Slashdot Mirror
Ohio Zoo Attempts To Mate Female Rhino With Her Brother For Species Survival
An anonymous reader writes "Unfortunately for the Sumatran rhino the fate of the species may boil down to a plan by the Cincinnati Zoo to breed their lone female with her little brother. 'We absolutely need more calves for the population as a whole; we have to produce as many as we can as quickly as we can,' said Terri Roth, who heads the zoo's Center for Research of Endangered Wildlife. 'The population is in sharp decline and there's a lot of urgency around getting her pregnant.'"
It's come to this!
I hate humans...
If it was good enough for the pharaohs, it's good enough for the rhinos.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Put your sister to the test!
but was ignominiously rejected.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Roth, who began working on the rhino project in 1996, said it took years just to understand their eating habits and needs and decades more to understand their mating patterns. The animals tend not to be interested in companionship, let alone romance.
Oh. I think I see the connection to Slashdot now.
Sorry, no.
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
--Leviticus 18:6
I suggest you learn to differentiate a book recounting that something occurred, with the book advocating what occurred. Otherwise you're going to get very confused thinking WW2 historians must be advocating Naziism by mentioning it in their books.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
If Adam and Eve were the first two humans, please to explain how humanity got beyond the second generation without incest.
Sorry, no.
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
--Leviticus 18:6
I suggest you learn to differentiate a book recounting that something occurred, with the book advocating what occurred. Otherwise you're going to get very confused thinking WW2 historians must be advocating Naziism by mentioning it in their books.
Sooo... we are being like the US Government?
At the start its OK, but things have changed and now theirs a law against it?
Bible meet US Government, US Government meet the Bible!
Least we forget, you meet the FIRST part of the Bible!
I have a biology degree from one of the area's universities. Over the course of my *ahem* 5 years there I attended several talks given by people associated with the CREW (Conservation and Research of Endangered Wildlife) Program at the Cincinnati Zoo. In most talks the anecdote used as an icebreaker was the story of "manual manipulation of the bull black rhinoceros to collect semen." Apparently, the best way to distract him during the whole embarrassing affair was to present him with a rather large basket of produce. Yes, CREW biologists jerked off the rhino while he gorged himself. Pretty much any man's dream, right?
Why can't they just trade rhino sperm with another zoo? Cows, horses, chickens, etc are fertilized with sperm, why not rhinos?
They were not the first two humans.
Contrary to what your local pastor may have told you, the bible says no such thing. Cain's wife was one such member of the pre-existing human society that existed outside of the Garden. The creation of Eve is stated clearly to be performed on an entirely different allegorical "day" than human females per se.
Pre-Adamics are what is consistent with science, and correct reading of what Genesis actually says.
There is much more to be said here, and much more potential insight to be gained, but since I doubt you are interested in more than the immediate question specifically insofar as it helps you reject theism and no farther, I'll leave that for another day.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
or Myrcella if it's a girl.
At the start its OK, but things have changed and now theirs a law against it?
You've provided no backing for the assertion the bible says its "OK" under any circumstances at any time.
If you are talking about Adam and Eve, see my previous post regarding that.
As a general statement, though, provide what you are talking about that has moral absolutes applying to all time that you are attempting to compare the bible negatively relative to. What is this forever-unchanging-regardless-of-context moral system of which you speak?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I propose bestiality.*
If Adam and Eve were made as two perfect people, and humanity as it is is clearly imperfect, there surely introduction of genetic material from an outside source is the only logical conclusion.
* I never thought I'd ever start a sentence like that, but now that I have I'm rather happy with it.
Well, as it's said...
Evil lies even when it tells the truth.
If you contemplated this question with more productive intentions, though, you might find some surprising insights not far afield.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
My understanding is that there were other people, but they were not God's people. Adam and Eve were the first humans created with the divine spark of god. Since these others were not blessed by God it is perfectly acceptable to kill them and take their land. e.g. Caananites.
My guess is that some of Adam's and Eve's children bred with these lesser peoples. Some of those pairings were blessed by God (perhaps becoming the Israelite), others were evil in God's Eyeballs and therefore seen as chaff fit to be consumed in the flames of hell.
It sucks that I am probably not one of God's people, and therefore will spend eternity in hell, but fuck it what can you do??
HERECY! GOD DID NOT CREATE ANY OTHER FIRST HUMANS BESIDE ADAM AND EVE.
on a side note, the imagination of religious nutjobs in order to avoid embarrassment, always amazes me.
In biology and ecology, extinction is the end of an organism or of a group of organisms (taxon), normally a species.
Just give her alcohol, seems to work for us.
And your qualifications to pronounce "HERECY" would be...?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
That's the nature of man - mess up everything and then at the last possible moment do unnatural things to try making situation better. Ehh, I'm having dual feelings about this.. First impression after reading this - "ew, gross", but still, not saying it shouldn't be done.
"news for nerds" [x] Check.
"stuff that matters" [ ] Not so much.
Agreed. It's only acceptable for the first two male children of Adam and Eve. None of this hereosexual incest stuff!
A couple things here.
Going retroactively in time, at some point in history, even per mainline evolution, you must have a line of demarcation where "before that", the hominids were "not human". Correct? Do you then ascribe to that state before that as having the full complement of "human rights"?
Secondly: I understand you actually have no scientific reason to differentiate yourself from the biological continuum -even now-, and have no argument supporting that you have any "rights" -now-, other than by using theistic arguments. Does this concern you?
What you can do is, to borrow an equivalent term from a rather-knowledgable Jewish person, "become grafted onto the tree of life". A person knowledgable enough to tell you how to do that should be well within reach.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
A University Of Sarcasm Diploma.
The Spelling Diploma's still in the mail?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
He's a pastor. He downloaded a certificate to prove it.
Learn to love Alaska
Dude, give it up: Genesis 1 and 2 are already blatantly contradictory. You can insert unspoken context to change any fairytale into something vaguely consistent if you want, and tell me that God's just testing me because I refuse to re-interpret so it makes sense, but the fact is that it's just a playful fantasy written by someone was probably too high to review their notes.
