We all learned the story of Adam and Eve as children. After God was resting, he created these two, who were told they have freedom except they were prohibited from eating from a certain tree. Well, they "sinned" and ate from it, whereupon God cursed them and all of their posterity--the "original sin" we have heard tell of.

I am not interested in getting into the rational difficulties this story presents, but since it has been re-interpreted (Jews treat it differently) by Christians as having created the need for Jesus' Crucifixion, it is a critical story.

I am instead interested in the harmful aspects of this story being part of a culture.

Here are some of the subtexts people get from it:

1. Women are subordinate to men, created for men ("helpmate"), and are the original origin of sin in the world.

2. Snakes are loathsome, vile creatures accursed by God.

3. Curses are a real thing, and can haunt a family for generation after generation.

4. Since it was possible for Adam and Eve to disobey, and since in enough time anything possible must necessarily happen, God set them up to be condemned.

5. Good physical labor is a sign of our accursedness.

6. Animals were created for mankind and do not have any reason to exist except to serve him.

7. Sex exists only because we are sinful. Lust is sinful. Nakedness is sinful and shameful.

What can we say about a myth that has so much harm in it? Most Christians nowadays, when they hear about Adam and Eve, smile or giggle a bit, but it still is, either consciously, or subconsciously, part of the Western cultural mythical vocabulary, with allusions to it appearing everywhere.

I maintain that such a harmful myth needs rooting out.

4. Since it was possible for Adam and Eve to disobey, and since in enough time anything possible must necessarily happen, God set them up to be condemned.While I'm attracted to the idea that anything possible must necessarily happen I'm not sure that this is true. There can be a subset of infinite possibilities that is contained within an even 'larger' set. For example, the set of all positive integers is infinite yet is contained within the set of all real numbers.

That said, I see little to value in the myth of Adam and Eve.

While I'm attracted to the idea that anything possible must necessarily happen I'm not sure that this is true. There can be a subset of infinite possibilities that is contained within an even 'larger' set. For example, the set of all positive integers is infinite yet is contained within the set of all real numbers.

I understand infinite subsets as you describe, but I don't see its application to infinite time--are you assuming time is quantized (occurs in discreet intervals)? What if there were an infinite number of discrete timelines going on and our perception of only one continuity is an illusion? What if every possible outcome occurs, and we live on only one of an infinity of timelines created thereby?

This of course all is way off from the temptation offered Adam and Eve--I think I stated the point in a confusing way. The point is that Adam and Eve were set up so that God's plan could proceed: He knew what they would do or He is not omniscient. Why didn't he create an Adam and Eve who would not disobey? If it was because doing so was not possible, He is not omniscient. Therefore we get a picuture of a God who punishes people for doing what he created them to do, and even punishes their innocent descendants.

In other words, to get to the point, the story is harmful in that it gives us a bad concept of what God must be.

That said, I see little to value in the myth of Adam and Eve.

Lack of value is one thing, and important: the point I am trying to make is that the myth is not just of no value but is demonstrably harmful.

How about some of these ideas:

God wanted us to be ignorant objects for his entertainment.

Knowledge was taken by humans, not given to them.

Woman empowered mankind and God was an asshole for punishing the aquisition of consciousness.

I suppose I could add that if God had truly known his own creations, he wouldn't have placed an apple tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden then go and tell those two to not eat the fruit. I mean geez, the surest way to get someone to do something is to tell them not to, dammit.

What can we say about a myth that has so much harm in it?

That it is exactly that; a myth......a despicable and barbaric myth dreamed up by an ignorant and superstitious people.

One wonders which is worse; that these people dreamed up such an anti-human set of beliefs, or that 2000 years later a large segment of humankind is still so ignorant as to follow them.

I suppose I could add that if God had truly known his own creations, he wouldn't have placed an apple tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden then go and tell those two to not eat the fruit. I mean geez, the surest way to get someone to do something is to tell them not to, dammit.
Especially if they were Fuji apples.

The truth is that not one part of creation can be done without in order for mankind to live forever. It has taken for mankind to come to this point of realization for Satan to recognize TRUE capacity for ‘love toward life’ in humans. It proves to him that we have taken into consideration the need to love him in spite of what he has done by removing his designed intent (being God’s friend in the capacity that he served God) from creation, which is the TRUE origin of our spiritual darkness that allows our dying since a third of the angels followed his example, and this realization has been necessary to prove to Satan that he is, in fact, wanted and needed to return to the service of God, no matter what he’s done. It is CRUCIAL that Satan view upon mankind’s capacity to forgive him and the awareness of our need for him to return to the service of God despite all injustice that has come from him thereby removing his fear of reprisal, and in man’s realizing that not one part of creation can be done without in order for mankind to live forever, including HIM and all who followed his lead, then demonstration of man’s ability to love truly what is toward life is completely proven to him and everyone finally placing the issue to rest FOREVER and allowing the healing to begin for everyone. Creation cannot come to live forever without ALL parts of creation working in unison; humans, too, will live forever when their environment, both spiritual and physical are returned to perfection as was the case BEFORE the issue came to be at the point of fruition affecting the imperfect spiritual environment when Satan produced thought counter-productive to perfection by tempting eve and deceiving, which raised immediate security alerts and raising concern thereby bringing doubt as to God’s intentions toward man in placing contingency upon one thing for life and then allowing deception in such a manner so as to coerce death producing a sense of betrayal by God, and distrust of future admonitions by him. This is what TRULY happened by Satan’s deception of Eve. It is plausible that the ultimately over-powering point of decision within Eve’s mind was that God would not allow such a deception to even take place, because of his loving regard for them, but since God created in such a way so as to not allow even ONE part to be done without forever, which INSURES the point of everyone KNOWING that they are WANTED and NEEDED then NOBODY can be truly believing that they are not loved and desired for all times so their sense of security about being needed forever is satiated completely so then they can live without worry and free to love everyone thereby loving truly toward life, and all needs are met and nobody worries at all.

