don't have to ignore the Council of Trent to believe that.)