I highly recommend gaining the ability to discern real qualifications.
For a surprising range of reasons.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Can be the backup plan if incest doesn't work. The only disadvantage would be that a viable eliphino would make the joke less funny.
Don't complain to me when it has one tooth, misshapen eyes, plays the banjo, and loves bad moonshine.
exactly. "i got butthurt therefore i pointed out a spelling error". epic fail.
Well, the context isn't "unspoken", it's directly written, and it in no way is a fairytale, but rather allegory, but...
Just one word of advice, don't read George Orwell's Animal Farm.
You won't be able to hear people explaining it was political insights you were supposed to be taking away from it, over the sound of your head exploding about the symbolism.
Well, yeah, I understand you won't start lying about being unable to understand it isn't about talking pigs, unless Orwell started impeding your personal behavioral whims in some way, but still...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I ask as a person who cares about the environment. I strongly feel humans should have a smaller footprint and stop damaging the environment.
However, we seem to be spending a small fortune on the last few members of a species. Whatever ecological roles the rhinos might have played would have been filled (or the entire ecosystem would have changed faster than usual, possibly not-in-a-good-way).
Shouldn't we be spending that money for conservation where the damage isn't this extensive? In a while, maybe by cloning or using frozen sperms/eggs, we might be able to revive the species.
Day 4- stars
Day 5- sea creatures, birds
Day 6- beasts, mankind - "male and female"
2:5-7 God created "a man" before plants, so on either day 1, 2, or 3.
2:19, God made beasts (thus mankind, male and female), before Eve. So how could Eve be the first woman if she was made after the beasts and mankind - "male and female"?
Pre-Adamics are what is consistent with science, and correct reading of what Genesis actually says.
It seems quite clear in 2:5-7 that plants didn't exist before Adam, and mankind, male and female, were created with the beasts, days later. So I'm not sure how that's consistent, with science or itself. Though you have the "correct" reading of what it "actually" says, so I'm sure you'll take the standard way out. "you are reading it wrong" "your translation is bad" or something like that.
Learn to love Alaska
Don't be ridiculous. Any effect your childish troll might have had wore out over the last hundred people who parroted the exact same thing.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
So God made Adam in His own image, even though there were a bunch of other people around? So why the fuck were they made in God's image?
You are a fucking idiot.
You need qualifications to pronounce herecy?
I though all you had to do was believe in the power of imagination.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
are there literally no other rhino's left?
with most livestock artificial insemination is fairly trivial and the 'product' can be shipped frozen great distances..
The procedure can't be that different from cows or horses you just need a bigger sturdier dummy, clear
Or, alternately, you have a remarkably limited understanding of what "image" can imply.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
1) Instead of telling me that it's "directly written", give me evidence. Where in Genesis Chapter 2 does it say, "And this time, when it says that God created man and woman and every beast for the second time, and those plants which hadn't yet sprouted but which were mentioned just a few lines ago, it's just talking about those in a particular place"? 2) Fairytales can be allegorical, ya filthy strawmanner. 3) But Genesis doesn't really symbolise anything, so it'd be a stretch to call it allegorical anyway. It's just a nice story made by old dudes who didn't really know what was going on - which is fair enough, as you have to start with a guess. 4) Your tone isn't very Christian, bro.
You are forcing a particular chronological narrative on the overall allegorical presentation. You are in so doing off the topic of my point.
My stance is that humans existed before Adam and Eve. I have provided scientific and scriptural reasons for this stance.
You are then asserting other things about my supposed stance I never said. Quite seriously, what is your objective here?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Not one comment that wasn't a joke. Not that they weren't funny, but...
Forgive me, but I'd like to ask a reasonable, well thought-out question. From looking at the other threads, I feel it may be out of place here. Anyway...
Do rhinos breed with siblings in the wild? I know some mammals do, and some don't.
If rhinos do, then I don't see any problem with doing the same in captivity. They would be evolved to better handle the results of inbreeding.
If they don't, then it seems not only unlikely to work (unless done artificially), but also unlikely to be a viable way to propagate the species.
Lots daughters. While it might have been socially a problem for them, hence the need to seduce their father, there was biblical prohibition at the time and no punishment for sin as would be needed by sin.
I meant NO biblical prohibition at the time of Lots daughters incest, hence the lack of holy punishment.
Genesis 5:3
He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them "Mankind" when they were created.
Genesis 1:27
27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
28 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."
Humanity per se created, and given rather Darwinian directives incompatible with staying in a garden.
Genesis 1:31
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.
Sixth "day" ends.
Genesis 2:5
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
As noted in the footnote, "earth" is alternately (and accurately) translated as "land", and not incompatibly that this particular land had not been rained upon, nor had plants grown here. My model is quite literally that of a garden on the surface of the Earth, taking up a subset of the Earth's surface, as common sense and science would naturally dictate, though not dictated by your effort to interpret as whatever is -least- likely.
Genesis 6:21
22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
And with this act suggestive of genetic engineering from a DNA source, which you will mock as written here and would immediately assent to if you read this exact same thing as a broad description of a modern-day cloning procedure, let your futile mockery resume.
On your other points:
2) Learn how sets work.
3) It unquestionably symbolizes a great many things. Your incredulity on the matter doesn't override actual scholarship and the text itself.
4) Yes, it is.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
You are forcing a particular chronological narrative on the overall allegorical presentation.
Correct. The main problem is that a lot of people don't see it as an allegorical presentation, but rather a statement of fact.
You are forcing a particular chronological narrative on the overall allegorical presentation.
Ahahaha, worthy of a politician who's just been caught lying.
There is no "scientific reason" to explain a falsehood. Adam and Eve didn't exist, therefore any stance you have about their chronology is whimsical, not scientific. I don't use science to contort Harry Potter - why are you using it to justify your interpretation of Genesis?
And the only "scriptural reason" you've supplied is that you have to twist the interpretation so it isn't inconsistent, an indication that it is written by fallible men rather than a mythical god.