Humans, like God and all others in creation, are designed to seek true justice toward life, but because of Satan’s deception of the first humans and the consequent installation of lack of sense of safety provided by God, have been made to dwell within a premise of existence where true justice toward life would otherwise have been available had it not been for Satan’s taking advantage of his own precept that God would not remove him from the consequence of his own lie so as to teach him and all others following him rather than extinguishing them, which is a perfect example of true justice toward life, so we try to satiate our need for justice toward life through the punishment of those that have succumbed to Satan’s influence upon them so as to, at least, set an example for those who have succumbed and all others of what not to allow for ourselves from Satan’s influence upon us instead of giving the love that is not available during this time of Satan’s attempt to prove that the Creator is not necessary, which has required that the Creator allow his forfeiture of authority over all of creation to Satan with the exception of those angels who stayed with the Creator’s full authority and from which consequently stems the imperfect justice toward life and consequent safety of the Creator’s love that would have otherwise prevented such vessels of God to be used by Satan, since it is not feasible to give the consequent security of the love of the creator to us without the creator being in a position of authority over ALL of creation, including those angels who have turned against his authority until the Creator’s teaching of them is complete in that ONLY the Creator has the capacity to have authority over all things with unquestionable loving justice toward life; wherein, not one piece of creation can be done without, so it is necessary to bring all of creation together to a point of perfection through learning what does NOT function truly toward life.

Humans are currently dieing from the process of what we call aging that stems from directly from the lack of security found only in true love from the creator, true justice toward life, which includes all parts of creation, including those angels who have turned against the creator. This situation of dieing, itself, is derived from the lacking of service to the Creator of those angels who have turned against the creator, which has produced a deficit in creation of those necessary to serve the creator for the purpose of everyone remaining perfect and living forever, as it is the angels that deliver our choice of thoughts to us. It takes EVERYONE in Heaven and on Earth to live forever; everyone has a purpose toward that goal…EVERYONE. God will definitely forgive and rebuild those angels from the moment of their concession that they have been wrong in their hope of not requiring one another, and he will forgive and rebuild each one as they concede and from the moment that they concede.

I thought my prose was ponderous; yours is unreadable.

For chris sake, at least break your material into manageable paragraphs. These boards are not like a published book--the paragraphs need to be only two or three sentences at most.

Large blocks of unbroken text only dull the senses and don't get read.

That it is exactly that; a myth......a despicable and barbaric myth dreamed up by an ignorant and superstitious people.

One wonders which is worse; that these people dreamed up such an anti-human set of beliefs, or that 2000 years later a large segment of humankind is still so ignorant as to follow them.
This brings up an interesting topic--the nature and character of Semitic versus Indo-European religions. It will take me awhile to link this to Adam and Eve, so be patient <grin>.

There were in the Ancient Mediterranean, several language families, but the main ones were Indo-European and Semitic. The Romans, Greeks, Hittites, Persians, Germans, Slavs, Celts, a significant portion of the peoples of India (the "Aryans") and others spoke Indo-European languages.

The Arabs and Hebrews and Canaanites, as well as the later (pre-Persian but post-Sumerian) peoples of the Indus-Euphrates valley spoke Semitic languages.

As with the commonalities of their languages, there were also similarities in their religions. The Indo-Europeans tended to have pantheons of human or semi-human deities who had human motives, human needs (sex in particular, but also food and honor and family). They had to move about physically, so they had chariots or flew around or sent messengers, and had specific abodes and specific personalities and lots of stories about them. They liked festivals and parties and could be cruel.

The deities of Semitic speaking cultures were quite a bit different; they were less defined as personalities, more ethereal, not particularly physical, with far fewer of the sort of myths that we see in Indo-European pantheons. There was from early on a tendency to monotheism and austere religion.

Now the Persians spoke an Indo-European language, and early on seem to have had a Greek type of religious pantheon. However, their first contact with Semitic peoples was with the then more advanced culture of the Tigris-Euphrates as the Persians came down on them from the mountains east of the valley. They therefore picked up a lot of Semitic ideas.

Then there was the great teacher Zoroaster, who was the official founder of their religion, and who abandoned the pantheon in favor of dualism (essentially God and Satan, although in Zoroaster the equivalents are equal and their war is eternal).

(I have to say a word about Mithra, who was a deity in the old pantheon and somehow got perpetuated to become a figure in Greek mystery cults. It may be that Alexander's men picked him up while in Persia or in the area that is now Afghanistan from tribal non-Zoroastrians).

The Hebrews of course were in exile in Babylon when the Persians conquered Babylon and, in the end, helped them reassert themselves in Palestine (they had proven themselves loyal to the Persians and hated the Babylonians--so their presence as a pro-Persian party in that area was seen as potentially useful).

