How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?

Peg writes:

quote:

---

I have already explained numerous times that Adam and eve were told where eating from the tree would lead them. I've provided the scripture which clearly states it....'you will positively die'

---

Nobody denies this.But you're ignoring that you have another person saying that no, you won't die. The scripture clearly states it: "Ye shall not surely die."So how are Adam and Eve supposed to know what to believe?One of them is saying eating from the tree is beetaratagang. The other is saying it is clerendipity.Well, you're not stupid. You know the consequences. Should you choose the beetaratagang option or the clerendipity option?

quote:

---

He is not telling me what the consequences of either option will be.

---

Yes, I have. One will give you damnation. The other will give you salvation.Oh! You want to know which is which before you make the decision. Sorry, but that requires you eat from the tree. After you eat from the tree, then I'll let you know if eating from the tree was beetaratagang or clerendipity. But until you do, all you get is the choice.Which do you choose?Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

If he wants to make this a fair challenge, then in like manner, he needs to provide the consequences before i can make a choice.

---

I already have: Damnation and salvation. If you want to know which is which, you'll have to eat from the tree.

quote:

---

If he cannot do that, then his question is nothing more then a philosophical mind game.

---

So close! If you think the choice I'm asking you to make is a "philosophical mind game," what on earth do you think the choice was for Adam and Eve? They were asked to choose between good and evil when they didn't know what good and evil were.Yeah, god told them they would die. So? What does that mean to someone who doesn't know what good and evil are? Is dying good or bad? Wouldn't dying mean they'd be with god in their eternal reward? What could be better? So why not eat from the tree and get to heaven that much faster? And why would becoming as gods be bad? The fruit brings wisdom and surely there's nothing wrong with fulfilling one's complete potential, right?You're assuming that which you're trying to prove. Adam and Eve don't understand what good and evil are and yet they are being asked to make a choice between good and evil. You don't understand what beetaratagang and clerendipity are and yet you are being asked to make a choice between them.If you think it's ridiculous to ask it of you, how could it possibly have been fair to ask it of Adam and Eve?

quote:

---

Adam and Eve were not left in the dark with regard to the consequences of eating from the tree.

---

Neither have you. You know that one will lead you damnation while the other will lead you to salvation. If you want to know which is which, you'll have to eat from the tree first.Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

No one seems to accept that yet even though it is clearly stated in the passage.

---

Incorrect. We all accept it. What you are refusing to accept is that someone else contradicted what god said.So how are Adam and Eve supposed to know to listen to god? That requires they know what "good" is which they don't because they haven't eaten from the tree yet.Just as you haven't eaten from the tree yet to let you know which of beetaratagang and clerendipity leads to salvation and which leads to damnation. You understand the consequences, but you don't understand the relationship just as Adam and Eve understood the consequences (they weren't stupid) but didn't understand the relationship.Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

i just cant be bothered anymore

---

All you have to do is answer the question and we can move on.Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

a hebrew yom means 24 hours specifically

---

In general, yes. But, like English use of the word "day," you can indicate indefinite periods of time, but only if you phrase it in the right way. In English, we say, "in the day" to indicate an indefinite period of time. But, if we were to say, "You'll be gone for a day," we don't mean longer than 24 hours.Hebrew works the same way. "Yom" can be used to indicate indefinite periods of time, but only if it is phrased in a specific way. Genesis 2:17 does not use any phrasing to indicate an indefinite period of time but instead uses phrasing specifically indicating a literal, 24-hour day. When Adam was told that he would die on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge, it means before the sun sets.Of course, your justification of using New Testament scriptures has a problem: It's in Greek. Thus, you cannot apply it to Hebrew texts.

quote:

---

a dog year is exactly the same as a human year

---

Well, of course. There is no question about that. A year is a year is a year. A day is not as 100 years to a mayfly. It's a day.

quote:

---

Adam and eve had no idea what the consequences of eating from the tree would be

---

No, they understood the consequences. What they didn't understand is if those consequences would be good or bad because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

quote:

---

and the serpant is not satan

---

Since Judaism has no concept of the devil, this is obvious by simple inspection.

quote:

---

as John says

---

John doesn't say that. Misquoting text doesn't help your cause.

quote:

---

it was simply a talking snake who spoke the truth and Adam and eve did not die.

