Was it fair to kick Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden?

[EtuMalku]

God, having created Adam & Eve 'in his own image' he then ordered them not to touch the fruit of 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' in the middle of the garden, on pain of death. But along comes the talking serpent saying to Eve: "Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?"

Eve dutifully repeats God's words and the serpent responds "you will not surely die . . . for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

If the serpent's intentions were merely for mankind to Fall from Grace, it would not have been so clearly spelled out for Eve & Adam. The serpent IS Lucifer and is caring for mankind's intellectual development.

The symbolism of the snake/serpent is an old one dating back to Egypt and the cobra / Uraeus used for the head-dress of royalty, meaning 'Lord of Life and Death', the ultimate earthly power.

The snake/serpent is also the ancient metaphor for the Hindu sacred sexual power of Kundalini.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Biblical Serpent is metaphorically Lucifer, the Bringer of Light, Knowledge, and Gnosis, that there is a path other than that of God and the Serpent/Lucifer showed us this glorious Path.

 

[outhouse]

Returning to Eden - Ancient Roots

this page has some great history

Adamu” is the name in Sumerian mythology for the first man, created by “Enki”, the creator god and inventor of civilization. Adam is Hebrew for “man”, and adamah is a Hebrew word signifying dust and earth, and in Aramaic signifying blood. Havva — Hebrew for “Eve” — in Hebrew signifies life.
In the Sumerian myth, magical food is the source of immortality, not the source of its downfall, and Adamu is tricked to not eat it (the gods tell him it is poisonous), and thereby remains mortal. The Hebrew biblical account also describes such a life-giving magical food — the food of the “tree of life”, distinct from the forbidden “tree of knowledge of good and evil” — and it is chiefly to deprive them of the immortality bestowed by the fruit of the tree of life, that God exiles Adam and Eve from the garden. The tale of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-16) parallels tales in Sumerian mythology of rivalries between farmer and herder gods.
Genesis 11:26-31 and 17:5-8 teach that Abraham himself, vaunted father of nations, is a native of the Sumerian city Ur (southeast Iraq, near the ancient mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates) under Chaldean suzerainty, growing up there some time in the second millenium BCE, and departing for Canaan (Israel and environs). Abraham's father Terah adhered to the Sumerian mythology, and was a maker and seller of idols, but Abraham rejected polytheism and his father's idols, and managed a remarkable escape from the Chaldean king's sentence of death for his heresy. Joshua 24:2 records the break: “And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.” In any case, the similarity of the Torah's cosmogony to the Sumerian epic may be evidence that the biblical tales of Abraham are at least partially historical.
Monotheism was first consolidated in the nation of Judah by King Josiah (reigned ca. 641-609 BCE). But soon thereafter, the Chaldeans sacked Jerusalem and forced the Hebrews into exile in Babylon (597-538 BCE), under king Nebuchadrezzar II (605-562 BCE) and his successors. This captivity culminated in the syncretion of proto-Judaism with the Zoroastrianism of their Persian liberator, and the commitment of the Torah to writing. Zoroastrianism, founded ca. 750 BCE, is incidentally but one representative of the descendents of a common prehistoric Indo-European religion; among the other representative mythologies are Hindu, Norse, Greek, and Roman. Zoroastrianism contributes to the Eden myth the very word “paradise”, deriving from the Avestan (Old Persian) pairidaēza. This was the term used in Zoroastrian Persia to refer to the king's enclosed garden parks. The Hebrew in Genesis 2:8 for “garden of Eden” is gan-be'Eden — gan signifies not just a garden, but a walled garden, and Eden is not just a proper name, but a Hebrew term for “delight”. The garden motif even draws direct inspiration from Nebuchadrezzar II, who (according to legend) built “hanging gardens” in Babylon to please his homesick wife Amyitis, daughter of Median king Cyaxares (625-585 BCE). The Medes commanded a vast and verdant pre-Persian, partly Zoroastrian empire east of Chaldea, and the marriage cemented an alliance of the two empires. In fact the Old Persian pairidaēza is believed to have its root in the Mede language, which was in any case quite similar to Old Persian and the other Indo-Iranian languages of the region.
It seems inescapable that, to arrive at the creation mythology articulated by the postexilic authors of Genesis, the Hebrews conflated their ancestral Sumerian cosmogony and cultural inheritance, tales of the Zoroastrian king's idyllic garden in the east, and the Zoroastrian doctrine that the world created by Ahura Mazda was a paradise, spoiled by the evil Ahriman, but to be restored to its paradisiacal condition in the eschaton, as prophesied by Zoroaster. Before this syncretion, neither Satan nor the divine messiah (nor a great many other key doctrines) existed in the Judaic canon — all supernatural acts and promises were attributed directly to the covenant god Yahweh (or, before Josiah's monotheistic edicts, to any number of gods in a heterodox pantheon).