Out of all this came the "P" (so-called "Priestly") elements that are now in Genesis--the parts where God is very much like Ahura Mazda, the Persian deity. (The actual Adam and Eve story to predates the Persians in Babylon, as a variety of it is found in much older material).

So what we have is a story that reflects Persian cultural attitudes--the shame of nakedness and the submission of animals and the evil of woman. The God is an interesting mixture of the Semitic being who acts solely by "speaking" and a more Indo-European god who walks about and takes the evening air and loses his temper (found in the non-P parts of the narrative).

We all learned the story of Adam and Eve as children. After God was resting, he created these two, who were told they have freedom except they were prohibited from eating from a certain tree. Well, they "sinned" and ate from it, whereupon God cursed them and all of their posterity--the "original sin" we have heard tell of.

I am not interested in getting into the rational difficulties this story presents, but since it has been re-interpreted (Jews treat it differently) by Christians as having created the need for Jesus' Crucifixion, it is a critical story.

I am instead interested in the harmful aspects of this story being part of a culture.

Here are some of the subtexts people get from it:

1. Women are subordinate to men, created for men ("helpmate"), and are the original origin of sin in the world.

2. Snakes are loathsome, vile creatures accursed by God.

3. Curses are a real thing, and can haunt a family for generation after generation.

4. Since it was possible for Adam and Eve to disobey, and since in enough time anything possible must necessarily happen, God set them up to be condemned.

5. Good physical labor is a sign of our accursedness.

6. Animals were created for mankind and do not have any reason to exist except to serve him.

7. Sex exists only because we are sinful. Lust is sinful. Nakedness is sinful and shameful.

What can we say about a myth that has so much harm in it? Most Christians nowadays, when they hear about Adam and Eve, smile or giggle a bit, but it still is, either consciously, or subconsciously, part of the Western cultural mythical vocabulary, with allusions to it appearing everywhere.

I maintain that such a harmful myth needs rooting out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

for this post lets take #4: No one made Eve take and eat the fruit, stop trying to blame someone else for what she did.


#7 Sex is for procreation, it doesn't always bring babies but it was created to be between a married couple for children.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

for this post lets take #4: No one made Eve take and eat the fruit, stop trying to blame someone else for what she did.


#7 Sex is for procreation, it doesn't always bring babies but it was created to be between a married couple for children.
The story is a myth, and a harmful, disgusting myth at that. That was my point.

Since you seem to hold to your childhood indoctrination and actualy think such fairy tales are true, we have nothing useful to say to each other. I am not interested in gullibility and mental ossification.

The story of Adam and Eve is an example of what happens when people do not know the origins of names.

The Hebrew word, Adam means generic man and is derived from the word for red earth, the material man was supposedly created from. It was not originally a proper noun referring to a single person named Adam.

The Hebrew word Eve similarly did not refer to a single woman named Eve but to she who brings forth life, referring to childbearing by women.

The story of Adam and Eve deals with the creation of mankind, not simply with the creation of one man and one woman.

Wow, Frogger, I never knew that. Interesting! :)

I am not sure the conclusion you draw is warranted. "Adam" is, for example, an English word for "the first man," as well as a proper name. The relationship of the two meanings is easy to see.

In the Hebrew, who is to say that the Hebrew "generic man" word did not derive from the proper name rather than the other way around? The roots of the language go back too far for us to know.

The root word would be adamah, meaning red earth. The name Adam comes from the root word, not vice versa.

The story of Adam and Eve is an example of what happens when people do not know the origins of names.

The Hebrew word, Adam means generic man and is derived from the word for red earth, the material man was supposedly created from. It was not originally a proper noun referring to a single person named Adam.

The Hebrew word Eve similarly did not refer to a single woman named Eve but to she who brings forth life, referring to childbearing by women.

The story of Adam and Eve deals with the creation of mankind, not simply with the creation of one man and one woman.
Tell the creationists who would have you believe otherwise.

I maintain that such a harmful myth needs rooting out.
It's rooting itself out already. Like you mentioned, even Christians don't take this stuff seriously anymore.

Tell the creationists who would have you believe otherwise.

I'm a believer in Intelligent Design and I have no problem believing the word Adam does not refer to a single person.

The root word would be adamah, meaning red earth. The name Adam comes from the root word, not vice versa.
I don't see how you can be so sure one is the root and the other derives from it. Things like that with ancient languages are not known.

I'm a believer in Intelligent Design and I have no problem believing the word Adam does not refer to a single person.
A) Then you're obviously not in the group of creationists that would have people believe otherwise.
B) What evidence is there to support the pseudo-scientific claims of ID?

Just as much proof as there is to support the theory of random evolution, Evakian.

Just as much proof as there is to support the theory of random evolution, Evakian.
Do tell.

It's rooting itself out already. Like you mentioned, even Christians don't take this stuff seriously anymore.
The fact that people don't literally believe it is progress, but the cultural ideas it subtly communicates remain.

For example, the attitude that animals are "machines" has been one of the most persistent myths of science (behaviorism)--largely because this sort of thinking is subtly induced by the myth.

Sexism is another example; I don't know how many times perfectly well educated men have complained about their wives with a reference to Eve, even though they technically don't "believe" it.

I think the very worst idea the myth encourages is that mankind is a degrated form of a prior self--that we are "born in sin," "we are all sinners," and that we are under some sort of inherited curse.

We don't "believe" the myth, but this sort of thinking of mankind as a degraded, cursed, sinful being remains subtly in our culture, and leads to the popularity of cynical stoicism about humanity's fate.

