The Garden of Eden can not be compared to Asgard or Valhalla. The Bible gives us the pre-flood location of Eden, whereas Asgard is just over the rainbow. The Bible tells exactly which rivers Eden flowed between prior to a worldwide flood. It mentions the Tigris, and Euphrates. Given the fact that the Bible is one of the most historically correct documents of its time (after the flood), I think it safe to say that even from an Atheistic perspective, the Garden of Eden was a factual place.
So you've never seen a rainbow before? Also... what were those GPS coordinates in the Bible again?? Because I also heard that Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri. And Saudi Arabia. Plus, you think there was a worldwide flood and afterward we had all the same rivers as before?
Did you know that there's a city called Bethlehem in Pennsylvania? Did you even consider when writing your comment that maybe, just maybe, they could have named the new rivers after rivers which previously existed?
By your logic then we should remove Olympus too, because that's an actual mountain in Greece. The tallest, in fact. Just because some ancient scribes wrote that Eden was a garden between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers doesn't mean it was actually there or ever actually existed. Paper doesn't refuse ink if it spells out lies. If you want Eden off this list then by all means, go and prove, beyond reasonable doubt via scientifically verifiable evidence, that Eden existed. Because that's how the burden of proof works. And before you say it, the Bible is a claim of events, not evidence for said events. Like testimony in a court of law, it means nothing if the evidence doesn't support it.
If nothing else, the story of the whole human race spawning from the incestuous relationship between a man and his morphed rib, has been proven false by genetics.
All human beings on Earth share a common descent from a single male ancestor and single female ancestor... this actually has been demonstrated through science. Those two ancestors just happened to live thousands of years apart. So.. even though they've been named Adam and Eve, probably not the same couple of hominids you may be thinking of...
Going back further than that, the most popular theory of abiogenesis is that it happened only once in Earth history (or happened many times but the other times it didn't take root in the same way), and that every living organism on the planet is descended from the same self-replicating organic molecule, billions of years ago. So, if that's right (there are competing theories), then... after that molecule self-replicated once by splitting off some of its own matter (let's call it a rib?).. then there would have been precisely two "living" things on Earth. Though not exactly human. And we would have descended from those two things.
@kalbahamut they did not live thousands of years apart. If you think about it you will realise why they could only have lived an absolute maximum of nine months apart.
@roleybob, I assume that you would be adding the condition that the Y-chromosome Adam has to be everyone's ancestor "on the male line" i.e. the father of the father of the father of etc. and a similar one for the "Eve"? My logic is simple. If everyone is descended from one woman they are also descended from her father. And if everyone is descended from one man they are also descended from his mother. Therefore, the last common male ancestor of everyone and the last common female ancestor of everyone cannot have lived more than nine months apart (this would happen if "Adam" died immediately after conceiving "Eve", and maybe a little bit longer should be added just in case the pregnancy took longer than average).
Yes - when we talk about most common ancestors it is usually in terms of unbroken matrilineal / patrilineal lines.
So your post is a nice thought but not right - for a start, if they are all descended from HER father then she breaks the male line herself, and also her mate would be a more recent male ancestor.
More pertinently, there's nothing to stop the male line bottlenecking before (or after) that generation without affecting the matrilineal line.
Obviously all of these things apply the other way around as well
An example of a different situation: say that the human race almost went extinct - there was only 1 woman alive (this isn't necessary when we talk about most recent ancestor - there may have been millions of other women alive at the time but all of those other lines became extinct at varying later generations, but in this example there is just the 1 woman left).
Fortunately, there were still 2 men left, and the 2 men were not closely related.
If the woman has multiple children by each man, then clearly there is more than 1 male ancestor (the 2 men) so we do not have our 'Adam', however all people (men and women) are now descendants of that 1 woman, so we do have 'Eve'.
In this scenario, the common ancestor is not restricted to considering matrilineal / patrilineal lines only
If you mean that then you are right that there is no reason to think that the two ancestors lived close together in time. It is also not so obvious that the two ancestors exist, although if you know about the existence of the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA then your stronger claim becomes a necessity. However this would need to be stated explicitly as, for example, I would say that I share a close common ancestor with my half-uncle (his father and my maternal grandfather), and your definition would not count this.
In your other example, however, it still only works if you restrict it to matrilineal/patrilineal lines. If you are considering all ancestors as counting, then everyone is also a descendent of the woman's father, and you have your Adam.
Ha ha, yes I think I had a brain fart - the second example is supporting your point, not mine.
