Evolution: The discussion and the theory...

[Darth InSidious]

No argument from me. But realize that we're now talking about evolution over time as a result of a changing envirornment. In other words, we're talking about evolution as a natural process. We see similar changed in plant and animal species. This is evidence of a process that does not need supernatural causation. Trying to attribute it to one is similar to forcing a healthy man to walk with crutches.

Simply due to the process being ongoing does not prove that it did not have a supernatural causation. For example, if I throw the switch on a simple lamp-switch-battery circuit (like the type you construct in primary school science- you know the ones), and leave it running for a time, the fact that it continues to run does not mean that I did not throw the switch, even if the electrons were sentient and incapable of determining it. Even if they could not to the satisfaction of science determine that I had flipped the switch, or that the switch existed, would that mean that I did not, or that both I and the switch do not exist?

 

Yes, I'm familiar with Russell

 

Steping outside the realm of science, we are then left with reason. Applying Occam's Razor, which makes more sense: That the universe actually is billions of years old or that it is magically generated in the not-too-distant past with all the evidence of being billions of years old?

That depends on your starting point.

 

IF:

 

a) There is no God, then situation two is impossible.

b) There may be a God, the situation is possible.

c) There is a God, the situation is possible.

d) The universe began, the situation is possible.

e) The universe did not begin, the situation is impossible

 

I believe I have covered all bases? Note that 'God' here refers to any supernatural origin/creator.

As an argument for God, even if we ignore Occam's Razor and accept Last Thursdayism, we're still assuming that the default answer is God. Based on the evidence, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as legitimate of an option. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

Absolutely. Faith does play an important role in religion

 

Nonetheless, I believe that through prayer, meditation and by observing the universe, the twist and turn of events in my own life and throughout history, that I have seen what sort of a mind God has, and it is one that best fits, IMO, with the Christian God, and not, for example, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.

 

Yes, he may have. But we have no evidence that he did, so I don't understand why I should be inclined to entertain such a thought.

It all rests on the belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God. If you find that you can't have faith in this for whatever reason, that's fine by me

It's happened before. We're done for the month though.

It's nearly a new month

Until we have some way to emperically measure God, I'm afraid it does.

 

Let me try this another way: no scientist can tell you with any degree of certainty that there is no God. What anyone can say with absolute confidence is that there is currently no evidence for God.

...Or against. On this we agree.

So it's not so much that scientists are trying to keep God out of science because they don't like Him, they just refuse to consider any explanation invokes Him because there is no evidence for His existence. If at some point that changes, then scientists will be able relax that stance to the degree that the evidence will allow them to do so.

No disputation of that in this camp

The rub comes in that once we have some emperical evidence for Him, he automatically loses His status as a Supernatural Being, and scientists will begin looking for a natural-world explanation for His existence and we can start the process over with God's creator.

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

"`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

'Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that' says God, and he disappears in a puff of logic.

'Oh, that was easy', says man, and for an encore he proves that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing."

I think we've exceeded our quota. Incidentally, I apologise for the long delay,I was under a hell of a lot of pressure to get first of all up to date on the 26th Dynasty, the Late Period, et al., and also to do some write-ups of some excavations last year.

Science is a process that can be used to tell us more about the natural world. That this seems to be lost in the current education system is a case for more science in our schools not less. I'm not sure what the numbers look like in Europe but 83% of U.S. citizens are scientifically illiterate.

Not sure of the numbers either, but we do teach the three sciences up until year 9 (at year 10 they choose), but the British petrochemicals industry is running short on science graduates, the government is pulling science teachers from wherever it can get them from, and we're certainly not pumping enough cash into research.

There are scientific laws and science is based on accepted facts, but no one that is familiar with science will tell you that any theory is impervious to scrutiny.

The problem is that science is often given to be infallible, at least over here. TV programmes, radio, websites, even some scientists all the time give scientific theory the aura of fact and elevate scientific theories - such as evolution - as absolute and undeniable fact.

With that said, I have no problem with ID being taught in school, however it should not be done in a science class. If schools want to include it as part of a philosophy course, then that's fine, but it has not earned the right to be considered science.

I agree that it isn't science.

 

People in the Middle Ages blamed the Bubonic plague on God's wrath. Surely you would agree that having the scientific explanation for the disease would have been more beneficial than the supernatural one.