Cyrus the Great


The Hebrews were surely inclined to sympathy with the Zoroastrian worldview, because it was the Zoroastrian king Cyrus the Great (reigned ca. 546 to 529 BCE), imperial uniter of the Medes and Persians, who delivered them from their Chaldean captivity, and instigated construction of the second Temple in Jerusalem. Isaiah 44:28-45:1 records a sympathy so great it smacks of open kinship: “That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him”. In 538 BCE, Cyrus commissioned the Judaic prince Sheshbazzar to lead the return to Jerusalem, and carry back the sacred vessels confiscated by the Chaldean empire at the start of the exile. As told in the first chapter of the Book of Ezra, the universal god of the Israelites and the universal god of Cyrus are the same god: “Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD [“Yahweh”] God [“Elohim”] of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.” Under the patronage of the ardently Zoroastrian king Darius (reigned 521 to 485 BCE), Zorobabel (also transliterated Zerubbabel, as in the Book of Haggai) in ca. 520 BCE led another company of Babylonian Hebrews back to Jerusalem, assumed governorship of the city under royal dispensation, and completed the second Temple. Zorobabel is mentioned in Matthew 1:12-13 as a 29[SIZE=-1]th[/SIZE] generation lineal descendent of Abraham, and a tenth generation lineal ancestor of Joseph (husband of Mary, mother of Jesus of Nazareth), though this account is immediately suspect because it requires fifty year generations between Zorobabel and Joseph. In any case, in the immediate postexilic period, there is no clear boundary, either political or religious, between the Zoroastrian establishment and the tribes of Israel. It was during this period that the Torah was committed to writing. Moreover, the “wise men from the east” of Matthew 2:1, the pilgrims come to Israel to pay homage to the infant Jesus, are in fact emissaries of the Zoroastrian court of Persia (magi), come to honor the child they believe is the Zoroastrian messiah. Regardless of the historicity, this account continues the biblical pattern that considers messianic Judaism and Zoroastrianism to be the same religion. While it might be coincidental, the Star of David, now the centerpiece of the national flag of Israel, was an important symbol in Zoroastrian astrology.

At its mythological root paradise was almost certainly believed to be in the celestial heavens, coming to prehistoric earth only through narrative modification. The words for heaven and for paradise are the same in a great many euroasiatic languages, including the Indo-European languages, Hebrew, and Korean.
As Islamic scholars understand it, the Qur'an places Eden itself in heaven, so that it can only be reached through death (particularly, by martyrdom). Correspondingly, Islamic doctrine holds that the forbidden fruit of Eden was in fact ineffectual, and it was the devil who tempted a mortal Adam to eat it, telling him falsely that it would give him immortality, whereas his betrayal of god simply led god to eject him from paradise.
Thus there are three principal permutations of the myth. In the first, the Sumerian version, a mortal Adam is in an earthly Eden, and a life-giving fruit is not eaten, due to divine trickery. In the Judeo-Christian version, an immortal Adam is in an earthly Eden with two fruit trees, one giving the immortal life of a god, the other a forbidden one giving the vision of a god, eaten at the instigation of a diabolical serpent (divine trickery). In the Islamic version, a mortal Adam is in an ethereal Eden, and a false fruit is eaten at the instigation of the devil. The confusion of earthly and heavenly paradise recurs within and between the extant religious canons (including the Indic canons), facilitating acceptance of the Edenic movement's promise of earthly paradise. For example, in America, some radicalized Muslims are explicit Edenists (this is the Taliyah movement, broached below in the Keeping Eden Green chapter). Though for utopians frank introspection and circumspection is generally alien, they stand to learn a great deal about their movement from an appreciation that in most of the world, for most of history, paradise has been associated with death, and in particular, with the end of life.