---

That's what the text says.

quote:

---

Great. Glad that you've all set me straight... i feel so enlightened.

---

We cannot control your feelings. But if you would simply answer the question, we might be able to move on:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

No, they were clearly told that eating from the tree would bring death. You are not giving me the same consideration.

---

Huh? What part of "damnation" do you not understand?Too, they were also clearly told that eating from the tree would not bring death. What part of "salvation" do you not understand?So you're in the same position Adam and Eve are in. One choice will lead to your salvation while the other will lead to your damnation. The problem is, you don't know which is which because that knowledge requires understanding good and evil which you don't understand yet because you haven't eaten from the tree.

quote:

---

you can keep asking as much as you like, but until you answer my question i will not answer. What are the consequences of each?

---

I've already told you: Salvation and damnation.Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to Huntard:

quote:

---

don't you see that this is why the tree of knowledge was a test of obedience and dependence on Gods soverignty as opposed to a tree that imparted special knowledge?

---

That's not what the text says. You seem to be very adept at switching from literal interpretations and metaphorical ones. The text indicates a literal impartation of special knowledge.Remember, they were sinning up a storm as they were running around naked without any shame: And as soon as they eat from the tree, the very first thing they panic over is not their disobedience of god, but the fact that they are naked: Even god understands this. When Adam tells them that they're naked, god's first question is to ask: Who told you? Why would that even cross his mind if being naked weren't a sin? Nobody would have thought of that, so who is this "who" that god is inquiring about? And if there were no special knowledge imparted from the tree, if it were simply a question of Adam and Eve making up their own morality, what does the timing of the tree have to do with anything? Why would their first act of moral pontificating be to eat from the tree? Why wouldn't it be shame over nakedness? Why would god even think to ask about the tree if it couldn't change Adam and Eve?

quote:

---

Lets bring the example closer to home: your government sets up rules, you obey those rules because you live under their governance. But now along comes someone from another country and tells you that the legal penalties will not be applied if you break the law, so what do you do?

---

I'm sorry...what are these terms "country," "government," "rules," and "law" you mention? I haven't eaten from the tree of state yet and so I don't know what the difference between "citizen" and "alien" is.

quote:

---

Along comes a stranger

---

"Stranger"? Who said the serpent was a stranger? It's described as the most intelligent beast around. Why do you assume Adam and Eve don't know it?

quote:

---

She goes ahead and breaks the law without consulting anyone.

---

And why would she? What possible resources does she have to let her make a choice between good and evil when she hasn't eaten from the tree yet and thus doesn't understand what good and evil are?

quote:

---

To make a choice not only do we need to know the consequences (as Adam and Eve did)

---

Which you also know: Salvation and damnation. Are you saying you don't know what those are?

quote:

---

we also need to know the person who gave us the choice in the first place.

---

What is that going to tell you? That depends upon you knowing the difference between good and evil which you don't because you haven't eaten from the tree yet.One entity told them they would die. The other entity told them they wouldn't. The former is an incompetent fool. The other is the most intelligent creature around.Why should Adam and Eve listen to the fool?

quote:

---

If that person had always been our protector and provider and had never left us without and his word was always truthful

---

Who on earth is this person you're referring to? It certainly isn't god. God didn't protect them (he left the tree of knowledge in the garden where they could get to it) nor did he provide for them (Adam had to till the ground for food). Adam was left absolutely alone.And on top of it: God directly and specifically lied to Adam. Eating of the tree would not cause them to die.

quote:

---

unlike a strange talking snake whom noone had ever seen before and especially with the knowledge that animals don't usually talk.

---

Huh? Where is the text that says the snake was a stranger that nobody had ever seen before? In fact, Adam and specifically met the serpent before: Adam knows the snake because Adam named the snake.And where do you find the text that says the animals in the garden didn't talk? After all, if it was so bizarre for animals to talk, why does Eve not find this to be unusual? Well, the snake is the smartest creature around...maybe that's the sign: It talks. So why wouldn't Eve listen to it?

quote:

---

You would have to know that something wasnt right about that whole situation, wouldnt you?