The basic issue here is that you would need at some point to be able to differentiate man(1) from man(2).
You will almost certainly make no effort to do so before you get Naturally Deselected, though.
For reasons that will be obscure to you specifically because you can't differentiate man(1) from man(2), I have absolutely no problem with this sequence of events.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Lannisters have been doing this for ages!
Obviously they are going to need help from the outside, I suggest going to nearby West Virginia where there are plenty of people well versed in how to impregnate relatives.
Monstar L
You've provided no backing for the assertion the bible says its "OK" under any circumstances at any time. If you are talking about Adam and Eve, see my previous post regarding that.
Your previous post doesn't help. You selectively choose what made up bits fit your desired understanding, but provide no good reason to accept those additions in the first place.
If there were pre-Adamics, then it is entirely possible that Adam and Eve's descendants all died off while we are descendant from the supposed pre-Adamics, and thus we do not magically inherit "original sin".
Or you could recognize the adhoc made up bollocks and realize it's not true.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Interesting. There is literally not a single logically-valid argument here.
"Caught lying"... did no such thing, no such thing is logically derivable. I made an argument about Adam and Eve, and you responded with "that argument can't be true unless all the other arguments I can associate with it should be argued in the same way". Nothing valid in any way in your thinking here.
"Adam and Eve didn't exist"... sheer empty assertion. Formally, a Bare Assertion Fallacy if you like. Show your proof they didn't exist.
There is nothing "twisting" about my interpretation. You are "twisting" it to claim it says what it does not, because you utterly lack intellectual honesty either in your statements or in your standard method of mental processing which produces them.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
It's either all literal or all allegorical. The game of "it's factual or not, based on my opinion of what fits my beliefs best" is a game that I don't subscribe to. It's very well defined in how it presents it. There are days listed, and a very explicit "Adam was created before the plants" and "Eve was created after all the beasts". And mankind was created along with the beasts. So Eve must *not* be the first woman. Even allegories are logically consistent (for the modern ones that have literate editors. God's editors must have sucked really badly for The Book to be as inconsistent and contradictory as it is. We made it to the second chapter before the first inconsistency was found. You assert Adam was *not* the first man, but the second chapter makes it clear that he pre-dated plants.
Learn to love Alaska
It's either all literal or all allegorical.
No, this is never true about anything. Not true about any written work, of any type. One can intermix factual and metaphorical statements at will, in any book. It is impossible that you didn't know this as you were claiming otherwise. Why'd you claim it anyway?
And no, the second chapter in no way says Adam predated plants. It says he predated the plants in his garden. See the other post, or ask anyone with a modicum of analytical capability or common-sense.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
As noted in the footnote, "earth" is alternately (and accurately) translated as "land", and not incompatibly that this particular land had not been rained upon, nor had plants grown here.
The discussion of the garden begins in verse 8. You're still on verse 5, dude. Read through the whole of Genesis 2. It's repeating several events which have already occurred in Genesis 1. Likely two different adaptations of the same fairytale. Perhaps the authors had a disagreement?
My model is quite literally that of a garden on the surface of the Earth, taking up a subset of the Earth's surface, as common sense and science would naturally dictate, though not dictated by your effort to interpret as whatever is -least- likely.
And better students of the book than you have decided time and time again that Genesis contains multiple creation stories. Most likely, then, is that the Bible is an often vague set of fairytales ("allegories") with no real concern for consistency or clarity - clarity's a dangerous thing in religion. Least likely is that the Bible is a perfect, divine word which happens to require contorted interpretations in order to make perfectly connected sense.
2) Bringing up sets isn't going to convince anyone.
3) OK, what do Genesis 1&2 symbolise, please?
4) Having reviewed your language a second time, and compared it with the advice given in your special book, I'm pretty sure you're going to Hell.
Discussion with you is clearly pointless. My points are made, and they are valid interpretation as given. I'll let time handle you from here.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Sounds like more than a "no garden" quote.
No, this is never true about anything. Not true about any written work, of any type. One can intermix factual and metaphorical statements at will, in any book. It is impossible that you didn't know this as you were claiming otherwise. Why'd you claim it anyway?
To see how you'd identify one from the other. "my personal opinion" is not sufficient to lecture others. I'm not sure what a bible-thumping zealot is doing on a site like this, lecturing others the way you are. Why'd you do it?
Learn to love Alaska
The basic issues here are that you want to 1) re-order paragraphs; 2) ignore the other stuff about aaaallll the beasts and plants being re-created; 3) ignore the different roles assigned for the genders in the two accounts; 4) disregard the supporting mound of literature which establishes the existence of multiple creation stories in light of 1-3, likely written hundreds of years apart.
Good question, it is beyond stupid.
2) ignore the other stuff about aaaallll the beasts and plants being re-created
Trust me, there is nothing I ignore about this.
Thanks for playing, but you're like somebody arguing arithmetic, without having a clue about what Godel knows about the subject, with someone who does know. It's amusing briefly, but little more. See you (or a proxy) later.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Now if only you could believe that as you're saying it.
Point of fact, though, I've actually been "on a site like this", that is, this one, longer than he has.
And I'll be the only one of us leaving with a meaningful take-away from the time.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
As far as I can see, you think you've uniquely and cleverly found some way of unifying the accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis, even though this has been attempted and refuted dozens of times over the last few hundred years. Telling me to trust you, or that your arguments are "valid" merely because you have asserted them, gets you nowhere. I don't know whether you're a True Believer or are trying to demonstrate your debate prowess to... yourself? but it's kinda weird.
How people who are so thrilled with the idea of Darwinian survival are so concerned about extinction.
The two are inextricably linked.
I have read that section of the bible, and that was not the impression that I got... you've got to remember the target audience and transmission of style of the early parts of the bible though, the stories had to cover the history whilst still being able to be learnt orally with ease and the more characters you add to something the harder it is to do that.
null
modded funny
"Caught lying"... did no such thing, no such thing is logically derivable.
"Worthy of". dignus -a -um. You have particularly poor reading comprehension.
