Chaupoline

Existence did not begin with the Initial Action of the Universe. Existence does not have a beginning nor an ending. Existence simply is. However, Time and Space did begin with the Initial Action and has continued throught the subsequent actions that have followed.

Time is a pattern of lateness measured in relation to observable actions. Space is a pattern of distance between observable actions. As the subsequent actions occur and expand out from the Initial Action space too expands and grows out from the Initial Action.

Genesis 1-1 In the beginning when God (The initiator of the Initial Action) created the heavens and the earth (intiated the Initial Action), 2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters (prior to the Iniital Action there was simply the Void where Existence persists but neither Time nor Space exist), 3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light (the Initial Action occurs, Time begins). 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God seperated the light from the darkness (Space begins).

With the Big Bang (Initial Action) the universe was created. All subsequent actions in the universe form a pattern which builds up complex systems and inspires further subsequent actions (there is order in the universe).

Life formed on the planet because the right conditions exist to support life. The question could then be asked if the Initiator of the Initial Action (God) intended for the universe to be created as it is and in effect intended for humanity to be created as well.

I don't believe that mankind was created as an afterthought as one of the authors of Genesis alluded to. Adam evolved from the dust of the earth as does all life. The Evolution of life is not a gradual process as posed by Darwin but occurs rapidly due to consistent mutations which occur in all life. Mutations occur either neutrally (doesn't kill the organism) or negatively (kills the organism). Mutations can occur due to diet and nutrition (as was the case with the increase in cranial capacity due to the ability to process meat in early hominids). The creation of Adam represents the evolution of early hominids.

2 - 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and unashamed. 3 - 3 but God said, "You should not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die." 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, you will be like God knowing good and evil.

Eden was God's garden, not Adam's. Adam simply was a part of the garden as was all the other animals. God was the domesticator through evolution and Natural Selection. God chooses which traits in plants and animals will flourish and which will die out. Prior to Adam and Eve eating of the fruit, they were foragers like other animals. The mutation to the hominid Eve which was passed down to her descendents changed the species of Adam. They were no longer like the animals working in the metaphoric Garden of Eden. Instead of simply foraging their sustenance in the Garden of Eden they attempted to create their own Garden and manufacture an artificial environment that would favor themselves. 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

Adam in the Garden of Eden represents an animalistic human. One whom is a forager and completely devoid of civilization. Eating of the tree symbolizes the mutation or something that transformed the species into something outside of the natural order.

The first child of Adam and Eve was Cain who domesticates plants. The second son was Abel who domesticates animals. Agriculture and Animal Husbandry are the first steps towards civilization. They created an artificial environment through the controlled evolution of plant and animal species to produce food favorable to humans, and made them dependent upon people for survival.

The concept of Original sin changes through this interpretation. You can see the effect of Original sin in everything around us. Adam and Eve are representatives of the human race. God stated that Adam and Eve would die if they ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Environmentalists claim the same thing. They state that the changes that we have brought about to the environment will kill off the human race, in effect Adam and Eve will die.

Where am I mistaken in my interpretation of Genesis? Does my interpretation negate the existence of God or reinforce it?

Y.B

Um... all life forms share a common ancestor, and it didn't evolve "from the dust of the Earth".

It is a gradual process, gradual meaning incremental.

A negative mutation doesn't necessarily kill the organism. It decreases its fitness, that is, decreases its success at reproduction.

Also, positive mutations that increase fitness also occur, obviously.

And you've got things backward there. Diet and nutrition (AFAIK) don't cause mutations, they just affect the selective context. Mutations that allowed a more meaty diet were selected for, and mutations that increased brain capacity were selected for. The latter was helped by the former, but the diet didn't cause the mutations themselves.

Que? Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever.

Chaupoline

All life evolved from the Initial Action. Life did not precede the Big Bang.

I had meant that evolution does not happen very slowly over a long period of time, but periodically in spurts.