I would posit that both have benefits, and that the one should not necessarily deny the other. Furthermore, at this point science had not developed. The ideas that would go into the foundation of the scientific method later on were still in their infancy. I'm not too sure about the dates of the bubonic plague, but IIRC it's barely two/three centuries after the death of Aquinas...?

 

I think if we lived in a world were everyone was an island unto themselves, it would be easier to just shrug and say, "well if he wants to believe that fairies make his plants grow, then that's his problem". Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.

 

For example just over a year ago people that believe that killing infidels assures them a place in Paradise, complete with 72 virgins, decided to practice their religious beliefs on some public transit vehicles on your side of the pond.

I would posit that a) we cannot know for certain why they did it, and b) that it had far more to do with indoctrination in ideas quite separate from faith and morals, and that they might well have done it whether they were religious or not, because some people have that in them, regardless of belief.

On this side, we have people with similarly radical (similar in there degree of radicalness, not in their display) ideas creating public policy that affects everyone in our country. So the intense desire to dispell the supernatural is 1 part altruism and 3 parts self-preservation. The fact that we have Christian leaders publicly stating that recent natural disasters are evidence of God's displeasure with homosexuals and atheists should give you some insight into the dilemma.

I see a lot of idiots of all beliefs or non-beliefs. I don't think that it's just Christians and Muslims who have crackpots and extremists. And if they weren't Christian or Muslim, I'm sure they'd find something else to push.

 

Ok, then how would you categorize Exodus? Or G.John? Leviticus?

Exodus is an oral history. Leviticus is in effect a collation of laws ( I think - haven't read it, I must admit. When I tried to read through the whole Bible, I gave up during the numerous begattings...). John is possibly the hardest to classify. I would say it is a historical account, possibly drawing on numerous previous accounts and lists of sayings, miracles, etc to make a specific theological point. I would also say it is one of the greatest literary pieces ever.

I think you feel comfortable categorizing these books because of your modern viewpoints. The study of ethics has advanced much in 2000 years, but these books have not changed at all (KJV excluded). One has to be plied to provide context for the other while keeping both relevant. Luckily, we choose to bend our interpretation of the Bible to match our ethics and not vice versa (for the most part), but I don't think that's a testimony to value of the Bible.

For me, this is not an issue. The Sacred Tradition laid down by the Magisterium of the Church, being (we believe) inspired by God also, is of equal importance and relevance, and in a symbiotic relationship with the Sacred Scripture.

 

You seem rather comfortable identifying Genesis as fable, but accept The Sermon on the Mount as historically accurate (I'm assuming that you do anyway) even though there is no evidence that it ever took place. I don't understand how that works.

Very simply, for the same reason that I accept Tacitus, Suetonius, Thucydides, elements of Herodotos, etc etc etc.

I appreciate you taking the time to have this discussion with me. I've enjoyed reading your responses.

It has been a stimulating discussion so far

[ET Warrior]

I have seen what sort of a mind God has, and it is one that best fits, IMO, with the Christian God,

This quote doth confuse me some, as in nearly every debate I've ever had with religious folk one common thread seems to be that it is entirely impossible to understand the mind of god, and we cannot hope to begin to comprehend something as timeless and infinite as 'god'. Are you professing to have determined this, or simply stating that you've gotten a general gist from the way the world works? Just trying to clarify.

 

I would posit that both have benefits,

I would LOVE to hear what possible benefit can be had from stating that a disease was caused because god is mad at his little childrens.

[Prime]

Nonetheless, I believe that through prayer, meditation and by observing the universe, the twist and turn of events in my own life and throughout history, that I have seen what sort of a mind God has, and it is one that best fits, IMO, with the Christian God, and not, for example, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.

Based on what? The "definition" (not sure of a better term!) of what God is and how he functions that were told to you? Every religion tells its followers the definition of their god. Every religious person claims that their version explains what they see in the world. Why is the Christian God more accurate than Buddha, Allah, or any other god? What have you experienced that eliminates (or makes less likely) all the other gods as possibilities and points to God?

 

...Or against.

Well, the evidence against is really more the evidence against the claims of the church (generalizing of course) as being fact. I agree that there is no evidence against God in heaven and having created the universe and so on. The against part comes when the chuch says that the earth is 6000 years old and the Bible is a literal truth, when the observable evidence is against that.

