[littlewing]

It's possible. Personally, I've always had a soft spot for the idea that Eden in the Bible was really not on Earth at all, but Mars or some other location in the universe. The flaming sword that "guarded" Eden could have been a rocket/spaceship at the end of Eden in the "east", the direction of the morning Sun, possibly signifying that it was headed closer to our sun, to Earth.

That seems to be a stretch you might say, but, similarly, Genesis tells a story of the creation of life which isn't wholly incompatible with our scientific understanding. There were stars, planets, life originating in plants while the earth was covered with clouds, finally the stars, sun and moon appeared through the clouds, then animals in the sea evolved, then birds/dinosaurs, then mammals, and finally a mammal called a human.

Even the rib of Adam could be a simple way of telling about the X chromosome, doubled to make the female (double X chromosomes).

Sure, you could say people made up these Bible stories if you want. However, in my mind it closely aligns with current knowledge of science and evolution that it would seem to indicate that humans in the past had some way of knowing past history they'd never experienced.

Perhaps something, likely an intelligent entity, spread life to Mars as a seed, it thrived, but then Mars became an inhospitable place so it was moved to Earth. Then later it came back to tell the story to a human or perhaps even all humans, and that story was relayed from generation to generation.

[kibibu]

> Sure, you could say people made up these Bible stories if you want

Occam's razor would suggest this is the best approach

[alphapapa]

Occam's Razor is an aphorism; it does not prove anything one way or the other. Dogmatic adherence to it is no different than dogmatic adherence to religion.

Besides that, it is debatable how to apply it to the question of origins. To some, it is a simpler explanation that an intelligent entity created the universe and life, rather than to think that it happened randomly.

The heavy downvoting of the GP, which was a well-written, thoughtful comment, demonstrates a close-mindedness and refusal to engage with (or even consider) ideas which one disagrees with--a mindset which religious people are typically accused of having. The irony is not lost on all of us.

[kibibu]

> The heavy downvoting of the GP, which was a well-written, thoughtful comment, demonstrates a close-mindedness and refusal to engage with (or even consider) ideas which one disagrees with

You could also have a well-written, thoughtful comment about how vaccination is a Government mind-control device - I suspect it would be no more welcome than one suggesting the biblical genesis story contains the truth about chromosomes.

Many of us have engaged with these ideas, found them wanting, found their advocates to be essentially unmoved by reason, and now are happy enough filtering them out.

(I am also happy enough being filtered out, as it happens)

[alphapapa]

That's a false analogy. For example, there is plenty of scientific research showing that vaccination is effective in preventing disease, as well as historical data. However, science cannot disprove the existence of God, nor can it disprove the idea that the universe was created by an intelligent entity.

You are also generalizing about advocates of religion. Study history and you will find that there are many, many people throughout history who were very reasonable and also believed in God. In fact, such people are found extensively in the history of all kinds of sciences, including the formation of science itself.

And besides that, whether people who believe a certain thing are reasonable is immaterial to the question of whether what they believe is true. There are both sane and insane people who believe things which are true, as well as reasonable and unreasonable people, friendly and unfriendly, etc.

You are not being reasonable by being so heavily prejudiced against religion. On the contrary, you are actually being unreasonable.