This is the effect of myth in a culture--for good or ill depending on the myth. They subtly shape the terms of the debate, as it were--the create unseen and unrecognized aspects of the culture because they are the vocabulary of the culture's images and allusions.

I think when we can we should identify these effects and weaken them by exposing them.

Just as much proof as there is to support the theory of random evolution, Evakian.
That is not correct. Evolutionary theory is one of the best established bodies of knowledge known to science.

"Intelligent design" is just another word for creationism--based not on science but on religious belief.

That is not correct. Evolutionary theory is one of the best established bodies of knowledge known to science.

"Intelligent design" is just another word for creationism--based not on science but on religious belief.

Actually, there has been absolutely no proof whatsoever of Darwinian Evolution.

It has taken for mankind to come to this point of realization for Satan to recognize TRUE capacity for ‘love toward life’ in humans. It proves to him that we have taken into consideration the need to love him in spite of what he has done by removing his designed intent (being God’s friend in the capacity that he served God) from creation, which is the TRUE origin of our spiritual darkness that allows our dying since a third of the angels followed his example, and this realization has been necessary to prove to Satan that he is, in fact, wanted and needed to return to the service of God, no matter what he’s done.

Humans are currently dieing from the process of what we call aging that stems from directly from the lack of security found only in true love from the creator, true justice toward life, which includes all parts of creation, including those angels who have turned against the creator. This situation of dieing, itself, is derived from the lacking of service to the Creator of those angels who have turned against the creator, which has produced a deficit in creation of those necessary to serve the creator for the purpose of everyone remaining perfect and living forever, as it is the angels that deliver our choice of thoughts to us.

Well, yeah. Sure.

It makes perfect sense now that you explain it that way.

:rolleyes:

:hahanot:

Actually, there has been absolutely no proof whatsoever of Darwinian Evolution.
You speak out of abysmal and probably self-chosen ignorance.

sorry but it is another example of men creating stories to supress womans rights. Blame it all on Eve yadda yadda yadda.
Lets scapegoat the woman.
This being claiming to be god simple cloned Eve from Adam. WOW the magic is dispelled.
Adam probably ate the apple and blamed it on Eve and the god being a man or so we are told was more than willing to believe him
and by the way if god is all knowing and all seeing how come he had to ask Adam and Eve why they were ashamed to be naked?
Hmmm
Why did god have to divide the human race in the tower of babble by creating different languages? I sensed he feared human unity? What kind of god fears mere mortals?

sorry but it is another example of men creating stories to supress womans rights. Blame it all on Eve yadda yadda yadda.
Lets scapegoat the woman.

Absolutely.

The Christian religion is unrelentingly partriarchal.....hence the 2000 years of loathing for the female gender.

Absolutely.

The Christian religion is unrelentingly partriarchal.....hence the 2000 years of loathing for the female gender.

I agree and largely the reason why christians committed genocide of the pagans in Eurpe especially the wiccan religion whom put woman in lead spiritual positions. If they didn't murder you for being a pagan they stole things like the christmas tree and the easter bunny and egg decoration to make pagans easier to convert.

sorry but it is another example of men creating stories to supress womans rights. Blame it all on Eve yadda yadda yadda.
Lets scapegoat the woman.
This being claiming to be god simple cloned Eve from Adam. WOW the magic is dispelled.

I think you're missing the bigger picture here. Adam told god he wanted a mate too and god's response was basically a puzzled "why?" According to this story, women exist not because god thought it was a good idea but because ADAM thought it was a good idea. Now THAT ought to steam your hackles. (Yeah, I like to mix metaphores.)

and by the way if god is all knowing and all seeing how come he had to ask Adam and Eve why they were ashamed to be naked?
Hmmm

That's just parenting. Like when you ask a kid why their stomach hurts when you know darned well they ate that piece of cake they weren't supposed to eat. You're just trying to see if they admit it.

You speak out of abysmal and probably self-chosen ignorance.

Thislin,

First you called me a liar and now you are calling me abysmally ignorant. It is lucky for me that I don't think much of you as a poster. Otherwise my feeling might be hurt.

You talk a good game. Too bad you never offer any proof. Just what proof do you have that, "That is not correct. Evolutionary theory is one of the best established bodies of knowledge known to science."?

Darwinian Evolution has never been proven. I hate to be the one to break it to you, Thislin but the fact that you believe something does not make it so. It is nice that you are so self confident and self centered to think that is the case but it just isn't so.

Thislin,

First you called me a liar and now you are calling me abysmally ignorant. It is lucky for me that I don't think much of you as a poster. Otherwise my feeling might be hurt.

You talk a good game. Too bad you never offer any proof. Just what proof do you have that, "That is not correct. Evolutionary theory is one of the best established bodies of knowledge known to science."?

Darwinian Evolution has never been proven. I hate to be the one to break it to you, Thislin but the fact that you believe something does not make it so. It is nice that you are so self confident and self centered to think that is the case but it just isn't so.
I think you are utterly irrational, and until you get off your grandstand I see no reason to pay you any attention.

And you seem to not know the meanings of the words you post.

When you accuse someone of deliberately posting untruths you are calling them a liar.

When you accuse someone of being willfully, abysmally ignorant that also has a meaning.

If the best you can do is call me an ignorant liar I don't consider you ignoring me to be any great hardship.