 

The church claims that the Bible is the word of God (I have no issue with that) and everything in it is literal fact (I know not all do). When the Bible's explanation of certain events doesn't hold up to factual scrutiny, then that implies that God may be wrong in the sense that His version of events is inaccruate which shouldn't be possible. So in that sense the evidence is "against" him on the assumption that the Bible contains historical fact.

 

I would posit that both have benefits, and that the one should not necessarily deny the other.

I have the same question as ET. What is the benefit of claiming that a disease is caused by God?

 

I would posit that a) we cannot know for certain why they did it

We can't see inside someone's head of course. We can only go by what they say. And we know for a fact that many say that they were going to do things because their religion taught them that there would be a benefit to doing so in the afterlife, or that they believed that what their victims were doing is evil. A Muslim may claim to perform suicide bombing because they believe infidels are evil on religious grounds, just as a Christian bay bomb a abortion clinic because they feel that is evil or attack gays because they feel they are evil on religious grounds.

 

b) that it had far more to do with indoctrination in ideas quite separate from faith and morals

But by definition Christians are indoctrinated into their religion just like any other person is indoctrinated into theirs, and much of their morality is defined by the religion they belong to.

 

I would argue that their would be less suicide bombings if the teachings of their leaders didn't promote the notion that other people are infidels that their gods demand them to destroy. Similarly, many Christians may not view gays as immoral if their teachings did not claim them to be so. If you ask many Christians who oppose gays, most often the reponse to why they think that way is that God and the Bible tell them that they are evil, and not because they have logically come to the conclusion that they are.

 

and that they might well have done it whether they were religious or not, because some people have that in them, regardless of belief.

Possibly. But if they claim that they are doing things on religious grounds, some weight has to be given to that.

[Darth Kalverys]

There's a funny thing about Evolution... have you ever noticed that the order of Evolution, is the same as that of Creationism? You know God created this, and this, and this... (I don't remember what order, and I don't feel like looking it up, nor do I have the time to.) and that Evolution goes in the exact same order? That first there was this, then we "evolved" into this, then this?

 

I personally think it's funny... that the evolutionist don't believe in Creationism, but base their hypothesis' on the order of Creationism. Tell me... did they read a bible and not agree with what the apostles wrote? Or was it some freak accident that it ended up that way. I truely don't know... but I still think it's rather funny.

[Ray Jones]

Nah. Evolution has no particular order. It's more like a logical reasoning. It's seems rather impossible to claim there were birds before the first lifeforms even left the oceans. And according to the idea that underwater had a somewhat more stable environment to provide than land, it makes only sense to assume life developed there first.

 

And basically even creationists should see a flaw in reasoning if they'd state mankind came before earth was made.

 

Rather funny is the thought, if man is made after gods image, does god make poo, too? What would he eat? People from heaven? And has he 'the manly attachment' there where it belongs? Why?

[Jae Onasi]

Since God is perfect, I doubt He has to worry about digestion and elimination. If I hadn't seen your name attached to that post, I'd still guess it could only be you asking the question 'Does God have a penis?"

[Ray Jones]

Yayaya you know me I gotta get paid. XD

 

But really, as far as I know, it says "god made the man after his image" or like that. So he must have a dongle, and also a negative end of the pharynx.

[ET Warrior]

There's a funny thing about Evolution... have you ever noticed that the order of Evolution, is the same as that of Creationism?

Actually no...I've noticed that creationism has quite a few things in very much the wrong order.

 

On the third day God creates vegetation, seed-bearing plants, and trees that bear fruit. Of course, fruit bearing plants are flowering plants, and they most certainly did not come before all animal life on the planet.

 

On the fourth day God creates the sun and the moon. I don't think I need to elaborate on that...

 

On the fifth day God creates the sea creatures and the birds. Again, birds most CERTAINLY came after land creatures.

 

Science most assuredly did not base the theory of evolution off of creationism.

[JediMaster12]

Science most assuredly did not base the theory of evolution off of creationism.

I would say so considering that we have geological and fossil evidence of when say the bony fishes appeared and when the reptiles appeared. Personally I am more willing to believe in the geological evidence.

 

Besides the theory of evolution was based off of Darwin's observations on his famous trip to the Galapagos. He had other things like early genetics that he was aware of but mostly it stemed from observing his famous finches and the beak sizes.