I made an argument about Adam and Eve, and you responded with "that argument can't be true unless all the other arguments I can associate with it should be argued in the same way".
Logic is applicable everywhere.
"Adam and Eve didn't exist"... sheer empty assertion. Formally, a Bare Assertion Fallacy if you like. Show your proof they didn't exist.
Flying teapot fallacy. Pretty embarrassing to get involved in a discussion about credibility of the creation stories with an a priori assumption that A&E exist, isn't it?
You are "twisting" it to claim it says what it does not, because you utterly lack intellectual honesty either in your statements or in your standard method of mental processing which produces them.
You're still trying to re-order paragraphs. The reason they do not flow is because they are distinct accounts which happen to have been pasted one after the other. There's enough evidence of this from literary-critical analysis. You are presenting an occasionally still heard and refuted theory about the two creation stories.
Alternate Theory: It could be valid to assume that the two stories overlap in time period (many histories do this and some of the latter books of the bible as well) if that was the case (as is as likely as your proposal) then the animals, etc are not being 'recreated' only the story is recapped. (remember the early parts of the bible were retold orally and so there would have been overlap in the stories as they would not have necessarily been told chronologically).
It doesn't resolve the original issue relating to incest, but you should bear in mind again these stories were told orally, and having many characters is hard to remember, you only need to look at most modern short stories to see this. Genesis 1 could also be symbolic of man* in general as supposed to a single subset of humanity. (* I use man here to mean humanity as is its traditional usage)
null
If we are beginning literal here it says that he predates the plants flowering, not the plants themselves. It could be seen as a metaphor for creation coming to fruition, which would make sense in the context and be a normal usage of literary technique
null
> Show your proof they didn't exist.
There you have why it ain't scientific.
Nice try, though.
Logic is applicable everywhere.
Yes, and you are consistently failing at it.
Flying teapot fallacy.
There is no such thing. You've made a claim. Back it.
The reason they do not flow is because they are distinct accounts which happen to have been pasted one after the other. There's enough evidence of this from literary-critical analysis. You are presenting an occasionally still heard and refuted theory about the two creation stories.
There is never enough evidence for something false, and you are suggesting that the entirety of Judaism failed to notice text that invalidated their religion a few paragraphs apart. This is absurd. Perhaps, instead, your willfully-incorrect interpretation is what needs to be adjusted here, rather than handwaving claims about literary analysis you don't cite much less defend, and will only reference as important in the effort to establish none of it is important? Again, basic intellectual honesty. Work on it.
What I am presenting you have never heard, and it has never been refuted. Stop lying.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
"If you contemplated this question with more productive intentions, though, you might find some surprising insights not far afield."
This sort of pious, superior, gnomic bullshit is what makes people loathe the religious.
Well, WTF is herecy, anyway? Would that be one of Heracle's cousins? His little sister? Did Hercules bang his little sister then? HERESY I SAY!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I am a Nerdly Rabbi but not a congregation type, more an unemployed student of Jewish law and tradition type.
The traditional understanding is that everything before the giving of the Torah is true but in an allegorical sense, as we don't have context to understand the nature of the world at that time. One explanation is that the narrative, universally acknowledged even by ancient scholars is not just nonlinear but also alegorical, another is that everything from rocks to trees to human life was at a much higher ethereal acid trip level than now even the physical evidence of that time has become de-energized like a worn out chemlight stick.
How could there have been the quasi-humans in the time of Adam and Chava without the gift of speech? How could Adam have been taller than the clouds? What was Gan Eden? Did the tree of knowledge of good and evil turn us into the thinking humans we currently are?
I am often agnostic though that doesn't really make me a bad guy in Judaism. There is plenty of room in even ancient scholarly sources that modern microwave dating of the universe have finally gotten near to. The source of Humans, dinosaurs, quasars, and timespace aren't terribly important in a religious sense if you don't need original sin to shoehorn a very incompatible pagan composite divine Jesus into the intentional misreading of what is known to western people as the old testament.
I am not making a scientific assertion here, I am stating that his claim needs to be backed if he is making it a statement of fact.
Science has nothing to say for or against it. It is eminently plausible that a person could have been taken out of a human population and put into a garden.
It is also the case that, religion aside, it is never the case that "not scientific" is equivalent to "not real". You can start with the assertion that "Mozart was (or was not) a great composer" if this is unclear. One of these assertions is true. Neither is determinable via scientific method.
The present trend to try to collapse all the branches of philosophy and epistemology into "scientific, or unreal" simply leads to inanity.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
If anyone should embrace the ramifications of evolution, it should be biologists.
And not just when convenient.
Mass extinctions have occurred before. Most kinds of life that has ever existed doesn't any more -- what's the problem here but that some zoologist is worried about his pets? Rather than try to change the natural course of things, shouldn't these people adopt a healthier attitude toward these "circle of life" affairs? Death is a thing. It happens to a lot of animals. Get over it.
For that matter, it happens to the human sort, too, but we learned a few things about the wisdom of eugenics along the way (including that it would, indeed, be a boon to us as a species if only we could find a morally acceptable way to implement the knowledge...).
Well, there sure are scientific reasons to believe that Adam wasn't the first man. Which makes sense. For that matter there aren't any scientific reasons to believe anything Genesis says.
But we're talking about the in-story world, in which it's pretty clear that Adam was the first man and there is no mention of any pre-existing society. So far you haven't provided any scientific of scriptural reasoning why the first generations got by without incest.
Cain's wife was one such member of the pre-existing human society that existed outside of the Garden. The creation of Eve is stated clearly to be performed on an entirely different allegorical "day" than human females per se.
I hate doing this, but I really am concerned. So, here goes:
[citation needed]
There is no such thing. You've made a claim. Back it.
You're assuming that Adam&Eve existed. You prove your assumption of flying teapots. I don't have to disprove a thing.
There is never enough evidence for something false,
You're telling me...
and you are suggesting that the entirety of Judaism failed to notice text that invalidated their religion a few paragraphs apart.