I think you're missing the bigger picture here. Adam told god he wanted a mate too and god's response was basically a puzzled "why?" According to this story, women exist not because god thought it was a good idea but because ADAM thought it was a good idea. Now THAT ought to steam your hackles. (Yeah, I like to mix metaphores.)



That's just parenting. Like when you ask a kid why their stomach hurts when you know darned well they ate that piece of cake they weren't supposed to eat. You're just trying to see if they admit it.

if god did not understand why man needed a female. Why does god need to have a male gender? Hmmm? God was a sexist plain and simple.

Yeah sure..parenting..LOL
so if god is all knowing and seeing how come he did not stop the snake from decieving eve to eat the apple. God would have forseen it.
Sure let them eat the apple so he can punish them. it was a set up.

Thislin,

First you called me a liar and now you are calling me abysmally ignorant. It is lucky for me that I don't think much of you as a poster. Otherwise my feeling might be hurt.

You talk a good game. Too bad you never offer any proof. Just what proof do you have that, "That is not correct. Evolutionary theory is one of the best established bodies of knowledge known to science."?

Darwinian Evolution has never been proven. I hate to be the one to break it to you, Thislin but the fact that you believe something does not make it so. It is nice that you are so self confident and self centered to think that is the case but it just isn't so.

over 10,000 bone reconstructions of millions of years of fossils is not proof?
our DNA being 98 percent the same as a chimpazee? is not proof?

Dude this is what I hate about religion. When people thow out logic for superstition.. hustan we have a problem.

I believe our DNA is more than 98% the same as that of a chimp. I think it's 98% the same as a mouse.

Dude this is what I hate about religion. When people thow out logic for superstition.. hustan we have a problem.
Agreed. Kudos to those who evolve their faiths along with what science teaches us.

Also, it's "Houston". It's the fourth largest city in the country, how can you not spell it?

over 10,000 bone reconstructions of millions of years of fossils is not proof?
our DNA being 98 percent the same as a chimpazee? is not proof?

Dude this is what I hate about religion. When people thow out logic for superstition.. hustan we have a problem.
When a creationist starts with the assertions that there is no "proof" of evolution, you know you have an emotional, unreasoning commitment to denial of facts.

When a Darwinian Evolutionist says the matter is closed because Darwinian Evolution has been proven you know you have someone who doesn't know the difference between proof and feeling.

When a Darwinian Evolutionist says the matter is closed because Darwinian Evolution has been proven you know you have someone who doesn't know the difference between proof and feeling.


Frogger... if you have a 1,000 piece puzzle before you and you have all the pieces of the puzzle but 1 piece (the missing link) and the picture is obviously a picture of a horse you cannot sit there a deny it is not a horse because of one missing piece. It is pretty clear what the picture is?

Look I know christians get all bent out of shape because they don't think that evoluntion and god can work together but think of it this way.

"god molded man in our image"
note the word molded. Molding takes time..evolution takes time. God is infinite right so time means notthing to him 6 days to him could be millions or billions of years.

Agreed. Kudos to those who evolve their faiths along with what science teaches us.

Also, it's "Houston". It's the fourth largest city in the country, how can you not spell it?


I could not spell it because I have like 8 grade spelling level. As I have stated before my mom was not exactly caring about me and my education was down in the toilet most of my life. Personally I do not know how I even got out of grade school let alone high school. My mom never made me do my homework and my mom was very anti education. I had a lot of catching up to do when I decided 10 years after I graduated from high school to go back to school. I have most caught up but spelling. To write my papers at school I use microsoft word spell check and make very good grades this way because I have good writing skills otherwise.

i am good at general concepts and the big picture. I am not good at spelling or details. I get bored and impatient with it.

I got my point across this is all I care about.

Christianity is based on the idea that human beings are special, that they are not "animals." Christian theology says humans have souls and free will and a lot of special things that animals do not have.

The reality is different. We are made of the same stuff as animals. We sleep and awaken as do animals. We must eat and breathe and drink as do animals. We have animal lust and reproduce the same as animals. We urinate and defecate and sweat and cry the same as animals. We age and die the same as animals, and, if we are careless, there are other animals out there that will eat us.

All those who are professional experts in biology, paleontology, animal geography, etc., etc., accept evolutionary theory as a body of knowledge. Their expertise far exceeds in wisdom the writings of ancient myth-makers.

Non-Semitic religons, such as Buddhism, have no problem with this and from ancient times have understood that we are animals. Only in the West do we find the unscientific view that we are qualitatively different from animals.

We are of course a special kind of animal, specialized for symbolic communication (language) that makes organized symbol manipulation possible (logical thought), but we now understand that there is nothing in the human mental process that is different in kind from things found in other animals--just different in degree.

As a result we are both lucky and unlucky. We are lucky in that our mentality permits a few to understand and even find an escape from the trap of life and death that other animals are in (because of natural selection). We are unlucky because we are still animals, and therefore very few find this escape.

There is a difference between "proof" and evidence. Frogger is right that evolution has not been proven, but there is overwhelming evidence that is perhaps not within a shadow of a doubt but close enough to convince most people.

DarkFantasy,

I have no problem with evolution within species. I do have a problem with unguided evolution, evolution that is mere happenstance. I believe that evolution takes place under the guidance of a Supreme Being.
The talk of a so called 'missing link' deals with the link between apes and man. Not only has that link not been found but no links between species have been found.

One reason I believe there is an architect guiding things is the evolution of the woodpecker.