---

I'm sorry...what is this "right" that you mention? I haven't eaten from the tree of knowledge yet so I don't know right from wrong.

quote:

---

Or should we assume that A&E were dimwits who had no idea that snakes couldnt really talk?

---

No, we should understand that Adam and Eve were not stupid and that you are assuming that snakes couldn't talk.The snake is not the only animal that talks in the Bible. And when the ass talks to Balaam, he doesn't find it bizarre in any way.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg avoids the question yet again.Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One leads you to salvation, the other to damnation. Which do you choose?Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

quote:

---

All they knew up until that point was good.

---

No, they were sinning up a storm: They just didn't know they were sinning because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

quote:

---

They were perfect beings in perfect harmony with their creator.

---

Clearly not or they wouldn't have had to be told not to eat from the tree of knowledge. They would already have known.Too, god knows they were sinning up a storm because when he finds out that they know they're naked, god's first reaction is to think somebody told them. But who could have possibly told them being naked was a sin if being naked wasn't a sin? There isn't anybody who thinks that, so there's nobody to tell them. So why would god think somebody had?

quote:

---

They didnt need to 'know' good, they WERE good.

---

They were sinners. And the first thing they panic over upon learning good and evil is the fact that they're naked.

quote:

---

And they did know 'evil'...they knew eating from the tree WAS evil.

---

Why? Because god told them? Why should they believe god? They don't know what good and evil are, so they have no basis to think god is a more trustworthy source of information than the snake.Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One entity says one while the other entity says the other. Which do you choose?

quote:

---

That is what evil was...disobeying Gods commands was evil.

---

But they don't know that until after they eat from the tree.You're trying to game the system. You're trying to give Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil before they have eaten from the tree when the text specifically says that they don't learn what good and evil are until after: Even god knows that the defining moment was them actually eating from the tree and having their eyes opened: If you're going to misquote the text, it isn't going to help your argument.

quote:

---

Thats why, after they ate, they 'knew' evil...they had brought evil upon themselves and thereby experienced it...they knew it.

---

So why isn't the first thing they panic over their disobedience to god regarding eating from the tree? If the only thing that's a sin you are aware of is that you're not supposed to eat from the tree, wouldn't the first and only thing you panic over after you learn what good and evil are is that you ate from the tree?But it isn't. No, the very first thing they panic over is that they're naked. But according to you, that isn't a sin, so why do they even care? Ah, but even god knows it's a sin because he immediately recongizes that their shame over being naked is because they finally understand good and evil.Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg avoids the question yet again:

quote:

---

yet God told them eating would lead to death

---

Yet, the snake told them eating would not lead to death.So you're in the same position as Adam and Eve are. So please answer the question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?Hint: Is dying a good thing or an evil thing? How does not make that determination without knowing what good and evil are?

quote:

---

So, unlike me, they knew which one would lead to evil.

---

Who said death was evil? Who said knowledge was evil? And even if they did, how would you know that since you don't know what "evil" means?You know the consequences: Salvation or damnation. If you want to know which is which, you have to eat from the tree.Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

it doesnt work the same way.

---

Huh? You just destroyed your own argument. You're the one saying that the Bible is literal and that the creation days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days. Well, those use the word "yom" for "day." You then turn around and say that the day of Genesis 2 is 1000 years. Well, that also uses "yom" for "day."Something is clearly guiding you to interpret "yom" literally in one instance but metaphorically in another.You don't get to have it both ways, Peg. Either Hebrew understands the concept of metaphor and has multiple meanings for "yom" that are gleaned from contextual clues or it always means exactly the same thing without variation.

quote:

---

They are completely different languages with completely different gramatical structures.

---

Of course. But metaphor is metaphor. There isn't any language anywhere that doesn't use metaphor. No language is completely literal. Every single languages uses terms that have multiple meanings that extend concepts beyond their literal meanings to provide ways of describing things without having to have a different word for every single concept that might come along.

quote:

---

Its just that you are reading the verse from an english translation so to you it seems that the gramatics are the same because thats how the english interpreters have rendered the verse...thats what translators do.