There is nothing I have said which "invalidates" Judaism, being just another of many religions based upon some arbitrary axioms and wilfully contorted interpretations (but not this one, as Jewish scholars aren't quite as dumb as you).
And an assertion that the Bible is inspired by God is, of course, unfalsifiable.
rather than handwaving claims about literary analysis you don't cite much less defend,
You're talking like some sort of theologist, so I'm assuming you're familiar with the literature and are being wilfully obtuse. Pleading ignorance to the thesis that there are at least two distinct creation stories in Christian theology is like pleading ignorance to heliocentricity in planetary physics.
In truth, you're just another Slashdot poster who lacks the intelligence to be heard somewhere relevant, so you spout your crackpot theories here. Kooks on the Internet - who'd have thought it?
and will only reference as important in the effort to establish none of it is important?
Eh? It's important to refute one of man's biggest burdens against progress.
Before human cluttered up the island(s), a low(ish) interest in breeding may have been a positive survival trait preventing overpopulation of a limited range.
Anyone know if the small tigers there successfully hunt other than immature rhinos?
Now that humans have seriously reduced the range even further, it's probably best to just let them go extinct, since they'll never be successfuly re-introduced to the wild.
For that matter there aren't any scientific reasons to believe anything Genesis says.
Okay, predict the upper-bound age of a man for the next 2500 years. Play a nomad and no looking up anything on the internet to make your guess. If you get it dead-on, would there be a reason to believe things you say? Genesis has in fact done this, accurate over all all that time over billions of future data points, to the significant digits specified. Hypothesis: "If a transcendently-intelligent being exists, he would be able to predict the future and communicate this to an individual, who otherwise would be unable to successfully make such a prediction." Test: Refer to history. Results of test: 2500-year prediction validated. I'll await your alternate hypothesis. Your method should succeed on the first an only try.
But we're talking about the in-story world, in which it's pretty clear that Adam was the first man and there is no mention of any pre-existing society.
Yes, of course there is. Cain married someone unknown from the context of Adam and Eve and went off where there were already established cities. For the rest of the evidence I have provided (which I in fact have, that just isn't the same as "I haven't read it"), review the rest of the thread in its entirety. I don't feel the need to retype everything for everyone who makes this claim, individually.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Throwing little puppies out of windows?
Someday, learn to present something more in your arguments than unbacked assertions and empty characterizations.
It is of no value.
You can't contribute to "progress" (even in your own terms--where you and every single person you know will unquestionably be dead and irrelevant in 150 years, and entropy if nothing else will finish off the rest some time after that, as your future to "progress" to), if you can't even manage that.
There's no meaning of "progress" that you are even close to being able to help with in any way.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Science has nothing to say for or against it.
Science has a lot to say about what really happens, but much less to say about what could happen in someone's imagination.
It is eminently plausible that a person could have been taken out of a human population and put into a garden.
By a sky fairy? no. It's one of the least plausible things I've ever heard.
If this is fairytale (you call it "allegory", but I think that's rather generous), it doesn't matter what science thinks. If it's describing reality, then science allows us to conclude that it's nonsense.
You can start with the assertion that "Mozart was (or was not) a great composer" if this is unclear. One of these assertions is true. Neither is determinable via scientific method.
This assertion is most definitely testable, for well-understood definitions of the terms. I'm not sure you even know what the scientific method is.
The present trend to try to collapse all the branches of philosophy and epistemology into "scientific, or unreal" simply leads to inanity.
"Present trend" - are you complaining about Popper? because if you prefer the older inductive trend, I'd say that's even better at identifying bullshit in the creation stories.
Oh my, this is the first time I've been back on Slashdot for a year, and already I find a kook. I'm done here as it seems that new users (Joining Yet Again) can only post 10 times/day, but that's for making me laugh, ya buffoon!
Evil lies even when it tells the truth.
Based on this (and your many other bizarre posts), can we assume you're a relative of Yogi Berra?
After all, Yogi apparently said "Half of the lies they tell about me aren't true."
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Can't we just let natural selection do it's work and let it go extinct? The species would have probably eventually gone extinct anyway.
same AC here, disregard that, i suck cock
What a mess. I'm not a biologist, but I reckon at this point the species is genetically doomed. Sad to see that humanity has taken another species to this point.
And meanwhile, not much here but jokes about incest and old books.
Science has a lot to say about what really happens, but much less to say about what could happen in someone's imagination.
False dichotomy. We know nothing about Dark Matter, essentially. There will be conjecture as to what it may contain, some of which will be plausible long before testability, much less strong scientific validation. Until such validation, it will be purely "in someone's imagination"--but then you knew your statement was more about smarminess than science already, correct?
By a sky fairy? no. It's one of the least plausible things I've ever heard.
And, par for the course, if you had any intellectual honesty, you'd have no reason not to use standard terminology here. There is no reason to resort to "sky fairy" other than your wish to present the concept of an intelligent, powerful being with creative powers disingenuously. You are proposing they are the same, for purposes of inference, and not the same, for purposes of your insult's hoped rhetorical effect, simultaneously. There is nothing in the least logically valid about this. Characterization is not an argument.
If it's describing reality, then science allows us to conclude that it's nonsense.
No, in fact actual science (that is, hard physics of the quantum variety) says anything at all can happen as a question of probability. Therefore it in no way allows you to conclude this. That would be, if your category-shifting away from the suggestion that it is overall allegory had any validity or honesty to it in the first place.
This assertion is most definitely testable, for well-understood definitions of the terms. I'm not sure you even know what the scientific method is.
Present your specific method to determine this then, by means of scientific method. Doubt away, or rather, lie again in pretending to doubt. I know quite well what scientific method is, and that's why I'm calling you on this.
"Present trend" - are you complaining about Popper? because if you prefer the older inductive trend, I'd say that's even better at identifying bullshit in the creation stories.