In order to survive the woodpecker needs certain body modifications.

1. An extra stiff set of tail feathers to allow it to prop it self against a tree trunk.

2. Feet that are different from other bird's to do the same.

3. A long flexible tongue.

4. A barb at the end of that tongue.

5. Someplace to keep the tongue when not extended. (The tongue is curled within a space that has been created inside the head behind one of the eye sockets.)

6. A brain cushion to keep its brains from being scrambled by the beating of its head against the tree.

I simply don't think it was possible for these things to all evolve at the right time and in the right sequence. I think there was and is a guiding force behind evolution.

I am not denying that things evolve. That would be silly since I can see how dogs have evolved withing the memory of man. I simply don't believe in Darwinian Evolution which is a specific type of evolution.

Evolution taking place under the guidance of a supreme being seems pretty darn logical to me.

There is a difference between "proof" and evidence. Frogger is right that evolution has not been proven, but there is overwhelming evidence that is perhaps not within a shadow of a doubt but close enough to convince most people.
On that basis nothing in science, or in life, is "proven." Reasonable people do not demand "certainty" about anything, since such a deman is unreal.

Scientific proof demands that something be replicatible. Unless or until they can replicate Darwinian Evolution (notice I said Darwinian Evolution, not evolution within species) it will remain an unproven theory. So far, despite all attempts to do so no scientist has been able to replicate or even properly demonstrate evolution across species lines.

Once again, I find that both sides are making a lot of sense.

Of course, because both Thislin and I are brilliant.:lolhit:

I have no problem with evolution within species.If it can happen within species, then a species can split into two species, and each of those can continue evolving. It seems your statement therefore says very little.
I do have a problem with unguided evolution, evolution that is mere happenstance. That is a straw man. No one says it is "mere happenstance." The process of natural selection is inevitable and creates an appearance of design. Those who are more suited survive better than those who are less suited.
I believe that evolution takes place under the guidance of a Supreme Being. An unnecessary and forced hypothesis that is not testable. Still, one has to wonder why living things have such miserable existences if what you say is true. It must be an evil being doing the guiding.
The talk of a so called 'missing link' deals with the link between apes and man. Not only has that link not been found but no links between species have been found.That is not true. There are millions of known intermediate "links."
I simply don't think it was possible for these things to all evolve at the right time and in the right sequence. I think there was and is a guiding force behind evolution.You demonstrate too much ego here: that you can't imagine something is your failure, and has nothing to do with reality. The fits and starts of the history of life on the earth testifies to absence of any direction or plan.

DarkFantasy,

I have no problem with evolution within species. I do have a problem with unguided evolution, evolution that is mere happenstance. I believe that evolution takes place under the guidance of a Supreme Being.
The talk of a so called 'missing link' deals with the link between apes and man. Not only has that link not been found but no links between species have been found.

One reason I believe there is an architect guiding things is the evolution of the woodpecker.

In order to survive the woodpecker needs certain body modifications.

1. An extra stiff set of tail feathers to allow it to prop it self against a tree trunk.

2. Feet that are different from other bird's to do the same.

3. A long flexible tongue.

4. A barb at the end of that tongue.

5. Someplace to keep the tongue when not extended. (The tongue is curled within a space that has been created inside the head behind one of the eye sockets.)

6. A brain cushion to keep its brains from being scrambled by the beating of its head against the tree.

I simply don't think it was possible for these things to all evolve at the right time and in the right sequence. I think there was and is a guiding force behind evolution.

I am not denying that things evolve. That would be silly since I can see how dogs have evolved withing the memory of man. I simply don't believe in Darwinian Evolution which is a specific type of evolution.

I don't have a problem with that however who is to say your god did it? You can't go around claiming the judeo christian god guided evolution.

An alien race more advanced than us can be considered a supreme being.
You have to give credit to all gods and goddess and even the notion of an intelligent beings like aliens designing us..not just the judeo verson of god.

Where did I say the Christian God did it, Warrior. I was very careful to not do so. I used terms such as Supreme Being, Architect, etc..

Once again you are making an unfounded accusation.

Evolution taking place under the guidance of a supreme being seems pretty darn logical to me.
If there is a supreme being directing evolution, he has hidden his tracks extremely well.

The fate of 99% of all species in the past has been extinction. This is because natural selection is blind--it selects for immediate advantage and sooner or later long term factors intervene and the species cannot adjust fast enough to make it. Is the divine guider here really such an amateur?

Also, consider the trap that natural selection had created for all living things. They are born into a world of disease and danger and death. They constantly suffer pain and hunger and fear, and sooner or later they all die violent or disease-ridden deaths.

Thislin,

You lambaste me for not being able to conceive of an unguided evolution while you are unable to believe in a guided one. Seems more than a bit hypocritical to me.

Where did I say the Christian God did it, Warrior. I was very careful to not do so. I used terms such as Supreme Being, Architect, etc..

Once again you are making an unfounded accusation.

we all know who people are going assume who the supreme being is or architect.

I mean come on.. Really now.

That's part of your problem, you assume too much.

we all know who people are going assume who the supreme being is or architect.

I mean come on.. Really now.
Hardly. I agreed with him about the "supreme being" thing, and I am not a Christian nor a subscriber to any organized religion.

Thislin,

You lambaste me for not being able to conceive of an unguided evolution while you are unable to believe in a guided one. Seems more than a bit hypocritical to me.
Where did I say I couldn't conceive of it? All I do is show that the evidence argues in favor of my view.

