Evolution? How?

Frank Apisa wrote:

They don't know right from wrong...or good from evil...but they are supposed to have a conscience.
Despite the fact that they had no way of knowing they were doing wrong...

Other than the fact they were told not to do it.

Frank,

God told them NOT to do it. They understood what that meant. If you would read that part you will remember that Eve told the serpent that God said they were not to eat of the fruit. Kind of makes me believe they knew it was wrong.

Well, glad we can keep you laughing Frank. Too bad you can't understand how we feel. It's too bad because then maybe you wouldn't be so apt to laugh at those that don't agree with you.

So they were stupid and didn't know what no meant?

Eve told the serpent that they weren't supposed to do it! What the heck do you suppose Eve meant by that?

Genesis 3:2 - The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die."

Frank Apisa wrote:

They don't know right from wrong...or good from evil...but they are supposed to have a conscience.
Despite the fact that they had no way of knowing they were doing wrong...

Other than the fact they were told not to do it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

the god, pathetic cartoon that it is...not only punishes them severely...it punishes all the rest of mankind forever.

I don't like the consequences, either; I just place the blame where it belongs.

Frank Apisa wrote:

THEY DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS ANYTHING WRONG WITH DISOBEYING.

No need to shout, Frank. We know you don't guess that God told them not to eat of the tree.

Now I will politely rephrase the doggy doo question:

Is it possible to know intuitively that something is wrong?

neo wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

They don't know right from wrong...or good from evil...but they are supposed to have a conscience.
Despite the fact that they had no way of knowing they were doing wrong...

Other than the fact they were told not to do it.

So did they have knowledge of both good and bad after they were told not to do it?

So...they were told not to do it. BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT DISOBEDIENCE WAS WRONG. . . But the god...denied them the knowledge that there was anything wrong with disobeying.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So...they were told not to do it. BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT DISOBEDIENCE WAS WRONG. . . But the god...denied them the knowledge that there was anything wrong with disobeying.

Uh; what part of 'you will die if you do that' do you think they didn't understand?

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

The problem is that evolutionists want to maintain that circumstantial evidence can only be understood when assuming evolution. They are in error.

No, they're not in error. There simply are no other scientific theories which can be used to exlain the evidence.

We've been over this ground before RL, and you didn't answer my question on this topic last time, and here we are again.

If you're not happy with the fact that scientists start by asking how the evidence fits into evolutionary theory, then what other scientific theory do you suggest that scientists should use to understand the evidence?

Is there another theory which explains why we find the type of evidence we do? The morphological similarities back through time represented in geologic strata, the age of which we understand by several overlapping sciences, combined with the similarities in DNA, etc etc etc?

If you've got a better scientific explanation for the evidence, then trot it out. We want to see if you've got a real Unicorn to show us, or just a horse with a horn tied on its head.

Yes we have been over this before Ros.

You stated that scientists (and they are numerous) such as Sir Isaac Newton were "unscientific" for believing that God created the world.

You want to define science so tightly that only evolution fits in the definition. In doing so, you part company with many of the greatest scientists the world has known.

But I guess you're sharper than they are.

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

So...they were told not to do it. BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT DISOBEDIENCE WAS WRONG. . . But the god...denied them the knowledge that there was anything wrong with disobeying.

Uh; what part of 'you will die if you do that' do you think they didn't understand?

It may be easy for you to understand the consequences of disobeying an order, but for someone who doesn't know good from evil, right from wrong, it's arguably impossible for them to know not do do something.

But all of this pretty much ignores the fact that any adult who doesn't even understand the concept of right and wrong, would probably be considered cognitively impared anyway. So Adam and Eve were essentially, brain damaged until they ate that apple.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

The problem is that evolutionists want to maintain that circumstantial evidence can only be understood when assuming evolution. They are in error.

No, they're not in error. There simply are no other scientific theories which can be used to exlain the evidence.

We've been over this ground before RL, and you didn't answer my question on this topic last time, and here we are again.

If you're not happy with the fact that scientists start by asking how the evidence fits into evolutionary theory, then what other scientific theory do you suggest that scientists should use to understand the evidence?

Is there another theory which explains why we find the type of evidence we do? The morphological similarities back through time represented in geologic strata, the age of which we understand by several overlapping sciences, combined with the similarities in DNA, etc etc etc?

If you've got a better scientific explanation for the evidence, then trot it out. We want to see if you've got a real Unicorn to show us, or just a horse with a horn tied on its head.