 

[Thief]

Evolution is a theory based on observable FACTS. there is no debate on evolution by anyone with half a education and there is no debate among the scientific community or biology or geology.

is gravity a theory???

this is a direct sign of your lack of education, your misquoting scientific theory for a hypothisis

Okay...look it up.

Theory is an .....explanation.

Evolution is a good explanation...but no more than that.

And experiments done today are strong ...indications.
Current experiments support the theory.

But you will need that missing link.
Otherwise the Genesis event...Chapter Two is the outstanding explanation for Man's divergence from the animal kingdom.

Unless you claim to be a talking monkey.
The angels might agree on this.

 

[Thief]

God, having created Adam & Eve 'in his own image' he then ordered them not to touch the fruit of 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' in the middle of the garden, on pain of death. But along comes the talking serpent saying to Eve: "Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?"

Eve dutifully repeats God's words and the serpent responds "you will not surely die . . . for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

If the serpent's intentions were merely for mankind to Fall from Grace, it would not have been so clearly spelled out for Eve & Adam. The serpent IS Lucifer and is caring for mankind's intellectual development.

The symbolism of the snake/serpent is an old one dating back to Egypt and the cobra / Uraeus used for the head-dress of royalty, meaning 'Lord of Life and Death', the ultimate earthly power.

The snake/serpent is also the ancient metaphor for the Hindu sacred sexual power of Kundalini.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Biblical Serpent is metaphorically Lucifer, the Bringer of Light, Knowledge, and Gnosis, that there is a path other than that of God and the Serpent/Lucifer showed us this glorious Path.

Are you implying the 'path' to heaven can be circumvented?
That entry into the kingdom can be done...without God's permission?

 

[gnostic]

Okay...look it up.

Theory is an .....explanation.

Evolution is a good explanation...but no more than that.

And experiments done today are strong ...indications.
Current experiments support the theory.

But you will need that missing link.
Otherwise the Genesis event...Chapter Two is the outstanding explanation for Man's divergence from the animal kingdom.

Sorry, but this is stupid. I know that sounds harsh, but your logic is illogical.

Did you know that Newton's Law on Gravity (including its theory) is no where complete?

Evidences support gravity. But Newton's theory is only valid on earth. Beyond the confine of the earth, his theory is useless. Which is where the theory of relativity comes in. Einstein expanded on the theory of gravity.

So if Newton's law and theory is useless in astronomical term, then according to your faulty logic, then there are NO FACTS in Newton's theory or law because it isn't complete.

Also, using your logic, Einstein's theories on both Special Relativity and General Relativity are also incomplete, because it doesn't take into subatomic particles, which can only be explained through Quantum Mechanic. That being the case, using your analogy of completeness, then the Theory of Relativity is not a fact.

But since General Relativity and Quantum Mechanic are incompatible, then Quantum Mechanic can't be considered to be fact. So there are some people trying to unify the two theories, using String Theory. And this would go on, and on.

Do you know how stupid this logic of yours is?

The evidences support evolution NOW, so by scientific definition, the theory of evolution is also a fact.

Unless you claim to be a talking monkey.
The angels might agree on this.

And BTW. Genesis 3 has a talking serpent. Unless you think snake can talk in human tongue is possible, then this Genesis 2 and 3 is nothing more than useless as fact. Try F-A-B-L-E!!!!