However, back to the first point - when we talk about Adam & Eve in the context of common ancestors, it is in reference to mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam.
TMW: mitochondrial DNA is not passed from father to daughter. Y-chromosomal DNA is not passed from mother to son. The common male ancestor all males on Earth got their Y-chromosomal DNA from is called Y-chromosomal-Adam. The common female ancestor all females on Earth got their mitochondrial DNA from is called Mitochondrial-Eve. These two people lived thousands of years apart. Apologies for not being more clear.
"The Bible tells exactly which rivers Eden flowed between prior to a worldwide flood. It mentions the Tigris, and Euphrates."
The Greek gods lived on Mt. Olympus. Mt. Olympus is an inarguably real place, therefore the Greek gods exist. Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street. Baker Street is a real street in London, therefore Sherlock Holmes was real. Spider-man lives in New York City, and New York City is definitely real, therefore Spider-man is an actual person.
"Did you even consider when writing your comment that maybe, just maybe, they could have named the new rivers after rivers which previously existed?"
Atlanta is named for the Greek titan Atlas, therefore there's really a giant holding the sky up on his shoulder. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday are all named for Norse gods, therefore the Norse gods are real. There's a city in Illinois called Metropolis, therefore Superman is real.
" the Bible is one of the most historically correct documents of its time". Hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahhaahhahaah. Hahaahaha. Heheh. Heh. Sigh. Good one there.
The only thing that doesn't belong here is Mt Olympus, which is a very real place. The Garden of Eden is certainly fictitious, and also a myth, and yes they're not precisely the same things but it is both. Olympus is neither.
There's also some scholarly hypotheses that the story of Atlantis was based on a real place - the strongest evidence maybe points to it being Fira/Thera/Santorini, which was home to a Minoan Brozen-Age city on an island near totally obliterated by one of the largest volcanic eruptions in human history around 1600 BC, though there are other contenders - making Atlantis perhaps mythologized by not actually mythical.
I am so glad you spoke up and gave us the ultimate answer, considering you clearly believe yourself to be all-knowing on all subjects and therefore anyone who disagrees with your view is wrong. I have never seen someone comment with such "authority" on so many quizzes and subjects.
the irony in this last comment of course being that I am merely echoing the broad and heavily attested scholarly consensus... without pride or hubris... meanwhile the person responding to me actually DOES believe he has special and unique wisdom and authority to determine what is right and wrong, and therefore feels the need to project his own arrogance on to anyone who repeats the consensus that he, without evidence, feels entitled to disagree with.
I find something like 80-90% of all people making personal attacks online are projecting. More guilty themselves of the things they accuse others of being. Of course... that's just an estimate, a guess, I don't and have never claimed to know everything. Reality is what it is, we can observe it or we can argue with it.
Reflecting on the fact that I'm exchanging words with someone accusing me of being closed off to being wrong... who himself ostensibly believes in the historicity of a magical garden with a talking snake and super-power granting fruit... makes me feel kind of silly.
Sometimes better just not to comment. I realize that I have farther to go before learning this lesson than most people here.
Everyone is "entitled" to disagree with anything, welcome to humanity. Again, all I was stating is that the hubris in your responses makes you sound like a "know-it-all". Doesn't matter if I agree with you or not, many times I do. It just comes across that you believe you have some authority over others with your views. I never stated I believe myself to have a special or unique wisdom or authority to determine what is right and wrong. In fact, I never even stated I disagreed with you. You assume to know what I believe based on a single post, whereas I have a website full of comments by you to back the view my views. I am sure you will respond with a well worded paragraph full of authoritative presumption of me and anyone else who disagrees with you. Clearly I have struck a nerve
if it makes you feel better to imagine that. okay. have fun with that. Obviously the words I type here have little relation to your understanding of them, so no point trying to correct you.
I have to apologise to most of the Americans here, but bebn123's attitude is one of the major things I dislike and fear about America. Not the first and not the last person to vocally feeling attacked the moment not everybody shares their personal belief. Yes. It's religion, it's a belief, not a science, not a truth. That's what religion is about FAITH. NOT PROOF. Don't confuse the two.
America, as far as I understand, has freedom of religion, so WHY should any American non-religious website show a positive bias towards Christianity? Demanding that it should be so, is totally pulling the rug from under freedom of religion.
