Why did Jesus say "in the beginning, God created them male and female"? Not Masc or Fem evolutions?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So the words of Jesus are pretty explicit: "in the beginning, God created them male and female". He expressly did not say "in the beginning, God created masculine and feminine Evolutions"? But, if you are going to believe Evolution, is that a position you have to take? That "Evolution" began as a contest between masculine and feminine expressions of DNA??

Jesus couldn't get it wrong. If it were really masculine and feminine expressions of DNA in the beginning, that still wouldn't account for male and female design, expressing itself through those expressions of DNA. We may assume that the expressions of DNA are subservient to their male and female design. Form triumphs over fashion.

This is the fundamental crucible of Evolution, that form expressed through DNA takes precedence over the DNA they are expressed in. In this way, their expressions are maintained, over time, by which they gain their power to effect nuance. Without effecting nuance, something content to adapt at the cellular level, is over looked for something that can. It just makes adaptive sense.

There is nothing that justifies Evolution starting from scratch - taking on the burden of remaining unattractively inert, until Evolutionary change comes about, is always secondary to contending corporately for success genetically en masse. In doing it this way, the greater difference is shared among all the substance yielding to it. There is no becoming designed for anything other than the mate. The mate, completes the design.

I'm not really sure, if you will get that - I will stop there. Suffice it to say, that what I am pointing out, is an interpretation of Jesus' words.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The real world evidence suggests that sex evolved. In common with other mammals (and most vertebrates), human males and females have significant differences in one of their chromosome pairs which determines their sex.

I guess it's up to you how to match the words of Jesus to this.

 

[timothyu]

Obviously God was clueless until now when an expanded proper pronoun identification became politically correct thanks to a certain few..

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hi there,

So the words of Jesus are pretty explicit: "in the beginning, God created them male and female". He expressly did not say "in the beginning, God created masculine and feminine Evolutions"? But, if you are going to believe Evolution, is that a position you have to take? That "Evolution" began as a contest between masculine and feminine expressions of DNA??

Jesus couldn't get it wrong. If it were really masculine and feminine expressions of DNA in the beginning, that still wouldn't account for male and female design, expressing itself through those expressions of DNA. We may assume that the expressions of DNA are subservient to their male and female design. Form triumphs over fashion.

This is the fundamental crucible of Evolution, that form expressed through DNA takes precedence over the DNA they are expressed in. In this way, their expressions are maintained, over time, by which they gain their power to effect nuance. Without effecting nuance, something content to adapt at the cellular level, is over looked for something that can. It just makes adaptive sense.

There is nothing that justifies Evolution starting from scratch - taking on the burden of remaining unattractively inert, until Evolutionary change comes about, is always secondary to contending corporately for success genetically en masse. In doing it this way, the greater difference is shared among all the substance yielding to it. There is no becoming designed for anything other than the mate. The mate, completes the design.

I'm not really sure, if you will get that - I will stop there. Suffice it to say, that what I am pointing out, is an interpretation of Jesus' words.

There is nothing that justifies evolution, period.

 

[musicalpilgrim]

Who designed, programmed the DNA?
Stephen Mayer, in his book Signature of the Cell, and his you tube videos, explains how science has moved on from Darwin's theories. Very good to listen to and read.

 

[Shemjaza]

There is nothing that justifies evolution, period.

Except genetic evidence, fossil evidence, observed speciation... those are pretty good justifications.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hi there,

So the words of Jesus are pretty explicit: "in the beginning, God created them male and female". He expressly did not say "in the beginning, God created masculine and feminine Evolutions"? But, if you are going to believe Evolution, is that a position you have to take? That "Evolution" began as a contest between masculine and feminine expressions of DNA??

Jesus couldn't get it wrong. If it were really masculine and feminine expressions of DNA in the beginning, that still wouldn't account for male and female design, expressing itself through those expressions of DNA. We may assume that the expressions of DNA are subservient to their male and female design. Form triumphs over fashion.

This is the fundamental crucible of Evolution, that form expressed through DNA takes precedence over the DNA they are expressed in. In this way, their expressions are maintained, over time, by which they gain their power to effect nuance. Without effecting nuance, something content to adapt at the cellular level, is over looked for something that can. It just makes adaptive sense.

There is nothing that justifies Evolution starting from scratch - taking on the burden of remaining unattractively inert, until Evolutionary change comes about, is always secondary to contending corporately for success genetically en masse. In doing it this way, the greater difference is shared among all the substance yielding to it. There is no becoming designed for anything other than the mate. The mate, completes the design.

I'm not really sure, if you will get that - I will stop there. Suffice it to say, that what I am pointing out, is an interpretation of Jesus' words.

Except that male and female are not absolutes in nature.

The genetic structures that make the majority male or female can express the other way or be a mix of both.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Obviously God was clueless until now when an expanded proper pronoun identification became politically correct thanks to a certain few..

Societies have always contained a minority of intersex, intergender, and homosexual individuals - and it seems to be common among vertebrates in general. Traditional sexuality is just the norm.

What has changed is societal attitudes to the explicit recognition and acknowledgement of minorities in general - and some minorities are louder and better organised than others. Unfortunately, sex and gender issues are complicated by their psychological components.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Except genetic evidence, fossil evidence, observed speciation... those are pretty good justifications.

Rubbish. Just old, tired, worn out, disproven, desperate arguments that attempt to disprove the existence of God. And fail. Dismally. Creation Evolution Headlines

 

[CaspianSails]

Hi there,

So the words of Jesus are pretty explicit: "in the beginning, God created them male and female". He expressly did not say "in the beginning, God created masculine and feminine Evolutions"? But, if you are going to believe Evolution, is that a position you have to take? That "Evolution" began as a contest between masculine and feminine expressions of DNA??