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed before. Didn't spot anything like this while I was skimming through.

If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of the concepts of good and evil, they had no way to know that disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit was actually wrong. They didn't obtain that knowledge until after their transgression. So, was it actually fair for them to be punished?

Adam and Eve were not punished by being cast out of the Garden of Eden for having eaten from the tree of knowledge. The reason they had to leave was to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and live forever. (Gen. 3:22) It means that eternity, belongs only to God. And that it was not among the attributes granted to man. Therefore, this is not an issue of being unfair of God but the Divine way to let us know why we all have to die. Because we were born. That's the natural law of genesis and destruction that matter must go through.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If your highlighted quote is correct...then God lied.

And are you not assuming that death was unknown?
And also assuming Adam to be the first of all men?

Death was unknown. Adam and Eve had no concept of death at all. To them, it meant nothing. Then they ate the fruit and it had meaning.

 

[outhouse]

Okay...look it up.

Theory is an .....explanation.

Evolution is a good explanation...but no more than that.

And experiments done today are strong ...indications.
Current experiments support the theory.

But you will need that missing link.
Otherwise the Genesis event...Chapter Two is the outstanding explanation for Man's divergence from the animal kingdom.

Unless you claim to be a talking monkey.
The angels might agree on this.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you need to have a education if you want to deabte

or you will continue to make yourself look foolish

 

[reve]

They were told not to eat living things (tree of life) and given fruit, herbs and wheat to eat but she just had to cook something up that the others were allowed to eat, prabably bacon, which smelled excellent to both of them. The 'others' were the first race created - see Genesis - before Adam and Eve were 'created' around 4000BC. Jericho was inhabited since 7000BC.They were set up because the serpent is also the Supreme Being Vishnu. But it had to happen so these new genes could survive in a hostile world. Note that their descendants took blood out of the animals they ate as the injunction was against anything that contained the blood of life (not plants for example but certainly including fish). Now we all need to stop eating meat except the remote tribes. Also that their sons fell out over this vegetarian/meat eater thing (as did Jacob & Esau). This was because cain objected to God starting to expect them to all become meat eaters as he thought it was disgusting (like any Brahmin) so he killed his flesh devouring brother who was making bacon sacrifices that the Gods had taken a fancy to at the time. Those that fell anyway.

 

[Crown College ofthe Bible]

If Genesis is true ....it stands of it's own merit.....
or maybe Moses lied.

I happen to believe Genesis.
Day Six...Man as a species....
go forth be fruitful....no law...no names...no restrictions...
dominate all things....(including each other)....

Day Seven...God rests...no more will be created.

Chapter Two is not a story of creation.
It is a report of manipulation.

Adam was a chosen son of God.
That he lived so long is testimony to ideal living conditions.
The garden was an isolated experiment.

Man needed an alteration.
He got it.

Having received....the garden was no longer needed.
Adam and Eve would then be...on their own.

Why do you think they lied?

 

[gnostic]

Death was unknown. Adam and Eve had no concept of death at all. To them, it meant nothing. Then they ate the fruit and it had meaning.

I had a similar theory to this in another thread.

I had stated that if they were the first people, then when god say that they will die if they ate the forbidden fruit. I don't see how can fully understand the consequence, because they have never seen or experience death in their short life. I doubt they have even animal dying or dead before they ate the fruit.

As you have said the concept of death would be meaningless to them, even when Eve parroted what God commanded to the serpent.

And since Eve have not yet eat the fruit of knowledge of good and bad, then she could not possibly know if what the serpent said to her to be true or a lie. For this reason, Eve couldn't tell what have been said to be good or bad, from the serpent, and from God.

Only when they ate the fruit, did their "eyes opened" and became aware of good and bad, and only then they realised they did something wrong, like they had disobeyed God for instance.

When Adam was given the fruit, then why did he eat it?