---

I don't recall saying I was reading from an English translation, do you? Don't presume to think you know me or my background, Peg.The phrasing in Genesis 2 is very clear: "Yom" is being used to mean a literal, 24-hour day. More specifically, given the Jewish method of measuring days from sunset to sunset, the phrasing is indicative of a physical, literal death before the sun sets, heavily implied to mean immediately.

quote:

---

Here are some examples of how the hebrew grammar is FAR different to our english:

---

What on earth does that have to do with anything? The fact that Hebrew is using a VSO ordering rather than an SVO ordering as English uses has no bearing on the meaning of statements made in the language. Variations in English alter the word-order of the syntax (Gaelic speakers tend to do so given that Gaelic langauges tend to be VSO), but that hardly alters meaning. Go see The Beauty Queen of Leenane to see what I'm talking about. It's in English, but the characters are Irish and syntax is reversed all over the place. Yoda had this trait: "Grave danger you are in" is OSV, but the meaning is perfectly clear. Latin languages commonly reverse the order of modifiers compared to English, "Moulin Rouge" rather than "Red Windmill," but that doesn't change meaning.Surely you understand how ridiculous your argument is, yes?

quote:

---

The verses we are discussing are from the hebrew text...not the NT.

---

No, the verse you are using to justify your claim that Genesis 2 means 1000 years and not one day is from the New Testament, 2 Peter 3:8. That's a Greek text, not Hebrew and as was shown to you, it has absolutely nothing to do with Genesis or even anything to do with actual measurements of time but is a metaphorical (remember that concept?) description of patience. It is part of a statement that god does not work by man's schedule and all our insistence that the end of the world (for it is a statement about the end of the world) is going to happen soon (the way Jesus said it was) does not obligate god to bow to man's desire.So for somebody who is insistent that grammar is such an important thing, why are you trying to use a different language, which has a different grammar (Greek is usually VSO, but is often SVO for certain constructions where the subject is directly stated), to justify what something means in Hebrew?You don't get to have it both ways, Peg.

quote:

---

So whats with the book of Job?

---

What about it? Surely you don't think that the "Satan" mentioned in Job is the devil, do you? "Satan" means "Adversary" and is not an indicator of someone evil but rather someone who works for god. Satan observes humanity and seeks out sin. God makes a comment about righteousness in Job and Satan points out that his faith is bolstered by his blessings. God responds that Job would still maintain his righteousness even without them and then god sends him off to test Job.Job is not a story about a man being hounded by the devil. It is a story about faith being in god no matter what happens. All that happens to Job happens because of god's command. Satan does nothing to Job without god's direct orders to do so: Job is not being cursed by the devil but rather is being tested by god.

quote:

---

Quite a lengthy discussion in there about the Devil... do you deny that Job is a book of the Hebrew Scriptures?

---

Not at all.What I deny is that there is any mention of the devil in Job.Do not insert your Christian theology onto a Jewish text. Judaism is a monotheistic religion, heavy emphasis on the "mono." There is only one god, one power, one source of absolutely everything. That's why there is no devil and Jesus was clearly not the Messiah for he claimed to be the son of god, which is blasphemy. A son of god would mean that there are two and there is only one. A devil would mean that there is a power opposite god which would mean that there are two and there is only one.All things come from god: And most importantly: There can be only one.Now, please answer my question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?I say that eating from the tree is one while Huntard says it is the other. Which of us do you believe?Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

dont take me out of context. My comment above was to your claim that english and hebrew grammar work the same way.