No, Popper knew better, and worked toward delineating "science", not toward nonsense claims that it was synonymous with the totality of reality. He certainly wouldn't offer anything as empty and ineffectual as this or your follow-on insults. Don't feel bad about the limitation, though--however many posts you get, you'll maintain the same net value of nothing.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Several species have "successfully been conserved in captivity" up to the point that no zoo wants any more of them. They are effectively killing animals and doing global birth control on these species in captivity, while the natural population is so small that they lack even genetic diversity to be viable enough to reliably survive extinction. Given these fact, you'd say they would reintroduce captive bread animals in the wild. This never happens and never will, unless they are going to change a lot of things. First of all, captive release is extremely costly, nobody wants to foot the bill for a reintroduction program of Black's Rhino. Second of all, captive animals may have diseases that could in theory threaten wild animals, even animals of different species. For that reason, nobody will permit these animals to be released in the wild, or have them interbreed with wild animals.
Zoos are nothing but the living equivalent of a postage stamp collection. All these breeding programs are nice for fellow stamp collectors, but will never ever help wild populations with genetic diversity or just plain extra animals. That doesn't mean they don't have a purpose. If we and our kids can't actually go to a zoo and watch these poor caged animals, we wouldn't give enough about them to actually fund some (often rather futile) attempts of saving the habitat of the wild version of what we just fed a bag of peanuts.
Unless the above changes and animals are actually released in the wild on a regular basis, incestuous cross breeding Sumatran rhinos in a Zoo won't help the extinction of these animals a single bit. I suggest we find a solution for this first, before we risk Down Syndrome Rhinos in our Zoos.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Well, this is Cincinnati, which while it is in Hamilton county Ohio is right across the river from Kentucky (hence the unofficial nick name Hamiltucky).
So, this program will fit right in with our human families in the area that have titles like 'Uncle Dad'.
Have you MET humans?
But then again, am I a rhino ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
at least he got his comprehension and rational thinking sorted out....
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
religionists spin more that politicians and actors...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
now its "allegorical" - i though it was supposed to be true
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
At the start its OK, but things have changed and now theirs a law against it?
The law was never theirs, its always been ares.
In other words it means what you want it to mean so long as it allows you to believe the story is more than a fairy tale.
We can save the rhino population just in time to watch them all die from the same congenital defect!
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
The rules on incest were created later.
They were not the first two humans.... Pre-Adamics are what is consistent with science, and correct reading of what Genesis actually says...
i see what you're doing here...
the force is strong with you.
ubertroll/10
would bang
Why is this tagged Kentucky? Cincinnati is in Ohio, not in Kentucky. If you want incest jokes, go see West Virginia...
do you think that SCREAMING LIKE THIS will make your HERECY go unnoticed? or are you just selfish enough to act this way because you don't care about others?
At least Adam and Eve getting it on was really just masturbation as Eve was of Adam.
Your arrogance is astounding. You're so slow on the uptake that you still have a childish belief in the supernatural, and you pretend to be superior to those who have grown out of their superstitious beliefs. Spinning additional stories in support of fairy-tales, to keep yourself from realizing that you've been deeply delusional, is insanity.
Of course. Unlike politicians and actors, religionists, and supernaturalists in general don't realize that they're not speaking the truth. They really believe their booga-booga nonsense.
All you have to do is present your sky-fairy for study, and if it turns out to actually have supernatural powers, people capable of thinking will believe you. If you cannot do this, people are right to believe you're a liar, whether you're so far gone that you believe your lies or not. Even conjuring a demon would help you convince people. Of course you can't, because the supernatural is fantasy.
all the comic shops around are sold out of Japanese hentai.
If it helped you realize that the supernatural is imaginary, and that you need to work your way back to reality, perhaps with professional help, then yes, you have a meaningful take-away. If encountering reality-based people didn't help you discard religion, you really didn't learn anything. Being an educated crazy person isn't impressive.
Where do you think all those hillbillies in Cincinnati come from? West Virginia and Kentucky are just breeding pools for future 'Buckeyes'.
The Tea Party is just the GOP with a bag over its head.
The theory is supposed to be that the captive animals prevent total exinction should the wild populations die out, which the Sumatran rhinos haven't yet. It would be better to harvest sperm from a wild rhino in Sumatra or Borneo so as to get some genetic variation back into that zoo family.
No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
Did the Lord explicitly prohibit IVF?
Ezekiel 23:20
and given rather Darwinian directives
What "Darwinian directives" are you talking about? As in, he told them "Live and let the nature do its works"?
Ezekiel 23:20
So it's quite likely I was born without original sin? Because I come from a linage that doesn't include adam and eve?
"Adam and Eve didn't exist"... sheer empty assertion. Formally, a Bare Assertion Fallacy if you like. Show your proof they didn't exist.
You seem to be convinced that they actually *did* exist. Were they individuals of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, Homo Erectus...which one?
Ezekiel 23:20
Yawn.
Just to be nice, here's something peer-reviewed for you to look at while I'm yawning.
Basic instruction on how to construct the beginnings of a worthwhile counterargument, rather than pointless empty characterizations, will have to wait. A Philosophy 101 from your local community college might help you in the alternative.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I'm betting that the offspring will look like Jim Carrey.
Very, very OK with it if you know what I mean.
"God" is Aliens. now it all fits
He'd do the rhino. Heck, he did Hillary and a Sumatran Rhino is definitely a step up in looks!
Sure earth = land, so what ? You haven't cited a single part that clearly says that he's now talking only of the garden and not the whole thing.
Or you could just admit that the bible is just a compilation of old stories from previous polytheist religions (just as the god from the bible is actually just the god of one of the tribes, like all polytheist culture, each group of people had his favorite god). This explain very well why the different parts of the bible are contradictory.
Taking the rib to make woman, yes that sounds just like cloning, except even with today's tech, you only need one cell, not a whole rib. And of course that cloning a man makes a man, not a woman, and a whole identical genome, not a good start to make a family. But yes it's very clearly realistic. Besides, why does he need a fucking rib, when he made a man out of dust.
"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."
Oh and that is not a darwinian directive, not that I expect you to understand what darwinism is. (hint: it's not the law of the strongest, it's randomness and selection)
What is this 2500-year prediction again ? You could really explain it clearly as it seems you are basing your faith in it.