He, of all people, shouldn't have known it was wrong to eat the fruit. I didn't see any objection from Adam. My opinion is this: That's because he still didn't know right from wrong, so he also ate the fruit.

To me, God's commandment and punishment for them (in Genesis 2 & 3) seemed illogical. He (God) had put them in no-win situation.

The only way to resolve this story the way it happened in Genesis is that -

GOD WANTED THEM TO FAIL!
​

There is no way for Adam and Eve to fulfill his 1st two decrees to human, which was to rule the animal kingdom and the world and multiply like rabbits:

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

They can't do this, if they remained in the Garden Paradise, where all they need to do, to feed themselves were to pick fruit from trees, without working for their food.

In order to survive in the world, outside of Paradise, they must work for their food. I am assuming the Garden is limited in size, so can't hold large population. They must be able to grow their own food, either through farming or through livestock and cattle, or even hunting.

They must also know right from wrong, if they need to make life-or-death decision.

That's my theory.

 

[Thief]

Sorry, but this is stupid. I know that sounds harsh, but your logic is illogical.

Did you know that Newton's Law on Gravity (including its theory) is no where complete?

Evidences support gravity. But Newton's theory is only valid on earth. Beyond the confine of the earth, his theory is useless. Which is where the theory of relativity comes in. Einstein expanded on the theory of gravity.

So if Newton's law and theory is useless in astronomical term, then according to your faulty logic, then there are NO FACTS in Newton's theory or law because it isn't complete.

Also, using your logic, Einstein's theories on both Special Relativity and General Relativity are also incomplete, because it doesn't take into subatomic particles, which can only be explained through Quantum Mechanic. That being the case, using your analogy of completeness, then the Theory of Relativity is not a fact.

But since General Relativity and Quantum Mechanic are incompatible, then Quantum Mechanic can't be considered to be fact. So there are some people trying to unify the two theories, using String Theory. And this would go on, and on.

Do you know how stupid this logic of yours is?

The evidences support evolution NOW, so by scientific definition, the theory of evolution is also a fact.



And BTW. Genesis 3 has a talking serpent. Unless you think snake can talk in human tongue is possible, then this Genesis 2 and 3 is nothing more than useless as fact. Try F-A-B-L-E!!!!

Finally someone else who is actually reading the stuff they claim to know....

And true Newton's notions are shallow....
his down to earth acceleration equation is good here.

But this won't support you...it holds you down.

Genesis is one part metaphor....one part actual events.

And yes sorting out what is spiritual, and what is of body, does seem to be the jest of all these topic threads about Man.

 

[reve]

If you want to take Genesis literally you can but you have to read it carefully and note that the experts consider it to be written by two different authors, both their tales meshed together. There is a priestly author who writes from the spiritual side. Genesis clearly states that God had created sea creatures first (1:21) having explained that the 'waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life'.(1:20). True it is now thought we originated as tube worms near a volcanic vent in the sea. Life began in the sea and slowly became amphibian, came out of the sea like turtles, sea snakes etc. Then he makes the animals (1:25). Then he makes man 'in our image' ...'male and female created he them (1:27). he gave them 'every herb bearing seed...and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed to you it shall be for meat' (1:29). Fairly clear so far and sure enough we descend from vegetarians like apes. God thought this was 'very good' 9DAY 6 1:31. Then God makes another man and he becomes a 'living soul' (2:7) and every tree that 'is good for food' (2:9) plus the tree of living things and the tree of knowledge. Eve arrives in 2:18 as a help for the man who is first named as Adam in 2:19 but is not named till Eve (actually:Chevah or living) till 3:20. They ere naked but after eating meat needed to be clothed in the skins of the animals they were killing (3:21). Their children were Abel a keeper of sheep (bedouin) and Cain a tiller of the ground (fellahin) (4:2) two tribes constantly warring thereafter.

There is a karmic problem eating meat is the message I take from this and it has shortened our lifespans.

 

[gnostic]

And true Newton's notions are shallow....
his down to earth acceleration equation is good here.

Not true. It is not shallow.