---

It would be very nice if you would not play me for an idiot, Peg. You see, the nasty thing about the internet is that everything you post is saved forever. Message 200Now, it is clear to all but the most obstinate observer that I am not talking about grammar. Instead, I am talking about rhetoric. There is this thing in rhetoric called "idiom" where the way in which things are phrased determines meaning.Do you know what "grammar" means, Peg? "Grammar" is the physical structure of a language such as word order. Why is it English says, "Red Windmill," while French says, "Moulin Rouge"? That's grammar. Why is it English says, "The big, red balloon," and not, "The red, big balloon"? That's grammar. Now, grammar does affect meaning: In English, "It is" is a statement while "Is it" is a question. But the use of the word "day" to indicate both a literal, 24-hour day as well as an indefinite period of time based upon the phrasing in which the word is used is not an example of grammar. It's an example of metaphor, of idiom, of rhetoric. When we, in English, say that someone "kicked the bucket," we don't mean that a foot applied an abrupt force to a pail. We mean that somebody died. That's metaphor. Whether we phrase it as "kicked the bucket" or "the bucket was kicked" is immaterial as the meaning is not to be found in the word order but rather in the phrasing.And just as English uses the word that usually refers to a single rotation of the earth upon its axis to also mean long stretches of time when phrased in certain ways, Hebrew also uses the word that usually refers to a single rotation of the earth upon its axis to also mean long stretches of time when phrased in a certain way. That isn't grammar. That's idiom and metaphor.You are depending upon this very thing in your claim that life, the universe, and everything is only about 6000 years old while at the same time saying that god didn't lie when he said that on the "day" that Adam ate from the tree, he would die even though he lived for more than 800 years after that moment. The exact same word, "yom," is used in both places. But the only way it can possibly mean "literal, 24-hour day" in one instance while meaning "extended, indeterminate period of time" in another is if there are idioms and metaphors within the language that allow a single word to have multiple meanings.My point is that yes, "yom" can mean periods of time beyond 24 hours just like "day" can mean periods of time beyond 24 hours. But, the only way it can do so is when it is phrased in a certain way.Genesis 2 does not use that phrasing. Instead, it uses phrasing that indicates not only that Adam would die before the sun set, but even more dramatically, he would expire on the spot.Now, the question is why you would accuse me of "taking you out of context" when you were not exactly truthful in your description of my statement. Remember, Peg, all of our words remain and can be recalled at any time. It would behoove you to avoid bearing false witness for it is trivial to show your errors.

quote:

---

I said 'it doesnt work the same way'

---

Yes, but only because you decided to talk about a completely different subject. That is, you physically did say that Hebrew and English don't work the same way, but only because the "same way" you were referring to was grammatical structure, not the actual way I was referring to which is the way in which the word for a 24-hour period can also be used to refer to longer periods of time if it is phrased in a certain way.

quote:

---

While the hebrew word means 'resister', the Satan in this verse uses the definite article has.Sa.tan

​

So its 'the resister'

---

The most common translation is "adversary." But the point you are missing is that this character is not an adversary to god. How can he be when he is a subject of god and carries out his orders? No, the character of Satan is an adversary to humanity. He goes about the earth observing humans to see what they are up to and root out sin.

quote:

---

Whoever this angle is mentioned in job, he is an angel who became a resister and enemy of God.

---

Says who? Christians? Why should anybody believe a single word a Christian has to say about Judaism? It is arrogance at best to force your mythology onto somebody else's.

quote:

---

In the NT he is identified as the 'devil' AND 'satan' and they are the same thing.

---

But we're not talking about the New Testament. We're talking about the Torah. Are you about to claim that Jews don't understand their own religion? There is no such thing as the devil in Judaism. Ergo, the character of "Satan" as described in the book of Job cannot be the devil for there is no such thing.

quote:

---

And im sorry to contradict you here, but those who first spoke about the devil WERE jews.

​

Christianity was started by Jews.

---

The moment they turned away from god to follow this "Christ" fellow, they ceased being Jews.What part of "thou shalt have no other gods before me" are you having trouble with?Now, please answer my question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

If it were never Gods purpose for Adam and Eve (and their children) to live forever, why is that prospect a central theme in the bible?

---

It isn't. You're confusing a Christian mythology for a Jewish one. There is no afterlife in Judaism; at the very least not anything like what the Christians claim.Now, please answer my question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to Huntard:

quote:

---

Yes, you can. Jesus did because he understood that the bible was written by one author for all mankind. There is a theme that runs thru the entire bible and everything is interlinked and inertwined....that what makes studying it so interesting.

---

Strange how the people who wrote the Torah don't seem to think all that stuff that was written centuries after has any connection.Or are you trying to tell Jews that they don't understand their own religion again?Now, please answer my question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Or are you trying to tell Jews that they don't understand their own religion again?

---

​

the fact is that judaism today has changed greatly from what it was when genesis was written

---

So that would be a yes. You know better than Jews what Judaism really means.Now, please answer my question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.