Cracking an age-old conundrum.

[MikeyDB]

Greetings Missile!

"Adam and Eve" a myth used as morality lesson.

That's the great difficulty in examining anything from the Bible. Faith demands that adherents simply believe in the absence of any credible evidence of any kind.

If you believe that Adam and Eve existed or at least have faith that these people existed (even if it is just a morality play), then you'll believe everything else.

Their "existence" isn't terribly important, it's the lesson about the nature of "sin" that's the important message.

The first salvo in a rain of moral relativism. Too bad the relgions of the world embrace this caricature (and many others) and use them to declare a subservient and lesser importance to the female gender. But hey religion has long served the devices of the the bigotted so it's to be expected...

 

[gc]

While we are thinking along these lines....Adam & Eve? Which arrived on the scene first? Biblical answers will be discounted.

Eve. Women give birth not men. Therefore man must have evolved from woman. However this would have occured much earlier than humans arrived on the scence, so I guess female would be the correct term. Then again in some species don't the males give birth? Hmmm...I'm still going to go with Eve as my guess.

 

[MikeyDB]

GC

Sea Horses raise an interesting point don't they!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Cracking an age-old conundrum.

In terms of Godel's thorem being misused (I suppose 'misue' might be suggestion that the logic of philosophical inquiry....can't reasonably be held as germane within the context of "proof" as it relates to the question of "gods" existence....am I close?

Yes, but it's broader than that. The logic of philosophical inquiry is not generally subject to Godel's theorem. Philosophical "proofs" are very different from mathematical proofs, and I strongly doubt there's any philosophical argument possible (there's certainly no mathematical one) that'll prove or disprove any god's existence. I've seen valiant attempts, but nothing that couldn't apply equally well to any imaginable concept of god, not merely the one for which the proof was attempted. The faithful would tell you that god's existence, nature, and purposes, must remain a matter of faith, not logic or philosophical inquiry, but that's always seemed to me just a negative fall-back position when their positive assertions are under challenge by logic.

I want falsifiable evidence and until that's been provided it's all just a game of semantics (in large part).

Agreed. I'm sure we agree on a lot more too.

 

[MikeyDB]

DExSin

Strikes me that you've perhaps enjoyed some education in 'classical' philosophy....

Propositions.... logical contradiction......Russel's Paradox etc.

Great stuff so long as we stick to math....

Nice talking with you

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Cracking an age-old conundrum.

...perhaps enjoyed some education in 'classical' philosophy...

Self-taught, actually. I'm really just an old engineer, but with a wider range of intellectual interests than is generally useful to talk about in a room full of old engineers... :lol:

Nice talking with you

Agreed again. Hope to see more of you around here.

 

[dekhqonbacha]

While we are thinking along these lines....Adam & Eve? Which arrived on the scene first? Biblical answers will be discounted.

Monkey.

 

[CAD]

Truth comes out of debate. But not in this debate. I repeat we are not talking about the same thing.

You might be right; I might be right. You might be wrong; I might be wrong.

Pot-ay-to, pot-ah-to. Yes, we don't have to have a discussion at all if I've totally misinterpreted what you were getting at. Of course, if I'm having a problem doing that, I'm not usually alone in the loss.

To my incredible surprise, I found a few people who
don't believe the moon turns on its own axis preffering
to get stuck on the idea that spinning on an axis would
never be in tandem to its orbit about the earth.

I still get a chortle out of the folks who think a solar eclipse is when the sun passes between the earth and the moon. If only.

 

[Be Graceful]

What happened to the rooster?

Why is the lowly chicken and it's egg the subject of this question? Where there not other creatures that come from eggs? Did they all come from mutants? What about those that didn't come from eggs? But, if we stick with the chicken (even the little one in the egg}; was he alone in the world? Did the "odd" parents stick to gether and make other little chickadees for him to (excuse me, mabe it was a she) mate with? What happened to the odd-ball parents? do they still exist or was there something special about these new "chickens" that made them more likely to survive. Why, I think both the creationists and the scientists would have to have a bit of faith to believe that such a thing (crawling or rolling out of the sea) happened at all. We don't see ANY of these new unions today. We don't see any new creatures being formed or crawling out of the sea, that survive to make their own.( unless I'm missinformed or just ignorant to some facts, they usually come up sterile). So far, no one has even seen, on any other planets, any Life as we know it, at all. Even other monkies turning into anything other than other monkeys.

It takes a lot of courage ( if faith is too strong a word)for me to see beyond what is scientifically clear in front of my face today. And is evidenced by other species and their histories. A mama chicky meets a popa roostie. She lays an egg, he fertilizes it and we get a little chicky.