Yes we have been over this before Ros.

You stated that scientists (and they are numerous) such as Sir Isaac Newton were "unscientific" for believing that God created the world.

You want to define science so tightly that only evolution fits in the definition. In doing so, you part company with many of the greatest scientists the world has known.

But I guess you're sharper than they are.

You just can't follow a linear train of thought can you RL. You jump back and forth between different points, never following any of them to conclusion and bringing up additional irrelevancies all along the way to further distract from the focus.

It's no wonder you don't like science, you haven't demonstrated any capacity to follow its rules.

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

God told them NOT to do it. They understood what that meant. If you would read that part you will remember that Eve told the serpent that God said they were not to eat of the fruit. Kind of makes me believe they knew it was wrong.

No it doesn't. It tells you that they knew the god told them not to eat the fruit. But the fairytale specifically says they did not know the difference between right and wrong.

You simply cannot get away from that.

Quote:

Well, glad we can keep you laughing Frank. Too bad you can't understand how we feel. It's too bad because then maybe you wouldn't be so apt to laugh at those that don't agree with you.

Good. We are both glad.

rosborne, What rl and their ilk are good at is called "projection." They try to make it a personal analogy by offering negatives that has no relationship to the original question. There's no logic in their arguments.

Well, then can you explain why Eve told the serepent what God said about not eating the apple?

She was obviously cognitive enough to do that. She told that to the serpent after the serpent said it was okay to eat the fruit.

Whether they knew the difference between right or wrong has absolutely nothing to do with it. They were told not to do it..period. They knew they were not supposed to do it and they did.

Do you think that a young child knows the consequences of their actions when they are told to stay away from the street? Can you use some logic here, Frank?

Actually I am fascinated by science and enjoy it immensely.

If you were the head of a scientific research project, and Sir Isaac Newton applied for a position it would be quite an interesting interview, I think.

Would you hire him after he told you he literally believed that God created the world and all that is in it?

Intrepid wrote:

Whether they knew the difference between right or wrong has absolutely nothing to do with it. They were told not to do it..period. They knew they were not supposed to do it and they did.

Do you think that a young child knows the consequences of their actions when they are told to stay away from the street? Can you use some logic here, Frank?

Can you????

The knew they were told not to do it...but they did not know there was anything wrong with doing it anyway.

Even you idiot god acknowledges that they did not know:

At Genesis 3:22...the idiot god says:

"See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!"

THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS GOOD AND WHAT WAS BAD BEFORE EATING THE FRUIT.

As far as they were concerned...it was as good to disobey as it was to obey.

And as for the threat of their dying...THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS GOOD AND WHAT WAS BAD...so they did not know that dying was bad.

The fairytale is incredibly defective...and watching you poor, terrified people trying to make it seem not defective...is itself terrifying.

It makes the kind of things some of you religious nuts do all the more clear. I truly am beginning to see why some of you hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings....why some of you strap explosives to your bodies and detonate them in crowded settings.

Franky. I am tired of your childish remarks, rants and idiotic statements. You cannot even form a sentence without using capitals to yell and words like idiot etc. to refer to God and posters who do not agree with you. How do you know what they felt and what they knew? Where you there? Why do you even care if all you do is attack the bible, God and anyone who thinks differently than you. Fortunately, most of the planet thinks differently than you. For that we can be thankful.

You cannot even carry on a conversation without referring to God as idiot etc. etc. etc. Look in the mirror Frank. Then you will see what one looks like. You and your puppets are only posting to read what you wrote. Some of you can actually read. Some can spell and some even have the odd intelligent thing to say. Most people stay out of the threads where you are because they do not need the abuse that you heap on people. Those of us who remain refuse to let you have the final word on something that you have no idea about.

You criticize everything that is written in the bible as false, idiotic, the writings of superstitious tribes yet you use the very same bible to try and make your foolish points against it. If those who wrote the bible were, indeed, superstitious tribes with no concept of anything then they wrote a masterpiece that is so interwoven with the same information that nobody today could match their intelligence.

You are the one that is afraid. That is why you write the way you do. That is why you attack God and anyone who believes in God. Not only believe, but look up to him and his Son as our saviour in salvation. Even Satan believes in God. Except for this fact, I would think that you were one of his disciples.

You have a negative effect on people Frank. I, for one, do not like it and I do not like how you have effected me to write this.

I find your last paragraph particulary offensive and I cannot emphasize too much how utterly foolish it is. Foolish is far too moderate a term.