Except that I didn't say anything about demanding religious-based bias? What I said back then was how it was a bad move to include a location mentioned in the Bible in a quiz about objectively mythical locations. Granted, I based that off the (incorrect) notion that "mythical" specifically meant fictional, but I've since addressed that, so now I take no issue with it. If anything, I was saying "Don't trivialize other religions," not "You should advocate for this religion specifically." Do you mind if I ask why you got the impression that I was insinuating said bias?
When you want others to conform to your belief that a fictional, yes fictional, place is real and consider that disagreeing, or even acknowedging that such a disagreement exists by its mere mention, is trivializing your belief, then yes, you are indeed demanding that they show the same bias. Your book has no more historical merit than Homer's lliad, and proof of that is overly abundant. Half of it was written 2 millennia ago, the other half is from the bronze age. People ignored a lot of things about the world back then, time to get an update.
So you're advocating for the special treatment of Christianity. There are places in this quiz which are part of other religions, but apparently you're fine with those... just not the Christian one.
Wow,I thought it would be a prejudice that Americans are sooooo crazy with God and stuff. I hoped it is bad propaganda that most people in America believe in creationism and not in Darwin. I was wrong, as a lot of comments show and that scares me. Americans always believe that they are the crown of creation and the "best" and "strongest" nation in the world. But so many seem to believe that the whole mankind is based on 2 people - Adam and Eve, and thats so weird. Sorry, if I offend some of you, but for me - as a western-European - this is so crazy (and stupid - sorry again).
Some of the Creationists commenting here are from the UK and Australia, and I think there's another one from New Zealand. But thanks for stopping by and sharing your prejudice with us.
Bigots obviously are not a rare species outside the of the USA. They comment on this website every day. My response was relevant to the comment I was responding to.
Compared to most western nations, the USA has a very high proportion of Creationists. This is demonstrable fact. But I agree that what people write here doesn't supply any actual evidence.
Did my comment really get removed? Was it the "t word?"
I'll say again. I'm American and I know that Evolution is a fact. So do near 200 million other people with the same address. Ken Ham is Australian. Ray Comfort is a kiwi. Harun Yahya is Turkish. Smartcookie, commenting above, is from the UK. There are crazy people in the Netherlands building replicas of Noah's Ark. So... when you come on here and automatically assume that every ignorant statement being made is coming from an American, and then imply that because you are European you are more enlightened and shielded from such stupidity, it kinda makes you seem like a jerk.
Mmmhhh....most of the Darwin-denier are from USA, not from Netherlands, from New Zealand or Australia. There are no universities in one of these countries which teach creationism as a actual fact. And this is a FACT! So it was just logical to assume, that these comments are by Americans.
So you are one of the 58 % which believe in Evolution. Congrats!
Well, i have to say the comments were far more interesting to read than actual quiz. I would like to point that George Bush said, "i believe the jury is still out on that one." Merka!!!
David Cameron: "we should feel proud to say, ‘This is a Christian country.’"
Barack Obama: "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
coro: I'm sorry that you lack the mental capacity to understand my perfectly relevant comment.
Aesthus: now... *that's* a strawman argument. Though we could have an argument about the religion of the United States and you would lose... that's not what I was saying and you've missed the point.
Perhaps they were referring to what the countries actually are. There is nothing in the US constitution to set it up as a Christian nation, whereas England (but not the rest of the UK) has the Church of England as its official religion. However, the UK is much less religious than the USA. Most British adults don't even believe in God (according to some surveys).
Land of the norse gods - Vanaheim! As there were two different groups, why should we leave out the other because they were more peaceful and had a smaller part in sagas?
Second time around. Got GOT. I nearly created a new sitcom by misspelling the mythical land of gold as Ed Lorado, whom I think of as an incompetent Sam Spade, possibly played by Andy Richter.
There are 2.2 billion Christians and 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. 4 billion is more than half of 7.3 billion. So the majority would agree that Eden is a real place, since both of these are Abrahamic religions.
The majority is not always wrong. The majority now think the earth is round. They are right. The point is that the majority of people do not believe that Eden is a myth, which was what @noodles seemed to be saying.
The majority of people do not run this website, so their opinion is meaningless. Anyone's opinion about a fact is meaningless - it doesn't change the fact.
There are very few things, outside of religion and opinion, that more than half of earth's population believe that are false. And your original comment was talking about how the majority's opinion should be used, so...yeah, I think the word hypocritical would be appropriate under the circumstances.
"There are very few things, outside of religion and opinion, that more than half of earth's population believe that are false." ...so you admit religion is false?
Really, kal? I mean that no religion is proven, and if you weren't trying to read idiocy into my words, you wouldn't see that. But returning to the point, no religion is believed by a majority of the world, so it's impossible for any one religion to be both true and believed by a majority of earth's population.