[Darth Kalverys]

But really, as far as I know, it says "god made the man after his image" or like that. So he must have a dongle, and also a negative end of the pharynx.

 

 

That is a hard... hard thing to discuss. God said we were made in his image, but that doesn't mean he "modeled" humans after him, if that makes any sense. When Adam and Eve were first created, they were made to be perfect... like God... but that doesn't mean he held a mirror up to his face and made us look exactly like him. God may not even look like a human, for all we know.

[Emperor Devon]

When Adam and Eve were first created, they were made to be perfect... like God...

 

Untrue. Without having eaten from the tree of life and the tree of knowledge they were extraordinarily different, never mind what they looked like.

 

I find the idea that Adam was conjured up from the earth and Eve from his rib it to be extremely silly, however. Sounds more like a spell from Dungeons & Dragons that something someone would actually believe.

 

God may not even look like a human, for all we know.

 

I would guess that a being supposedly capable of creating the universe could look however he so pleases.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

That is a hard... hard thing to discuss.

And why on Earth is that? So what if God has a penis? Who the Heck cares for a second? Should it change anyone's image of Him? Does it make him less divine?

 

Yes, humans were made in God's image, and thus look like God, and thus God has a penis. Problem solved.

 

God said we were made in his image, but that doesn't mean he "modeled" humans after him, if that makes any sense.

Actually, I'd say it does. Even if you don't like it and it means God has a private organ. Not that it matters the slightest.

 

There's a funny thing about Evolution... have you ever noticed that the order of Evolution, is the same as that of Creationism?

Order according to science:

1. Stars, including Sol. Other planets, moons, asteroids, etc.

2. The Earth.

3. More asteroids, moons, and so on.

4. Primitive one-celled organisms.

5. Primitive one-celled organisms evolve into plants, animals, bacteria, etc.

6. Primitive predecessor evolves into today's homo sapiens.

 

Order according to the Bible:

1. The Sun (light).

2. The Earth.

3. Plants.

4. The other stars.

5. Fishes, birds and animals (<- bacteria and viruses created here?).

6. Human male and female.

7. Human male.

8. Human female.

 

Yes, they are fairly similar. But no, the order is not the same, and quite frankly the Genesis Creation account makes it abundantly clear that astronomy was not exactly a big science at the time.

[Darth Kalverys]

That's... that's not what I meant. What I meant was we may not LOOK like him...

 

and ED

 

Adam and Eve were created to be perfect... it's just when they ate from the "Tree of Knowledge" that Sin entered the world... but this is getting way off topic... I'll leave this discussion... sorry for takin it off topic.

[Achilles]

My turn to apologize for the delayed response. I was out of town on business, and I'm just now getting back to "normal" after my trip (just in time to begin class on Tuesday ).

 

Looking at the thread, I see that about another page has been tacked on. I want to respond to your points even though, at a glance, I see that other have as well (no idea what they say, only that they responded). I don't do this in the spirit of "piling on" rather to address the points that you have made to me. If it seems like I'm ganging up, then please know this isn't my intention.

 

Ok....

 

Simply due to the process being ongoing does not prove that it did not have a supernatural causation.

Agreed, it does not "prove". It makes the likelihood of supernatural causation (especially supernatural causation as defined by those that advocate it) extremely unnecessary and unlikely. If some supreme being were capable of creating every thing in the universe with a though, then surely he/she/it should have been capable of getting it right the first time. The fact that everything is changing an adapting would lend itself toward a world-view that doesn't require (or support) supernatural causation.

 

In other words: it's possible but not likely. And it certainly isn't support by evidence.

 

For example, if I throw the switch on a simple lamp-switch-battery circuit (like the type you construct in primary school science- you know the ones), and leave it running for a time, the fact that it continues to run does not mean that I did not throw the switch, even if the electrons were sentient and incapable of determining it. Even if they could not to the satisfaction of science determine that I had flipped the switch, or that the switch existed, would that mean that I did not, or that both I and the switch do not exist?

But the switch doesn't evolve into a desklamp over hundreds of thousands of years. I take your point, but it's a poor analogy.

 

 

That depends on your starting point.

 

IF:

 

a) There is no God, then situation two is impossible.

b) There may be a God, the situation is possible.

c) There is a God, the situation is possible.

d) The universe began, the situation is possible.

e) The universe did not begin, the situation is impossible

 

I believe I have covered all bases? Note that 'God' here refers to any supernatural origin/creator.

