So if two different species tried to splice their information on to each other it would be viable?
How does a species during this evolutionary period figure out how to âaddâ information via cloning?
The evolutionary process is during the incubation period of the newly conjoined egg and sperm regardless of the type of species. Yes, it does work in theory. It also works in the lab. It also can be seen in the fossil record. It just has not worked out in practice enough to change from theory to law, with the constant change of two species or even one species becoming more advanced. I would not rule out that an outside intelligent agent like humans could make it work in practice, thus we have theistic evolution. Since the absence of proof from God is not proof to the contrary it is still a judgment call to accept or refuse the abilty of information to have been so manipulated. If we claim that it happened millions of years before there was any inteligent physical means, i think we are kidding ourselves. We are also back to the argument that God deliberately did it to deceive us, if even in the fossil record. You would have to admit that the sons of god or humankind would have been around since at least the sixth day. And the fossil record took place after the sixth day as well. Now we may make fun of how the record portrays this manipulation in Genesis, but the principle of the theory remains in tack in the Genesis account.
We are attempting ourselves to make information in our own image. Hoping that information will be able to manipulate itself. I suppose when that happens, we as information ourselves will have succeeded.
@ history needed to accomplish reality and the false fact that God is out of the business of controlling the universe.
If humans can speed up and slow down the rate of the process, why would God not be able to do so as well? That is not to say God did it. Pehaps not even in a specific way. God would have known the outcome even if the reason of said outcome changes. Or the opposite if God actually intervened via the binding and loosing principle given to humans.
Water would not have been necessary, but since that was the means mentioned why plead for a miracle. The excuse since not mentioned is that one tectonic plate rose up on its own volition and buried another plate catching all vegetation and plant life on the surface of the former plate as it was âabsorbedâ back into the earth. I mean it has been alledged (not even sure how to credit this) to have occurred over 10,000 years ago by Native Americans who passed that knowledge down over the generations. Sure lava also pushes up whole mountain ranges, but not even that is one plate trapping another plate fast enough. Nor does this negate the need to find the most reliable energy source via dating methods. Age does not change. The argument is about the âhistoryâ needed to produce results used as interpretive proof of ones belief system.
A footnote on Adamâs narrative and the creation of humankind reffered to as the âsons of godâ created in the image of God 6 days after the universe: Adam is one as agreed by all. What is not agreed is the notion that Adam was the only one and created twice. Lets attempt to erase from human understanding that Adam was the only person created on day six. Even if Adam is just the place holder name, and the Garden is only figurative, why use that to claim it negates reality. The reality that there were multiple males and females created on day six. That is what it says. Saying that Adam was one or all is not a contradiction. If Genesis 2 is figurative it does not negate a literal sixth day creation of humans, so Genesis 1 still stands.
Now the claim is that the Garden was not a local event. Why argue that? That is still the figurative argument stated in a different term. If it was not literal it was not local either. So within an unspecified passing of historical time, a part of the earth became barren and needed to be replanted and a human was singled out, who evidently did not mate or lost a mate premature.
This man in keeping with ANE bragging rites declared that his new mate was the mother of all mankind. God seemed to agree; started the process that would later wipe out the ability of the other sixth day created beings to enjoy earth, and only allowed the offspring of Adam to survive. Of course Adamâs offspring now deny that it all happened and instead replaced the past with imaginative tales of super humans and brushes with ET, who are more than likely the other sixth day humans who no longer enjoy the physical earth. Do I believe what i just typed? Not sure, but the claim that the evidence is there is just as real as those who declare the evidence of EC. Or even more than those who claim there is no evidence of God either. The truth does not live in our belief systems. It is sad though that we accept the ability for all to retain their own truth. But such is the nature of free will.
I do not even think that claiming Genesis 2 is both literal and figurative is a contradiction. For one no one is denying that something happened. If it was potrayed in a figurative manner cannot change reality. As pointed out reality does not need to be changed either to fit the figurative account. If Genesis 2 is an actual reality it does not contradict without special pleading by creating a history that is assumed and never in the record. The verses that can be in either narrative act as a segue that seems to be convenient as a literal objection. Why create a figurative objection? We use the passage of time to argue that Genesis 2 is figurative, and even for the argument of EC. But when the passage of time is implied, we tend to disregard it because it literally was not mentioned.
