[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.)

[bdeaner]

You have not yet explained how the world would look for function differently if the universe had been created fully formed 5769 years ago.

If the universe was fully formed 5769 years ago, fully formed, we wouldn't have fossils of pre-historic creatures who no longer exist in evidence in the fossil record. We would not be able to see many of the stars we are currently able to see in the night sky, because the light would not have had time to reach us from their current location. The receptors in our eyes would have been placed behind the retina, rather than in front of it. Etc etc

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.

Geez, how cranky can one person be? Have a beer and relax. No need for all the histrionics.

Nothing in Genesis said Adam had the body of a 20-year-old at the time of his creation. Just says he was born of dust.

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.

It is also an ancient tradition to believe the earth is the center of the universe. Stupid ideas should be rejected once we realize how stupid they are, i.e. when evidence has proven them to be false.

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.

Adam and Eve had Cain (Genesis 4:1), Abel (Genesis 4:2), Seth (Genesis 4:25), and many other sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). There's nothing about triplets, or numbers of acts of intercourse in Genesis. Do you have a chapter and verse?

How many times do I have to explain this to you?

As many times as necessary for it to make sense, or until such time that one or both of us give up. I can't answer your question if I don't know what the heck you're talking about. I could give a rat's ear about what Jewish tradition says about how many times Adam and Eve had intercourse. I don't take it as a history book. Why does it matter to you? In the grand scheme of things, what difference does it really make?

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.

No, the formation of the universe is a legitimate field of scientific endeavour. The creation of it is not. You conflate the two. That's your problem.

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.

No Mr. Straw Man. Their gift of immortality, taught St. Augustine, and consistent with Trent, should be understood as the possibility of not dying, not the impossibility of dying. Thus, from the very beginning, they were potentially corruptible in their being.