It looks as though you have. You haven't committed to a response though. If you believe in god, then some of these options are possible. The question is what's likely.

 

Absolutely. Faith does play an important role in religion

 

Nonetheless, I believe that through prayer, meditation and by observing the universe, the twist and turn of events in my own life and throughout history, that I have seen what sort of a mind God has, and it is one that best fits, IMO, with the Christian God, and not, for example, Iuppiter Optimus Maximus.

I think this response largely misses my point though. It perfectly reasonable that your spiritual experience have led you to god in a judeo-christian society, just as they would have led you to allah if you lived in a muslim society. This is not a strong argument for the veracity of either "god" or "allah", rather a testimony of the importance of our spiritual experiences.

 

The nuts and bolts of the matter are unchanged: If you accept that god is real, then you have to accept the FSM too. Because your "test" is not emperical, then there is no evidence to show that your conclusion is the correct one. Personally, I think that you're entirely too intelligent to settle for conclusions based on such poor logic, but I understand that indoctrination is a powerful force.

 

...Or against. On this we agree.

Indeed we do, however this leaves untouched the question of why it is wise to believe, with certainty, something for which we have no evidence. Trying to spin this into a "you can't prove he doesn't exist" argument is a fallacy because the burden of proof is on the believer, not the non-believer.

 

Not sure of the numbers either, but we do teach the three sciences up until year 9 (at year 10 they choose), but the British petrochemicals industry is running short on science graduates, the government is pulling science teachers from wherever it can get them from, and we're certainly not pumping enough cash into research.

Sounds like you have similar problems over there also. Ouch.

 

The problem is that science is often given to be infallible, at least over here. TV programmes, radio, websites, even some scientists all the time give scientific theory the aura of fact and elevate scientific theories - such as evolution - as absolute and undeniable fact.

At the risk of splitting hairs, I would say that people need to better understand what "science" is. It is a process. The process itself is infallable. The results (what people generally, erroneously refer to as "science") of the process are not. The problem comes when people forget about the GIGO principle (garbage in, garbage out). If some group tries to manipulate the process to achieve a specific result, they will succeed, but then, they aren't really doing science in the first place.

 

Any person committed to true science will tell you to question everything. They will also tell you that theories offer the best possible explanation that we have based on the evidence that available. Does that mean it's completely made up? Not at all. If/when evidence changes, then the theory might be subject to change. This lack of certainty is not a fallability of "science" rather an simple and honest admission that we don't know everything and therefore some things might be subject to change.

 

As for evolution specifically, there might be future revisions to the theory, but there is no better explanation that supports the evidence. It's possible that there may be a better explanation someday, but it will most likely be an enhancement of the current theory. By way of comparison, creationism can't even be considered science, so to say it's a superior explanation is simply incorrect.

 

I agree that it isn't science.

Glad to hear we're of the same mind. We might give Jae a heart attack with all the agreement here.

 

I would posit that both have benefits, and that the one should not necessarily deny the other. Furthermore, at this point science had not developed. The ideas that would go into the foundation of the scientific method later on were still in their infancy. I'm not too sure about the dates of the bubonic plague, but IIRC it's barely two/three centuries after the death of Aquinas...?

I have to disagree. I'm not sure what benefit could be gleened from thinking that god was punishing the human species...especially for those of us that do not believe in god. Might as well chalk up plane crashes to animal spirits.

 

I agree that science had not sufficiently developed to understand the true cause of the plague, but I'm not sure how they would have not benefitted from science if they had (which was my point). The alternative explanation did not help them at all.

 

I would posit that a) we cannot know for certain why they did it, and b) that it had far more to do with indoctrination in ideas quite separate from faith and morals, and that they might well have done it whether they were religious or not, because some people have that in them, regardless of belief.

Of course we do. Many suicide bombers tape themselves before their acts.

 

Your indoctrination is preventing you from seeing that their acts were completely within the doctrine of their religions. Just as murdering people for working on the sabbath is within yours. You (hopefully) choose not to follow that doctrine, but some might say that's because you aren't as devout within your religion as these people are within theirs. I can't argue that their behavior is immoral, but I do disagree with the assertion that it's because their acts fall outside Islam.

