How can evolution be true if there are no between-stage fossils? (+ 1 more question)

[QUOTE][B]If you have no real concept of right or wrong, good or evil what does the concept of consequences mean to you? Nothing.[/QUOTE][/B]The warning was in the form of, 'If you eat of the tree, then you will die.' I think that one can understand consequences without understanding good or evil. I can throw an apple up in the air and understand that it can smack me in the head on the way down as a result of my action but it doesn't mean there is anything evil about it. The question is whether one who has not seen death (physical or spiritual) can truely comprehend the warning. That I think is a valid issue that needs to be discussed. At any rate, a great deal was learned from eating the Tree of Knowledge, both of agency and consequences.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-18-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Die, what's a die? Remember, they had no concept of death either since there was none (Physical or otherwise).[/QUOTE][/B]Uh yeah Nos. I mentioned that. [QUOTE][B]Like I had said, do you toss your children out into the streets with nothing the very first time they may have disobeyed you and they were too ignorant to realize what they had done?[/QUOTE][/B]I don't see it that way. The fall was a good thing. The warning was just that, a warning, not a commandment.One of our peculiar Scriptures: "Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy." [QUOTE][B]This is the main flaw in the myth of Adam and Eve.[/QUOTE][/B]If you don't understand it.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-18-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Then any warning would have been totally meaningless.[/QUOTE][/B]No, it wasn't meaningless because Eve was able to state the consequences of eating the fruit to the serpent. [QUOTE][B]Then why not let them eat of the apple in the first place? [/QUOTE][/B]They were allowed to eat the apple in the first place. It was their own agency. God did not stop them from eating it. He could have but didn't. [QUOTE][B]Or do you believe that in order to get anything you have to steal it?[/QUOTE][/B]Red herring.

[QUOTE][B]That is a contradiction[/QUOTE][/B]Yeah it's a contradiction. It contradicts your position.
Now you need to either support your position or concede defeat. [QUOTE][B]Plus, this is just a means of blaming women for the pain and suffering of Mankind.[/QUOTE][/B]Irrelevant. Silly also. [QUOTE][B]Unless you also believe that women are wicked by their very nature as this myth seems to be implying?[/QUOTE][/B]Red herring. [QUOTE][B]Even after he/she/it told them not to because they would die? Another contradiction.[/QUOTE][/B]No, they were told that the consequence of their action would be death. Not a contradiction. [QUOTE][B]You sure like fish.[/QUOTE][/B]There's another useless, err, "contribution". Canada needs to teach epistemology.

(Irrelevant Crap Deleted) [QUOTE][B]Consequence is a meaningless concept to one who doesn't understand the concepts of right/wrong or good/evil as well.[/QUOTE][/B]Consequence is relevant to any entity capable of the most basic problem solving. A mouse can learn that by pressing a button in its cage food will pour out of a trap door. That is consequence. The mouse doesn't have any concept of right or wrong or good and evil but it has some grasp of cause and effect. [QUOTE][B]At lease we are taught something.[/QUOTE][/B]What and by whom? The TV?

[QUOTE][B]There was no pain or suffering in the garden before they ate of the apple. So consequences of any kind have no meaning. There would be no such thing as a mousetrap of anykind, because the lamb laid down with the lion.[/QUOTE][/B]I'm not talking about mousetraps, I'm talking about consequences. Pay attention. I flip a light switch and the light comes on, that's a consequence. The concept of consequences is independant of knowledge of good and evil. [QUOTE][B]Take any three year old and leave them alone in the yard, with the gate open, and then see just how long it will take them to get in to the middle of traffic, even after you told them not to.[/QUOTE][/B]Adam and Eve understood that there were consequences in eating the apple. They were not like young children, they were reasonable adults, with the exception that they could not tell the difference between good and evil. They *knew* there would be changes if they ate of the tree.Your problem is that you do not understand the difference between cause and effect and good and evil.I don't understand how that is considering it is a painfully easy concept to understand. I think you are just incapable of accepting that you are wrong. [QUOTE][B](Well, not those of us who are civilized that is.)[/QUOTE][/B]Canada is civilized? Probably so, I guess you're just a very bad representative.

[QUOTE][B]What are negative consequences when there is no pain or suffering?[/QUOTE][/B]I personally, have never been run over by a steam roller but I can use some pretty simple reasoning to figure out that I would rather
*not* endure that kind of pain.Negative consequences are negative consequences, you don't have to
already have familiarity with them to comprehend them. [QUOTE][B]Wrong. They were children, of mind and experience if not body. There was no need to be at any other level of understanding since there was no need to know of survival either.[/QUOTE][/B]Mere assertion. You don't even believe they were real, so how do you think you're going to support this? [QUOTE][B]Who told you this? Are you speculating?[/QUOTE][/B]No I'm not speculating, I've actually read Genesis.You might try it sometime if you want to actually have some simple understanding of what we are discussing. [QUOTE][B]Irrelevant in this context. I also said right/wrong.[/QUOTE][/B]Your claim that they did not understand right and wrong and good and evil is irrelevant to whether or not they understood cause and effect. [QUOTE][B]You are going by what things are like now. None of this was suppose to have existed BEFORE they ate of the apple. Haven't you read the myth, or at least have someone read it to you?[/QUOTE][/B]I've read multiple versions of it, versions you do not even know exist.I'm wondering you have read even one. [QUOTE][B]Do you understand perfection?[/QUOTE][/B]Do you understand the concept of cause and effect? [QUOTE][B]Must be one with more pictures than words.[/QUOTE][/B]I liked Jet better. His insults were of far higher caliber than yours. He was a self-righteous YEC though, as opposed to a self-right "agnostic". [QUOTE][B]But what can I expect, you believe in fairy tales as if they were real.[/QUOTE][/B]Another ridiculous ad-hominem.When are you going to learn how to debate? I thought you
had potential in the beginning but you're not progressing.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-19-2002]

[QUOTE][B]I was right, talking to you is like talk with Wordswordsman[/QUOTE][/B]As I said, you don't know how a debate works and you aren't showing
any signs of progress.Did you suddenly get tired of our little discussion of Japan?

[QUOTE][B]Here you are a theist and think that sacrificing one life for another is ok[/QUOTE][/B]I think that sacrificing one's life willingly is the highest expression of valor there is.But in war I think that it is sometimes necessary to kill. [QUOTE][B]and I'm an agnostic[/QUOTE][/B]You're no agnostic because you're as sure there is no God as I am sure there is a God. That makes you an atheist. Why you won't
'fess up to that is beyond me. Maybe "atheist" has negative connotations and you think "agnostic" is more PC. Or maybe it is trendier. Whatever you like, I guess.

[QUOTE][B]BTW, it was not Satan, but a serpent. Satan, or Lucifer, didn't fall until much later. He defied god by falling in love with a woman.[/QUOTE][/B]ROTFLMAO.Like suicidal lemmings, Mormon arranged marriages, Joseph's Smith miraculous resurrection to write a prophecy after the fact, and
the William Shakespeare edition of the KJV?Where are you getting this? I'm quite sure you don't have enough background in religion to have heard this anywhere else but a thirdhand source, such as....TV?

[QUOTE][B]Not having knowledge of right and wrong (which is effectively the issue) does not mean that one cannot understand a warning not to do something.[/QUOTE][/B]Exactly. A child doesn't have to know anything about good vs evil but if they touch a hot stove they will know not to do it again.Good luck trying to explain the obvious.