Jesus couldn't get it wrong. If it were really masculine and feminine expressions of DNA in the beginning, that still wouldn't account for male and female design, expressing itself through those expressions of DNA. We may assume that the expressions of DNA are subservient to their male and female design. Form triumphs over fashion.

This is the fundamental crucible of Evolution, that form expressed through DNA takes precedence over the DNA they are expressed in. In this way, their expressions are maintained, over time, by which they gain their power to effect nuance. Without effecting nuance, something content to adapt at the cellular level, is over looked for something that can. It just makes adaptive sense.

There is nothing that justifies Evolution starting from scratch - taking on the burden of remaining unattractively inert, until Evolutionary change comes about, is always secondary to contending corporately for success genetically en masse. In doing it this way, the greater difference is shared among all the substance yielding to it. There is no becoming designed for anything other than the mate. The mate, completes the design.

I'm not really sure, if you will get that - I will stop there. Suffice it to say, that what I am pointing out, is an interpretation of Jesus' words.

Simple, they are and we are male or female. Period end of discussion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Rubbish. Just old, tired, worn out, disproven, desperate arguments that attempt to disprove the existence of God. And fail. Dismally. Creation Evolution Headlines

The theory of evolution doesn't and cannot disprove the existence of God (which is an unfalsifiable claim), it simply explains the evidence without explicit need of God - maybe that's what upsets people - that it's yet another theory that 'has no need of that hypothesis'. Whatever next...?

 

[timothyu]

it simply explains the evidence without explicit need of God

Or that God planted seeds and allowed them to grow according to conditions, much in the way our personalities are developed.

 

[Shemjaza]

Rubbish. Just old, tired, worn out, disproven, desperate arguments that attempt to disprove the existence of God. And fail. Dismally. Creation Evolution Headlines

Yeah. Nonsense. Feel free to actual provide evidence, but I won't hold my breath.

I didn't even mention God.

Evolution is supported by the evidence I listed... doesn't do anything to disprove God, which probably can't be done.

What it does do is show that your personal, favourite, personal, flawed, human interpretation of God and the Bible are not supported by evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hi there,

So the words of Jesus are pretty explicit: "in the beginning, God created them male and female". He expressly did not say "in the beginning, God created masculine and feminine Evolutions"? But, if you are going to believe Evolution, is that a position you have to take? That "Evolution" began as a contest between masculine and feminine expressions of DNA??

Jesus couldn't get it wrong. If it were really masculine and feminine expressions of DNA in the beginning, that still wouldn't account for male and female design, expressing itself through those expressions of DNA. We may assume that the expressions of DNA are subservient to their male and female design. Form triumphs over fashion.

This is the fundamental crucible of Evolution, that form expressed through DNA takes precedence over the DNA they are expressed in. In this way, their expressions are maintained, over time, by which they gain their power to effect nuance. Without effecting nuance, something content to adapt at the cellular level, is over looked for something that can. It just makes adaptive sense.

There is nothing that justifies Evolution starting from scratch - taking on the burden of remaining unattractively inert, until Evolutionary change comes about, is always secondary to contending corporately for success genetically en masse. In doing it this way, the greater difference is shared among all the substance yielding to it. There is no becoming designed for anything other than the mate. The mate, completes the design.

I'm not really sure, if you will get that - I will stop there. Suffice it to say, that what I am pointing out, is an interpretation of Jesus' words.

Another point is that Jesus did not say: "in the beginning, God created them male and female"... because that is in English and he never spoke the language because it didn't exist.

It's a translation.



Gottservant, revering to evolution as individuals, decisions, or separate nouns "Evolutions" is false.

People have told you enough times that it is no longer a reasonable misunderstanding it is deliberate willful ignorance or an inability to be reasonable.

 

[CaspianSails]

Except that male and female are not absolutes in nature.

The genetic structures that make the majority male or female can express the other way or be a mix of both.

That is rubbish. You conflate personality and choice or self defined orientation with gender.

 

[Shemjaza]

That is rubbish. You conflate personality and choice or self defined orientation with gender.

Not at all.

Physical expression of sex can vary from expected.

Typically in placental mammals XX chromosomes denote female and XY denote male... it isn't always the case.

For example, total androgen insensitivity will cause an individual with XY chromosomes to develop in what would be viewed as female socially.

Individuals can have different chromosomes like XXY, XXYY, XYY, XO and have varied or mixed sex expression.

Even individuals without obviously unusual chromosomes or sex expression can react significantly differently on a neurological level to their sex characteristics.

This isn't just a matter of choice or "feelings", this is an actual psychiatric condition.

Ignoring these conditions is just as ridiculous as assuming paranoid schizophrenia is "a little confused", clinical depression is "a bit sad" and borderline personality disorder is "kinda moody".

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi there,

Hello back!

Why did Jesus say "in the beginning, God created them male and female"? Not Masc or Fem evolutions?

To differentiate between man and woman.

A man today can act feminine, and a woman today can act masculine.

So just saying God created them masculine and feminine wouldn't convey the whole story.

 

[AV1611VET]

The real world evidence suggests that sex evolved.

Then somewhere along the way, the world must have listened to Masters & Johnson too much.

 

[Shemjaza]

Then somewhere along the way, the world must have listened to Masters & Johnson too much.

Complicated and diverse sexual practices and gender expression existed long before Masters & Johnson's research.

 

[AV1611VET]

Obviously God was clueless until now when an expanded proper pronoun identification became politically correct thanks to a certain few..

Ze and ze were created as cisgenders.