Not every christian believes the bible is true word for word. Many believe atleast part of it is more abstract, allegories. I would be surprised it nowayawdays it would be more than half that believe it word for word. (Even if you disregard the fact that many might label themselves christian, because they were brought up that way, actively practising it is something else. Many have not seen the inside of a church for years, or just go out of habit or community feeling)
I love the audacity that the ancient Greeks had in naming Olympus as the dwelling place of the gods. As a real place, they were just daring people to not even try to go up there. "Mommy, where does Zeus live?" "Oh, honey, he lives over there. Do NOT go over there. Sweet dreams."
Yikes... the cringe-worthy things you see about yourself five years later.
Look. I understand (now, anyway) mythological is not the same as fictional, so yeah, I admit I majorly jumped the gun assuming this quiz was implying "Christianity is a hoax." And yes, I also admit that back then I was way more close-minded and defensive about the issue than I am now, and my response to Hdny42 was overall unnecessary and may have come off as kind of ignorant or just kind of dumb.
But holy crap, people. Nowhere in there did I say anything about denying Christianity guaranteeing you a one-way trip to Hell, or if you don't 100% agree with my religious beliefs, you're not really Christian. If your religious beliefs vary? That's fine. If you disagree with me that calling the Garden of Eden completely fictional is objectionable (even though I already said I realize that's not what this quiz is doing)? That's fine. But nothing in my comment is worth getting all up in arms about. Calm. Down.
It took several years for me to admit I was wrong about my faith-based ideas as well and looking back at some of the things I wrote then it sometimes seems as though they were written by a different person. Be glad that you are capable of feeling that cringe. It's not something to be embarrassed about it means you are capable of self-reflection.
You hit the nail on the head there. Even in regards to topics outside of religion, I used to be pretty close-minded as a kid, and had a really tough time understanding how other people could possibly believe opinion X or view Y. Thankfully, time and experience eventually helped me break out of that mindset, so I'm so glad I actually have a reasonable amount of common sense and critical thinking ability now to keep me levelheaded.
All of us react when we feel our core beliefs are being challenged. As we acquire wisdom, hopefully we begin to realize we cannot change what others do or think, we can only change how we respond to them. I applaud your willingness to share your wiser self with us today.
All this religious commentary aside, Mount Olympus is an actual, factual place, so I question its inclusion here. There are those who may argue the residents were mythological, but as the quiz is about the land or location, it should be removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Olympus
Can you accept "Panam" for Panem? I was going crazy cause I knew the name of where Hunger Games took place, but it never occurred to me that the spelling is wrong.
Ehm the book roleybob is referring to is actually the Source of the word... Moore is the one that made that word up.. So if it wasnt for him that word wouldnt even exist.
Anyone else immediately got the zelda soundtrack in their head ? The harder I tried to think of the name, the more intense the song was going in my head haha Didnt manage to get it :/
others I missed are mushroom, westeros and panem. Never seen anything of hunger games or game of thrones. Panem means zero to me (well, it makes me think of bread...) but I have heard of westeros.
'mythology', as in, referencing a series of beliefs held by a group of people. If the people that believe in the bible are arguing that 'eden' shouldn't be there because it isnt a 'mythological' place, then we have an issue. I know there are video games and movie things here. Those, perhaps, shouldn't be considered 'mythological' but rather 'fantasy'. So in that way, it's a poorly worded title. However 'Valhalla', 'Olympus' and 'Eden' all belong in the same category... unless you don't think Eden is part of the christian mythology? If anything, Olympus would be the one that shouldn't be there because it exists on a map.
Dammit - I was surprised at getting all of them and then questions on the Hunger Games and Game of Thrones. I should obviously read more bookes with "game" in the title :-S
Mythical in the same way Olympus is. A story passed down thousands of years can't exactly be held to be fact. Ignoring the OTHER conversation about this
I'm offended that Shangri-La is considered a mythical place. It is very much real, I visited myself, but I had to leave. I've been trying to find my way back for 54 years now
This time missed Shire, El Dorado, and Avalon. Last time blanked on Mordor, Shangri-La, and didn't think of utopia. Missed Elysian and Lilliput both times
If nothing else, the story of the whole human race spawning from the incestuous relationship between a man and his morphed rib, has been proven false by genetics.
