God’s glitch in Eden. A & E had to break God’s second command to accomplish the first

So then how do all the other animals have sex and reproduce if they haven't eaten from the tree of knowledge? No. I've seen a dog desire my leg. I don't see why A&E couldn't have had sexual desire without the knowledge of good and evil. They'd just be like the other animals.

No, not if you don't have knowledge of good and evil.Animals don't have that knowledge and they still have sex and sexual desire. Wrong. Instincts drive desire as well. That's why boys can get erections before they even know what sex is.Knowledge of good and evil is not required to have either sex or sexual desire.

I speak for neither animals nor god. Is English not your first language? Well, maybe you're easily surprised. No, I use observation. You've seen animals, yes? Do you know how they reproduce? Its through sexual intercourse.Now, do animals have the knowledge of good and evil? No, they don't. So how could they have sex if the knowledge of good and evil is required for it? Your logic is faulty and has lead you to a false conclusion. No, I won't. I'll say it depends. Engaging in sex does not require knowledge of good and evil. Otherwise, animals that do not have that knowledge could not have sex. Absolutely wrong. Again, we can observe that people have sexual desire before they have knowledge of what sex is.When your conclusion contradicts observed reality, it is your conclusion that is wrong.

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

Instinct. You can get horny and have an erection before you know what sex is. Babies cry because they're hungry before they develop the cognitive abilities to identify specific foods. Well sure, but what the fuck are you talking about?What does any of that have to do with eating from the tree of knowledge? My point stands: There are animals that do not possess the cognitive abilities necessary for morality, and yet they are still capable of having sex. Therefore, those abilities are not necessary for having sex.That simple point refutes your argument. I don't know what you're going on about, but you've seen to abandon your original argument so I'll chalk that up as a win.

Amoral creatures desire and have sex. Say, a chicken for example. There's nothing evil about some good old fashion chicken sex.

That's an unsupported assertion that deviates from your original argument.How do you know they wouldn't know what to do with it? What makes you think they couldn't have figured it out like animals do?What does that have to do with your argument that knowledge of good and evil was a prerequisite because sex has a good and bad side?

Well maybe if you used the quote function and wrote coherently, then people would be able to makes sense out of your posts.But we were talking about humans that did not know good and evil. You're argument was that they couldn't have sex. Animals are an example of creatures that do not know good and evil but can still have sex. There's no reason to think that those humans would have been any different.

Are you saying that animals have the knowledge of good and evil?Anyways, we were talking about a dog humping my leg. That doesn't have anything to do with scent. Well I replied outlining your position on humans and then rebutted it. You're the one who brought the animals back up, so make up your mind already. Here's what I wrote:

quote:

---

But we were talking about humans that did not know good and evil. You're argument was that they couldn't have sex. Animals are an example of creatures that do not know good and evil but can still have sex. There's no reason to think that those humans would have been any different.

---

Your argument remains refuted.There's no reason to think that A&E needed to eat from the tree in order to have sex.

Not necessarily. We've been over this already.

But it is an answer, and you cannot explain why it isn't. Gawsh, I didn't think simple logic would escape you.Just because sex is not necessarily good or bad does not mean that it cannot be good or bad.Sex can be good and sex can be bad, but it isn't necessarily either one. Well, you're argument relies on the premise that sex is either good or bad. The fact that it isn't necessarily either one renders your premise false. So therefore your conclusion doesn't stand.That means your argument has been defeated. Since all you can do is repeat your question and post insults, then its obvious that you have no further argument. So you lost.

Your entire argument was a semantic reach.Can you point out any part of your argument that wasn't based on semantics?

Well jar beat me to it, but yeah, Eve was only made after they found out that none of the other animals were a "suitable helper" (NIV), or as the KJV puts it: "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him."At least that wasn't help meat

Would you rather be a centaur or a satyr?