His theory, his law were brilliant, for that time. Although, Newton was an astronomer, as well as physicist and mathematician, he was Newton wasn't seeking to know the secret of deep space, so there was no need for go beyond what Kepler and Galileo know. Newton's law and equations are still used today, in engineering. If you are mechanical, civil or structural engineer, then learning general relativity would be completely useless to you.

You have to understand that Newton made the first step, and Einstein took the step beyond that, viewing gravity in more astronomical scope. Probably someone in the future will go even further than Einstein's relativity, that Einstein never dream of.

That's the nature of science. It's called progress, taking it one step at the time.

But getting back to evolution. Darwin's theory was not simply hypothesis, something that he just thought of. He actually investigated observable evidences during his voyage on the Beagle. He noted different species and subspecies from both wildlife and fossils.

After his death, scientists kept finding new evidences to support his theory.

Sure there were mistake made by some scientists, but it is the other scientists that prove those mistakes or flawed logic/interpretation of evidences, so science is self-correcting.

Only idiots or stubborn creationists would ignore the whole history of evidences that have already validated his theory as being scientific fact. They don't understand that every single fields in science have their own theories. They failed to understand the difference between theory and hypothesis.

 

[blackout]

What's fair?

 

[Ben Masada]

They were told not to eat living things (tree of life) and given fruit, herbs and wheat to eat but she just had to cook something up that the others were allowed to eat, prabably bacon, which smelled excellent to both of them. The 'others' were the first race created - see Genesis - before Adam and Eve were 'created' around 4000BC. Jericho was inhabited since 7000BC.They were set up because the serpent is also the Supreme Being Vishnu. But it had to happen so these new genes could survive in a hostile world. Note that their descendants took blood out of the animals they ate as the injunction was against anything that contained the blood of life (not plants for example but certainly including fish). Now we all need to stop eating meat except the remote tribes. Also that their sons fell out over this vegetarian/meat eater thing (as did Jacob & Esau). This was because cain objected to God starting to expect them to all become meat eaters as he thought it was disgusting (like any Brahmin) so he killed his flesh devouring brother who was making bacon sacrifices that the Gods had taken a fancy to at the time. Those that fell anyway.

You must be kidding! That's the most hilarious post I have ever read.

 

[Thief]

Not true. It is not shallow.

His theory, his law were brilliant, for that time. Although, Newton was an astronomer, as well as physicist and mathematician, he was Newton wasn't seeking to know the secret of deep space, so there was no need for go beyond what Kepler and Galileo know. Newton's law and equations are still used today, in engineering. If you are mechanical, civil or structural engineer, then learning general relativity would be completely useless to you.

You have to understand that Newton made the first step, and Einstein took the step beyond that, viewing gravity in more astronomical scope. Probably someone in the future will go even further than Einstein's relativity, that Einstein never dream of.

That's the nature of science. It's called progress, taking it one step at the time.

But getting back to evolution. Darwin's theory was not simply hypothesis, something that he just thought of. He actually investigated observable evidences during his voyage on the Beagle. He noted different species and subspecies from both wildlife and fossils.

After his death, scientists kept finding new evidences to support his theory.

Sure there were mistake made by some scientists, but it is the other scientists that prove those mistakes or flawed logic/interpretation of evidences, so science is self-correcting.

Only idiots or stubborn creationists would ignore the whole history of evidences that have already validated his theory as being scientific fact. They don't understand that every single fields in science have their own theories. They failed to understand the difference between theory and hypothesis.

Severe digression here....
But just a note....
Einstein died knowing he didn't find what he sought.

And evolution is still a theory....not that I don't believe it...I do.

But theory is not fact.
As defined by Webster's......
An imaginative contemplation of reality.

The theory is good...I like it....
But it does not show cause to count God out.

There is still that point of divergence...wherein Man took a step of progression.....rather rapidly.

Maybe you know where that 'rib' might be found?

 

[gnostic]

Severe digression here....

Sorry.