 

Furthermore, I disagree that this is something that "they just have in them". Not all oppressed people people become suicide bombers, yet some oppressed muslims become suicide bombers and their holy text promotes such behavior. I do not consider this a coincidence. If it's not "nurture", then it has to be "nature" and I think you'd have a very difficult time building a case for an arab genetic pre-disposition for murder/suicide.

 

I see a lot of idiots of all beliefs or non-beliefs. I don't think that it's just Christians and Muslims who have crackpots and extremists. And if they weren't Christian or Muslim, I'm sure they'd find something else to push.

No argument. However one should not put dangerous to themselves or others in room full of sharp things. Similarly, we shouldn't expose dangerous people to philosophical systems that promote murder, especially when the consquence of such murder is god's everlasting love.

 

The cultural eradication of religion won't rid the world of crackpots and lunatics, it will simply give them fewer places to hide.

 

Exodus is an oral history. Leviticus is in effect a collation of laws ( I think - haven't read it, I must admit. When I tried to read through the whole Bible, I gave up during the numerous begattings...). John is possibly the hardest to classify. I would say it is a historical account, possibly drawing on numerous previous accounts and lists of sayings, miracles, etc to make a specific theological point. I would also say it is one of the greatest literary pieces ever.

Exodus is not an accurate history, Leviticus is a largly a collect of laws, and John is widely considered to be a gnostic work. My point was is that we seem to be pretty comfortable picking and choosing which part of the bible to take literally (like Exodus) and which to ignore (like Leviticus) and are fuzzy about others (like G.John). So how is it that we mere mortals think we have the ability to understand god's intent (remember that the opening lines of G.John are the ones that tell us that the bible is the literal word of god)?

 

It seems that "we cannot know the will of god" gets tossed around pretty comfortably whenever we find a question that stumps religion, however we presume to know it quite well when it suits our needs. You might be tempted to point to canonical updates via revelation, but I would have to ask you to present a logically-sound argument for why such meanderings should be taken seriously.

 

For me, this is not an issue. The Sacred Tradition laid down by the Magisterium of the Church, being (we believe) inspired by God also, is of equal importance and relevance, and in a symbiotic relationship with the Sacred Scripture.

I will say nothing more than to point out that this is all based on supposition. In the mean time, the mental gymnastics remain.

 

Very simply, for the same reason that I accept Tacitus, Suetonius, Thucydides, elements of Herodotos, etc etc etc.

None of them were contemporaries of Jesus and their references to Christ or Christianity only show their familiarity with the cult. They do not make (nor could they make) any statements regarding the validity of the story.

 

It has been a stimulating discussion so far

Indeed. Take care

[Emperor Devon]

Adam and Eve were created to be perfect... it's just when they ate from the "Tree of Knowledge" that Sin entered the world...

 

That is entirely incorrect. But to avoid dragging the thread off-topic I'll just quote myself and drop this.

 

No, we would not have been better staying in the garden at all. One of the prime reasons is ignorance: before Adam and Eve ate from the tree, that is what they were. They didn't even know they were naked, for crying out loud.

 

But more importantly, they had no distinction between good and evil.

 

Thus, before consuming the fruit, man was not a moral agent. Logically, a rock, a tornado, or a dog cannot be considered moral agents. Intelligence is not the prime factor for such a thing, (great geniuses and fools can make moral decisions) but the ability to realize the morality of one's own actions. If a tornado destroys a house, did it commit an immoral act? No. It isn't a moral agent. Likewise, if a man set the same house on fire, would that have been immoral? Obviously, as he possessed the knowledge to know if it was immoral or not.

 

Thus, before they ate from the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve could not be considered fully moral, fully human beings. If you can't tell what's evil and what's good, is it possible for you to condemn immoral acts? To a dog, Stalin's brutal tortures would be equal morally to punishing someone for rape.

 

Before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, they were little different from a dog or a rock in terms of morals. The Bible itself says they only learned the distinction between good and evil upon consuming the fruit from it. As I explained earlier, being aware of the distinction between that is essential to being a moral person.

 

So what exactly was wrong with eating from the tree? Before they did, Adam and Eve were just as moral as a rock. After it, they were able to develop at least a basic set of ethics.

[Totenkopf]

Well, ED, if ignorance is bliss, I guess they were "perfectly" happy (at least till the serpant got in on the act).