Going back further than that, the most popular theory of abiogenesis is that it happened only once in Earth history (or happened many times but the other times it didn't take root in the same way), and that every living organism on the planet is descended from the same self-replicating organic molecule, billions of years ago. So, if that's right (there are competing theories), then... after that molecule self-replicated once by splitting off some of its own matter (let's call it a rib?).. then there would have been precisely two "living" things on Earth. Though not exactly human. And we would have descended from those two things.
Look up mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam. There's no need for them to have been even vaguely contemporary. Or am I missing a joke?
So your post is a nice thought but not right - for a start, if they are all descended from HER father then she breaks the male line herself, and also her mate would be a more recent male ancestor.
More pertinently, there's nothing to stop the male line bottlenecking before (or after) that generation without affecting the matrilineal line.
Obviously all of these things apply the other way around as well
Fortunately, there were still 2 men left, and the 2 men were not closely related.
If the woman has multiple children by each man, then clearly there is more than 1 male ancestor (the 2 men) so we do not have our 'Adam', however all people (men and women) are now descendants of that 1 woman, so we do have 'Eve'.
In this scenario, the common ancestor is not restricted to considering matrilineal / patrilineal lines only
In your other example, however, it still only works if you restrict it to matrilineal/patrilineal lines. If you are considering all ancestors as counting, then everyone is also a descendent of the woman's father, and you have your Adam.
However, back to the first point - when we talk about Adam & Eve in the context of common ancestors, it is in reference to mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam.
The Greek gods lived on Mt. Olympus. Mt. Olympus is an inarguably real place, therefore the Greek gods exist. Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street. Baker Street is a real street in London, therefore Sherlock Holmes was real. Spider-man lives in New York City, and New York City is definitely real, therefore Spider-man is an actual person.
"Did you even consider when writing your comment that maybe, just maybe, they could have named the new rivers after rivers which previously existed?"
Atlanta is named for the Greek titan Atlas, therefore there's really a giant holding the sky up on his shoulder. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday are all named for Norse gods, therefore the Norse gods are real. There's a city in Illinois called Metropolis, therefore Superman is real.
Like metropolis. It's just... literally, a big city. Settlers don't always think much when founding a city !
I find something like 80-90% of all people making personal attacks online are projecting. More guilty themselves of the things they accuse others of being. Of course... that's just an estimate, a guess, I don't and have never claimed to know everything. Reality is what it is, we can observe it or we can argue with it.
Sometimes better just not to comment. I realize that I have farther to go before learning this lesson than most people here.
.
America, as far as I understand, has freedom of religion, so WHY should any American non-religious website show a positive bias towards Christianity? Demanding that it should be so, is totally pulling the rug from under freedom of religion.
Grow up.
And I do not wanted to offend somebody. Just sayin....
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
I'll say again. I'm American and I know that Evolution is a fact. So do near 200 million other people with the same address. Ken Ham is Australian. Ray Comfort is a kiwi. Harun Yahya is Turkish. Smartcookie, commenting above, is from the UK. There are crazy people in the Netherlands building replicas of Noah's Ark. So... when you come on here and automatically assume that every ignorant statement being made is coming from an American, and then imply that because you are European you are more enlightened and shielded from such stupidity, it kinda makes you seem like a jerk.
...just sayin'
So you are one of the 58 % which believe in Evolution. Congrats!
David Cameron: "we should feel proud to say, ‘This is a Christian country.’"
Barack Obama: "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."
God save the queen!!!
Aesthus: now... *that's* a strawman argument. Though we could have an argument about the religion of the United States and you would lose... that's not what I was saying and you've missed the point.
- Mo
The majority used to believe that the Solar system is geocentric. They were wrong.
Look. I understand (now, anyway) mythological is not the same as fictional, so yeah, I admit I majorly jumped the gun assuming this quiz was implying "Christianity is a hoax." And yes, I also admit that back then I was way more close-minded and defensive about the issue than I am now, and my response to Hdny42 was overall unnecessary and may have come off as kind of ignorant or just kind of dumb.
But holy crap, people. Nowhere in there did I say anything about denying Christianity guaranteeing you a one-way trip to Hell, or if you don't 100% agree with my religious beliefs, you're not really Christian. If your religious beliefs vary? That's fine. If you disagree with me that calling the Garden of Eden completely fictional is objectionable (even though I already said I realize that's not what this quiz is doing)? That's fine. But nothing in my comment is worth getting all up in arms about. Calm. Down.
others I missed are mushroom, westeros and panem. Never seen anything of hunger games or game of thrones. Panem means zero to me (well, it makes me think of bread...) but I have heard of westeros.