Einstein died knowing he didn't find what he sought.

And your being?

You do understand that there are more science of Relativity than just Albert Einstein, don't you?

He may have written papers on General Relativity, but his works were carried on by other scientists. His knowledge on the matter (his theory) has been revised because of new information, new discovery and new evidences.

And evolution is still a theory....not that I don't believe it...I do.

But theory is not fact.
As defined by Webster's......
An imaginative contemplation of reality.

Once again, another theist who don't understand the difference between theory and hypothesis.

There's more to theory in science than those found in dictionary, like the Webster. Look up science textbooks about theory and hypothesis, and learn how theory explains the facts, thief, because you are sounding ignorant.

Scientific theory is more than just hypothesis or set of them. Theory will start out as hypothesis, as they all do. Now unless the evidences support and validate the hypothesis, then that hypothesis is rejected. When evidences support the hypothesis (and confirmed by more and independent evidences), the hypothesis become less hypothesis, and more theory, hence a fact. Theory explained facts.

Without theory, thief, no one will understand what science is about, because theory is essential to science, not just evolution.

You can't understand gravity, unless there is a theory on gravity. The same goes for every single field in science.

The theory is good...I like it....
But it does not show cause to count God out.

And here is where you do sound extremely ignorant. I don't mean to sound harsh or crude, but I preferred being bluntly open.

I don't know about your personal life, so I don't know your education and what you have studied. But most likely you have at least studied some science subjects in high school, at the very least.

If you did do science in high school, college or university, then you should know that the matter of God have always been counted out...unless you were in one of those religious school that would mix theology with science. I haven't never being in religious school, so I don't know if they do this or not, but again I am digressing from what I want to say.

If you have studied science, then you will know that God is not essential in learning science. Teachers won't mention God, nor would any textbook or classnotes.

When you were learning maths, like trigonometry or statistics or calculus, was God ever mentioned? In physics? How about chemistry? Biology? In computer programming?

No, Then why would you insisted that evolution would require the mention of God?

Evolution is science, not theology. Evolution is a branch of biology. No other branches in biology would even mention God, so why should evolution?

Even non-science subjects, like accounting, marketing, etc. Even when I was learning English, in primary school as well high school, and beyond, I wasn't taught about God.

Even in art, like painting, pottery, photography don't mention God in its teaching or textbook. Sure you can choose a subject matter relating to religion, and paint God, angels, Jesus or any other religious figures, but the fact of the matter, they don't about God. You don't need God, when you learning to paint or draw. God is not essential in learning techniques, such as brushwork, color, line, light and shade, or composition.

You can take photograph of religious building and people attending mass, but when it come to learning about camera operation, or to develop films or print or learning photoshop to modify the image, you don't need God, to learn all these things.

Have you bought a digital camera, or even old camera that used films. Did any of these have instruction manual on God?

When I was studying civil engineering about 20-22 years ago, I didn't once come across any textbook or notes about God, when I was learning drafting, surveying, or in my studies of geology, hydrodynamics, the chemical composition or properties of steel and concrete, etc. And when I changed my career path in computer science, I didn't references to God in my programming subjects or in computer architecture, database, etc.

Until you've learn to separate theology from science, then you are fooling yourself to think that you even know science or their theory or facts.

Does it seem right to you that evolution should mention God, when other science don't mention God?

Get real, man...please. Because you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Thief]

Sorry.



And your being?

You do understand that there are more science of Relativity than just Albert Einstein, don't you?

He may have written papers on General Relativity, but his works were carried on by other scientists. His knowledge on the matter (his theory) has been revised because of new information, new discovery and new evidences.



Once again, another theist who don't understand the difference between theory and hypothesis.

There's more to theory in science than those found in dictionary, like the Webster. Look up science textbooks about theory and hypothesis, and learn how theory explains the facts, thief, because you are sounding ignorant.