There are no such thing as positive mutations. Fitness is only defined through interaction with their environment. Mutations occur independent of need, this is why mutations are defined as either negative or neutral.

Everything around us causes mutations. Air pollution, diet, solar radiation, etc. The initial mutation was the ability to process meat, which contributed to increased cranial capacity which in turn contributed to additional mutations.

The Garden of Eden is not a place, it is a state of being. Traditionally, a garden is where plants are raised and cultivated. Postives traits are encouraged in the crops and negative traits are removed. When I stated that Eden was God's garden and not Adam's I meant that God was the one that "cultivated" his "crops" and not Adam. The "crops" in the Garden of Eden were not just plants but all forms of life, and God's method of "cultivation" is through Natural Selection.

The fruit changed Adam and Eve so that they then existed outside the Garden of Eden. Instead of just being like the other forms of life inside the Garden they transcended to become cultivators like God.

Y.B

Those are not mutually exclusive. Methinks you should learn more about what "Puncuated Equilibria" is about.

Bollocks. Precisely because mutations occur independent of need, they are defined as positive, neutral or negative, depending on the selective context. Denying positive mutations is against all the available evidence.

That's a little garbled. Anyway, mutations that increased the ability to process meat (and that ability was there in a more rudimentary form before hominids, anyway) occured, as you said, independent of need, and were favored my selection.

Erm... like, whatever, dude.

bajan

It seems as though Chaopoline is trying to mesh Genesis with scientific knowledge. It is an interesting effort but I see no need to do this at all. Genesis is a bible story. Why attempt to give it more credence than this?

Chaupoline

I am attempting to redefine original sin. I don't like the old interpretation of Adam and Eve and original sin. I think that the Old Testament and the New Testament is about control. In Eden, God cultivated the world through Natural Selection. Something happened to Adam and Eve and they no longer were part of the cultivation process. They then set about cultivating their own artificial environment. Civilization arose and select members of society focused on controlling other people as well as nature.

premjan

I think it is a pretty convincing account - I always thought of the Bible as metaphor (esp. Genesis). I think you said that mutations occur due to diet whereas they actually are supported by diet (large brain is supportable by a better diet).

Original sin in my favored interpretation is dualism - the separation of good from evil. In God's garden (Eden) there is no good and evil but intelligent humans create these notions. Deliverance from original sin is through nondualism. This is possible through faith in Jesus or understanding as by Lucifer. The Luciferian path is forbidden to Christians probably because man's understanding even through nondual enlightenment is not sufficient to grasp God's implicate order in nature. I.e. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Hold fast to things that you are certain of and don't speculate. Good advice in many cases (e.g. war) though thinking is sometimes beneficial too (e.g. in peacetime).

And the Cain and Abel thing - I think the Semites are descendant of herders not agriculturists. And agriculture is a chancier thing and requires people to be more settled and possessive perhaps.

seebs

The problem is the use of the passive voice. When you say "mutations are defined as negative or neutral", you omit the crucial piece of data: The person doing the defining.

Many people describe many mutations as positive. The only people I know who define all mutations as negative or neutral are the ones who are predisposed to claim that evolution doesn't really work, and I've never seen a basis for that claim.

Chaupoline

But then what is good and evil, and what do you mean by in Eden there is no good and evil but humans create these notions? How does faith in Jesus deliver one through nondualism?

I have a hard time believing that good and evil are universal concepts. It just seems that mankind somehow arose outside of Natural Selection and then proceeded on a quest to control nature and later to control other people. We are at the point now where we are destroying bio-diversity and bringing about global climate change. All problems in the world right now can then be traced back to that original sin. I do agree with your somewhat though. Man's understanding even through nondual enlightenment is not sufficient to grasp God's order in nature.

premjan

Good and evil (dualistic thinking) create sin due to the imperfection of our minds compared to that of God. Good and evil are not universal but our need to think that way is fairly so. How did mankind arise outside of natural selection?