Apparently not spelling it correctly for one thing. "heresy", I'm not quite sure what "herecy" is.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
You mean by reading for oneself and not putting too much faith in the versions of the bible the church wants you to have access to and then on top of that King James interpretation of that word.
I'll stick with Darwin thanks. At least his theories can be proven or dis-proven.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
No that's Peter Pan and believing in fairies.
Oh wait nvm I see what you did there.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Directly written a few thousand years after it happened, ever play grapevine in school? Usually all meaning in a simple sentence is lost after just 4 people pass the word.
I'm sure none of the stories are intended to be true but rather like Greek myth's meant to teach underlying moral ethics.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The notion of species is just an easy way to put things in neat little boxes. Sometimes the reality fit very well with this, for example it is very easy to determine if a living being is a man of not. Sometimes it doesn't, bacterial species are a mess for example, and yes if you go back to the point where hominid originated, it would be hard to put them into man and non-man boxes. But as I said that is not the case now, now it's easy to differentiate man from non-man, so there is really no problem with knowing who has human rights and who hasn't.
http://abstrusegoose.com/156
And yet people tout universe origin theorems as scientific despite it being by definition impossible to prove or gather evidence for scientifically.
More than anything else the thing that gets me is the impossibility of explaining the existence of anything at all without a supernatural (in its purest sense) / eternal cause, or an infinite regression.
Showing proof they didn't exist is easier than you proving they existed.
I can cite books of fiction that mention people that never existed. Read in a thousand years they may be taken as actual accounts and thought to be real people.
I've no issue with faith but I do have issue with blind faith.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Apparently not having all of the answers means that one cannot have any of the answers; therefore I conclude that neither of us has any of the answers and the conversation is moot.
Is that how it goes?
1 Co. 15:45 "The first man Adam"
Gen. 3:20 Eve was "mother of everyone living"
You can interpret it however you wish, but the Bible definitely does say such a thing. Cain marrying his "sister" is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible which is why we're having this discussion. However at Gen 5:4 Adam is said to live 930 years while having fathered sons and daughters. We don't know the exact time frames of all the events mentioned so really Cain could have married one of Adam's granddaughters.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
That fate awaits us all.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I don't think calling someone a liar for their beliefs is correct.
Everyone is free to believe or not to believe. If poster has faith that their god told them to take a step off a bridge and they wouldn't fall I'd be willing to watch. I've never seen gravity lose that battle.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Science is based on facts and supporting evidence. Other than faith and a mass belief I have yet to see proof of the existence of an actual god. Jesus was a real person that really existed. Roman documents back up the Christian bible on that count, but other than the bibles text (mostly hearsay without supporting evidence) I don't think god can be proven to exist or not.
I have the ability to reason like so many others, I can not blindly follow. I have to question.
I have issue believing a book written by men claiming it to be the word of god. If a man today claimed that and claimed to be the son of god he'd either be in the penal system along with so many other mentally ill or homeless. Remember those that heard voices a hundred or even 50 years ago were put away and kept out of sight.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
If the Cincinnati Zoo is in Kentucky?
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
They didn't. At that time the human population was much smaller and therefore it would have been necessary (Genesis 1:28) and as such the stigma and defects that result from close-relative relations would have been much smaller, if any at all, because the human race was much closer to perfection having only been thrown out of the Garden of Eden only a relatively short time ago (Genesis 3:21-24).
However much later it was no longer necessary given the size of the human population and defects would have started to appear because the human race would be much farther away from perfection which is why it was codified and forbidden in the Mosaic Law as recorded at Leviticus starting at 18:6 through verse 18: "‘YOU people must not come near, any man of YOU, to any close fleshly relative of his to lay bare nakedness. I am Jehovah."
I hope that answers your question.
Rhinos in KY are protesting for equal rights to do the same.
They warned us this would happen when the Supreme Court repealed DOMA. Why didn't we listen!?
Theology aside, wouldn't a mutation that leads to a new species almost always require initial incest to propagate?
In the original Care Bears Movie, the Care Bears met the Cousins in the Forest of Feelings; those characters only received their tummy symbols at the end of the film. In Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation, the Bears and Cousins received their symbols when they were orphan Cubs. Therefore, it must be true that the Bears and Cousins received their symbols as cubs, and I misinterpreted the first movie.
Soon the rhinos will have to deal with an arrogant rhino king with blonde hair.
Can you show your work? What prediction are you referring to? If it legitimately proves god is real, you'd think it'd be a little more commonly known. But I'm willing to hear you out.
:x
Wow, something peer reviewed that proves that religion came about from those who had near-death experiences and mis-interpreted them. You've proven that "god" is a misfiring in the brain in extreme circumstances or mentally ill. Too bad all the mentally ill refuse to believe in reality. They'd rather believe in their delusion, it's more comforting.
Learn to love Alaska
You aren't even capable of anything other than entirely making up what evidence says and what others' mental status is, and asserting these on the basis of absolutely nothing, are you?
You're wrong because you're mentally ill. As evidence for the fact you're mentally ill, I submit the fact you're wrong. Nyah nyah.
I won't even bother to inform you as to what a tautological argument is, or the basic definition of "evidence" as -never- meaning only one possible interpretation exists for it to be evidence. You're too deep into your willful irrationality to be helped.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
What right do you have to say that it's allegorical and not the true word of God as many say?
(BTW, I think it's all fairy tales.)
You say we know nothing about dark matter. Yet, it is something that scientists have theorized to fit the observations that have already been made about our galaxy. When more repeatable observations come in that make our current theory of dark matter not fit, then it will be revised or done away with. So we know enough to determine what we *don't* know about the universe, to imagine a thing that would make our current observations make sense. Most importantly, we admit we don't know everything, and are perfectly happy to change when observations contradict what we have theorized.
We know *nothing* about an invisible man that floats in the sky that controls the universe.
We know *nothing* about an invisible man that floats in the sky that controls the universe.
True enough that we know nothing about an invisible man that floats in the sky.