There is much in this world that has happend that we do not understand how it could have happend. Therefore our inability to understand how something could have happened is not persuasive and we should be careful to not fool ourselves.

The terrain (fossil record) is that predicted by evolutionary theory, not divine fiat. Our theories and beliefs are maps: in event of discrepency between the map and the terrain, believe the terrain.

And I feel the evidence argues in favor of my view. I guess we have a stalemate.

so if this is the case we must say supreme being or Beings with an S because there could be many architects.

so they must include a plural form of surpreme being and archetects.

If the beings are "supreme", then we could just as easily look at them as one being combined, or rather as parts of one.

OH No...no.. if there are many involved in creating us and guiding us that it should be supreme beings and archetects.. plural

if there is to be intelligent design in classes we say guided by a supreme being or beings.

saying anything less is promoting monotheism of polytheism and holding one set of religions about the other pagan ones.

OH No...no.. if there are many involved in creating us and guiding us that it should be supreme beings and archetects.. plural

if there is to be intelligent design in classes we say guided by a supreme being or beings.

saying anything less is promoting monotheism of polytheism and holding one set of religions about the other pagan ones.
I don't think intelligent design should be taught in classes, other than to mention that some people believe it. And of course they should say "Some people believe that evolution is guided by a supreme being or beings." I am not disagreeing with you at all; I don't see why you're being so defensive.

I don't think evolution should be taught at all, because we don't know...

any science that tries to explain it is the same as a religion... it's pretty much it's own religion, which isn't allowed in public schools.

That's a nebulous position at best Decka. All theories should be presented to students as just that -- theories

That's a nebulous position at best Decka. All theories should be presented to students as just that -- theories
I agree. And the students should be educated as to what a theory is, to wit:

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

I don't think evolution should be taught at all, because we don't know...

any science that tries to explain it is the same as a religion... it's pretty much it's own religion, which isn't allowed in public schools.
Incorrect. We know evolution happens and we have observed it happening.

I don't think evolution should be taught at all, because we don't know...

You'd be one of the only ones who doesn't.

All those who are professional experts in biology, paleontology, animal geography, etc., etc., accept evolutionary theory as a body of knowledge. Their expertise far exceeds in wisdom the writings of ancient myth-makers.

Well spoken.

It is a pathetic commentary on the state of the educational system in the U.S. today that you have to explain, to a former teacher, in terms that a nine year old could understand, why evolutionary theory is the universally accepted body of knowledge that it is.

But then, I guess I should qualify that by saying "universally accepted among people who are capable of thinking rationally".

There apparaently is no lie that religionists will not tell themselves in order to avoid coming to grips with reality as it concerns their nonsensical "creation" story.

_______________________

The common dogma of religionists is fear of modern knowledge, inability to cope with changes coming about because of advances in science, and the breakdown in apparent 'moral order' in recent years. When you bring arguments to the table that cast serious doubts on their cherished beliefs you are not simply making a rhetorical point, you are threatening their whole Universe and their immortality. And that is something that the superstitionist will avoid at all costs, no matter the level of self-deception required.

There goes Freethinker again, saying those who don't agree with him are incapable of thinking rationally.

You really shouldn't call yourself Freethinker. Closeminded would be more appropriate.

There goes Freethinker again, saying those who don't agree with him are incapable of thinking rationally.

You really shouldn't call yourself Freethinker. Closeminded would be more appropriate.
Freethinker is more dogmatically negative about religion than I am, but he is right on about evolutionary theory, and it is you who are closed minded.

Step back a moment and ask yourself why it is that the only people who oppose evolutionary theory do so because of religous reasons, and the entire academic community is of one mind. Those who have spent their lives becoming professional biologists have no doubt in their minds and in fact do react to people like yourself with impatience.

Now it is a truism that the scientific community can be wrong, but it is far more likely to be right, and a person like yourself is in no position to assess it.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b222/godsandmen/evolution/sci.gif

sorry but it is another example of men creating stories to supress womans rights. Blame it all on Eve yadda yadda yadda.
Lets scapegoat the woman.
This being claiming to be god simple cloned Eve from Adam. WOW the magic is dispelled.
Adam probably ate the apple and blamed it on Eve and the god being a man or so we are told was more than willing to believe him
What kind of god fears mere mortals?
i got a bible n read about adma n eve. she ate the apple 1st.
i dont think god is afaid of us.:lolhit:

well he feared us enough to divide us at the tower of babble. HE purposely made us have different languages so we could not communicate with us because we were growing to powerful as a united group.

I call that fear?

Ignore her joey, she's a vexed spirit.

Ignore her joey, she's a vexed spirit.

The fact that he divided the languages has nothing to do with him fearing us, though the bible language may make that appear to be the case.

Really, if the god of the bible is real, and that's a big if, the idea of him "fearing" humanity is outrageous. An omniscient and omnipotent god need fear nothing at all.

There goes Freethinker again, saying those who don't agree with him are incapable of thinking rationally.

You really shouldn't call yourself Freethinker. Closeminded would be more appropriate.

Freethinker is more dogmatically negative about religion than I am, but he is right on about evolutionary theory, and it is you who are closed minded.

Maybe Frogger isn't really closed minded.........just ignorant.

What's sad though is that he --like millions of other superstitionists around the world-- is willfully ignorant.

i got a bible n read about adma n eve. she ate the apple 1st.
i dont think god is afaid of us.