Scientific theory is more than just hypothesis or set of them. Theory will start out as hypothesis, as they all do. Now unless the evidences support and validate the hypothesis, then that hypothesis is rejected. When evidences support the hypothesis (and confirmed by more and independent evidences), the hypothesis become less hypothesis, and more theory, hence a fact. Theory explained facts.

Without theory, thief, no one will understand what science is about, because theory is essential to science, not just evolution.

You can't understand gravity, unless there is a theory on gravity. The same goes for every single field in science.



And here is where you do sound extremely ignorant. I don't mean to sound harsh or crude, but I preferred being bluntly open.

I don't know about your personal life, so I don't know your education and what you have studied. But most likely you have at least studied some science subjects in high school, at the very least.

If you did do science in high school, college or university, then you should know that the matter of God have always been counted out...unless you were in one of those religious school that would mix theology with science. I haven't never being in religious school, so I don't know if they do this or not, but again I am digressing from what I want to say.

If you have studied science, then you will know that God is not essential in learning science. Teachers won't mention God, nor would any textbook or classnotes.

When you were learning maths, like trigonometry or statistics or calculus, was God ever mentioned? In physics? How about chemistry? Biology? In computer programming?

No, Then why would you insisted that evolution would require the mention of God?

Evolution is science, not theology. Evolution is a branch of biology. No other branches in biology would even mention God, so why should evolution?

Even non-science subjects, like accounting, marketing, etc. Even when I was learning English, in primary school as well high school, and beyond, I wasn't taught about God.

Even in art, like painting, pottery, photography don't mention God in its teaching or textbook. Sure you can choose a subject matter relating to religion, and paint God, angels, Jesus or any other religious figures, but the fact of the matter, they don't about God. You don't need God, when you learning to paint or draw. God is not essential in learning techniques, such as brushwork, color, line, light and shade, or composition.

You can take photograph of religious building and people attending mass, but when it come to learning about camera operation, or to develop films or print or learning photoshop to modify the image, you don't need God, to learn all these things.

Have you bought a digital camera, or even old camera that used films. Did any of these have instruction manual on God?

When I was studying civil engineering about 20-22 years ago, I didn't once come across any textbook or notes about God, when I was learning drafting, surveying, or in my studies of geology, hydrodynamics, the chemical composition or properties of steel and concrete, etc. And when I changed my career path in computer science, I didn't references to God in my programming subjects or in computer architecture, database, etc.

Until you've learn to separate theology from science, then you are fooling yourself to think that you even know science or their theory or facts.

Does it seem right to you that evolution should mention God, when other science don't mention God?

Get real, man...please. Because you are embarrassing yourself.

And so....you're waiting for a photograph...or a fingerprint?

Get real man.

You are a spirit locked in a parcel of dust.
And you are not your own handiwork.

Science is aimed at the physical items.

Think you can put God in a petri dish?
Waiting for some scientist to find God for you?

And it happens my tests scores in science are ranked superior.
My fellow classmates didn't deal with it very well.
I see the same in you.

I think your last post displays your true character.

 

[gnostic]

And it happens my tests scores in science are ranked superior.
My fellow classmates didn't deal with it very well.
I see the same in you.

Your marks are that good. Great. But as I said in my last reply, I don't know you, and I don't your level of education with regards to science.

Science is aimed at the physical items.

Exactly my points, thief. I'd like to keep theology and science separate.

Waiting for some scientist to find God for you?

No, I am not looking for God from scientists. Science is not theology, and science don't need to include God in the scope of science.

Think you can put God in a petri dish?

If you don't think God can study in a petri dish, then why did you insist that God not be left out in evolution?

These are your words:

The theory is good...I like it....
But it does not show cause to count God out.

Why do you think God is even relevant in evolution?

God can't be observed, quantified, tested. It certainly can't be put in petri dish.

God is irrelevant. So why would evolutionary scientist even bother to put God in the equation in the.

And if you are so good with science, then you would know that the quantity and quality of evidences go a long way to support and validate evolution as a scientific fact. And evolutionary theory go on to explain them.