However, "we" (namely, me, in this context) know a significant amount about God. Some of it, I know from direct experience as fully sufficient evidence. More can be determined from the standard scriptural references. As is always the case for any topic, that you don't know something does not mean no one else does either.
Note that it is -never- the case that you can say what "we" -don't- know, about anything, validly. Your mind does not encompass the minds of all others on Earth, as the only way you could validly make this exclusionary claim.
Note also that it is never necessary for evidence to be presented to you, for it to be evidence. You may have the fully-sufficient evidence of your own eyes regarding many events in your life. Convincing me of it is entirely unnecessary for it to be evidence.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I gave facts and Bible quotes. You ignored them. Why? You have told me more why you won't discuss things with me, but refused to even try in the first place. I can only assume it's a defense mechanism to defend your preferred delusion.
Learn to love Alaska
Okay, predict the upper-bound age of a man for the next 2500 years.
Just inflate your prediction so that you have a high confidence. There is no useful information in such arbitrary numbers.
If you get it dead-on, would there be a reason to believe things you say?
No, absolutely not. That would be an authoritarian fallacy.
I don't feel the need to retype everything for everyone who makes this claim, individually.
Ever heard of copy and paste? You could even link to the post. All you're doing here is deferring your argument, which is pretty clumsy. In reality you're just hoping people will lose interest and ignore all the holes poked in your posts.
Every statement of yours has been fully and sufficiently refuted. Nothing was ignored, if there was anything not responded to, it was because I did not see it.
I need no defense mechanisms, and have no delusions. You, however, clearly need some basic understanding of what a "delusion" is. A belief that the majority of the world believes, cannot, by definition, be a delusion. Beliefs consonant with one's culture, even without proof, are never properly characterized as a delusion. Since you have no actual qualifications in this area, and no real intellectual skills extending beyond being a parrot of Dawkins' misused terminology, I understand you being wrong in your usage of it. You being wrong is understandable. However, by now it's manifestly clear you are simply lying in your use of the term. There is not simply no evidence it applies to me, but rather the exact antithesis--you've been refuted on every single point. Given that, if anyone is "delusional", it is clearly, and demonstratedly, you.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
The Bible was clear. Adam was the first man. You are correct in that Eve may not have been the first Woman. But you've not "refuted" my claim that Adam was most certainly the first man, other than saying "I declare that passage allegorical, and the one I like better factual, nah nah nee nah nah"
Learn to love Alaska
The Bible was clear. Adam was the first man.
Again, wrong (leaving aside using "man" in a nuanced sense you aren't even close to understanding), and for the same reasons as before.
1. Entire cities existed at the time of Cain, Adam's immediate descendant. The bible says this directly. How would that have happened?
2. The statement of "male and female created He them" is contemporaneous in terms of the "day". So was the creation of Adam and Eve, on a different "day".
3. The directive "be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it" would be an impossible command to fulfill if this was said to Adam, who was intended to stay in a garden, and only expelled as a consequence of sin, contrary to God's initial stated intent. God does not give impossible commands. It was not said to Adam. It was said to his human predecessors.
4. Propagation of the species would have been impossible if Adam and Eve were the first people without incest. Incest is directly forbidden by God. God does not start people off with impossible dilemmas.
None of this has the slightest thing to do with "delusions", however, except in your irrational mind. Were my interpretation wrong, my interpretation would be wrong, nothing more. Your flights of fanciful nonsense about what that would mean regarding my mental state notwithstanding.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Entire cities existed at the time of Cain, Adam's immediate descendant. The bible says this directly. How would that have happened?
Because the Bible is a work of fiction that is internally inconsistent on many points. Another "Biblical" theory is that Adam lived a very long time.
The statement of "male and female created He them" is contemporaneous in terms of the "day". So was the creation of Adam and Eve, on a different "day".
He also created Adam before any plants on the planet. That dates the creation date.
If mankind was created long before Adam and Eve, why bother creating a "special" specimen and testing them, especially if you know they will fail?
Propagation of the species would have been impossible if Adam and Eve were the first people without incest. Incest is directly forbidden by God. God does not start people off with impossible dilemmas.
When did God forbid incest? I don't remember a reference before Leviticus. As you say, he doesn't give impossible dilemmas, so he could have changed the rules after 10 generations or whatever. You assert that it had to be done your way because you like it best, but you don't consider any other possibility. The order seems odd to create a planet full of people, the create the first "special" man and woman. That's why so many assume they were first, and the order given in the Bible indicates Adam was first. You've said nothing that contradicts that. Adam was created first, then the plants, then the animals, then "the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep". Who is to say that the sleep wasn't for 100,000,000 years? And in that sleep, God went out and created the rest of mankind, the first woman was presented to Adam later.
Or right, you don't like that one, so you'll assert that the passage is wrong, and yours is right. Why do you hate the Bible so?
Learn to love Alaska
Your interpretations are willfully false, because, quite simply, you have the void of intellectual honesty that leads you to suggest we use the least-likely interpretation you can find toward the goal of evaluating the text. You say as much yourself by your "justification" that the "bible is a work of fiction".
I don't know if this is because you still don't know what a Straw Man fallacy is, or because you're persisting in being as irrational as you have evidenced so far.
Nonetheless, you are a complete waste of time both in knowledge and methodology. It is -possible- you might become other than so, if you make the effort to correct your systematically-disingenuous approach to the topic. Until then, you could be nothing but worthless, for anything and to anyone.
Given that fact, I leave you to your deliberately-wrong, and admittedly deliberately-wrong, interpretation of the text.
And no, I don't hate the bible. As you might guess, this statement just means you are the idiot you persist in aspiring to continue being.
Oops. Guess that last wasn't the most Christian way to put it. Oh well. DIAF.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I don't know if this is because you still don't know what a Straw Man fallacy is, or because you're persisting in being as irrational as you have evidenced so far.
Again, proof you know you are wrong. You just whine about people not playing by your rules. Take your ball and go home, you immature little child.
Learn to love Alaska
I tried this with my older sister.