Men who lived around 2000 years ago made up that story, littlejoe.

It isn't true.

Men invented that "god" thingy the book speaks of. Mankind has invented many hundreds of other "gods", all of them just make-believe.

________________________

Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs.

Maybe Frogger isn't really closed minded.........just ignorant.

What's sad though is that he --like millions of other superstitionists around the world-- is willfully ignorant.

I'm new here and I don't know froggy, so this post is not intended to be about him/her.

I doubt that there is any "willful" ignorance happening. It's really more about fear, even though people who are in that place don't recognize that. Religions, all of them, wield enormous power over the minds of thier adherents. Christianity is especially noteworthy in that regard. Christianity has many built-in safeguards to keep the flock in line. And the underlying force that it uses to achieve this is FEAR. Those who are immersed in fundamentist christianity don't dare open thier minds to any idea or concept that they deem as contrary to the bible, lest in doing so they are led astray by the devil, fall into "error", and lost thier eternal souls. That's a very powerful incentive to adhere closely to "the straight and narrow".

In a sense, yeah, it's willful. But in a deeper sense, that willfullness is a product of the fear that is inherently transmitted to them by thier belief system. This is true to a certain extent in many religions, but as I said, I think christianity takes it farther than most.

Compassion, not judgement, is what I feel for them.

I'm new here and I don't know froggy, so this post is not intended to be about him/her.

I doubt that there is any "willful" ignorance happening. It's really more about fear, even though people who are in that place don't recognize that. Religions, all of them, wield enormous power over the minds of thier adherents. Christianity is especially noteworthy in that regard. Christianity has many built-in safeguards to keep the flock in line. And the underlying force that it uses to achieve this is FEAR. Those who are immersed in fundamentist christianity don't dare open thier minds to any idea or concept that they deem as contrary to the bible, lest in doing so they are led astray by the devil, fall into "error", and lost thier eternal souls. That's a very powerful incentive to adhere closely to "the straight and narrow".

In a sense, yeah, it's willful. But in a deeper sense, that willfullness is a product of the fear that is inherently transmitted to them by thier belief system. This is true to a certain extent in many religions, but as I said, I think christianity takes it farther than most.

Compassion, not judgement, is what I feel for them.
I have a dislike of violence, so I make myself willfully ignorant of violent news stories. That is to say, when such a story comes on TV, I change channels. I am aware I do this, and think it is healthier for me to do so--both for my spirit and my physical health.

There are other times when I want to avoid something but I force myself not to. An example is learning about the arguments when I disagree. In particular I have done that about religions all my life, so that I've accumulated a lot of miscellany about various sects.

In fact I took an elementary biology class in college because I had my doubts about the fundamentalist religious ideas of my grandparents, and quickly (within a month) realized that creationism does not hold up. I must admit I went into it with not too much faith because I always had wondered how the entirety of science could be so wrong. It turned out they aren't.

This is the ignorance that is deliberate. Creationists don't know enough science to be able to make themselves anything but fools when parroting creationist propaganda. They aren't aware of this because they are "deliberately ignorant." They actively avoid learning anything contrary to what they already believe.

This might be attributed to fear (fear of Hell?), but I doubt anyone really fears Hell for them personally. We all think we are good people and therefore never really see ourselves in any danger.

The problem is childhood indoctrination and the instincts we have to hold onto childhood beliefs. Learning about things contrary to such beliefs is unpleasant--so we tend to avoid it. This is the way instincts work--with moods and emotions--depression or anger when we force ourselves to doubt, joy and peace when we do what our childhood incdoctrination calls for.

It's a far more involved subject than I can deal with here, but understanding how children go through "learning mode" and we all have instincts to protect what we learn as children ("conscience," "faith" etc.) goes a long way toward explaining the phenomenon of religous persistence in spite of all the contrary evidence.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b222/godsandmen/evolution/Darwin_Vs__God_by_Endling.jpg

The bible explains things that are spiritual in a physical way so that we can understand the concept. I believe that our loss of Eden represents our spiritual fall from grace. The spiritual self is our most natural self, not the physical manifestation that we experience now. We are here to learn and make our way back to God.

The bible explains things that are spiritual in a physical way so that we can understand the concept. I believe that our loss of Eden represents our spiritual fall from grace. The spiritual self is our most natural self, not the physical manifestation that we experience now. We are here to learn and make our way back to God.


Jenny, I agree with you completely, though maybe in a different sense than you. My favorite word in your post is the word "represents". You'd be surprised at how few fundamentalists understand that word.

The bible explains things that are spiritual in a physical way so that we can understand the concept. I believe that our loss of Eden represents our spiritual fall from grace. The spiritual self is our most natural self, not the physical manifestation that we experience now. We are here to learn and make our way back to God.
You have reached a much more profound level of understanding than that of the fundamentalist. Now comes the step of understanding that each representation is also a representation.

For example, you understand that the Adam and Eve myth is a representation of humanity's "fall from grace," but can you see the possibility that this fall from grace is not a literal thing either, but only a representation of something else--perhaps our desire to be better than we are--a "fall" from our ideal, even if mankind never really existed as that ideal?

We find ourselves, in our present existence, as living in a trap of our desires and their inevitable frustration. We desire to be good but our instinctive animal nature prevents it. We desire to be free of suffering, but inevitably, since nothing is forever, we suffer losses.