Evolutionism vs creationism

[fazisi]

> Chance and coincidence are not the selection criterion for evolution, reproductive success is.

In my opinion, chance and coincidence must be factored in, in order for evolution
to be plausible.

I agree with gut on this topic. I know random events will eventually develop into patterns. I know that patterns generated in a truly random manner may appear to be intelligently designed. However, I understand a little bit about probabilities and apply this knowledge to having numerous random events generating diverse and complex patterns in such quantity as we find in our universe. It takes a little bit of faith to believe anything.

Seem to be doing fine, but for how long? For individuals, it is great,
but for species is it great? A few hundred generation of no disease
deaths (kept at bay via medicines, increased levels of sanitation,
new vaccines, etc...) would leave human species more or less able
to survive a pandemic? The more host bodies, the more opportunities
for mutations. Population would double how many times in ~200 years?
Makes for a large breeding ground, eh?

Medical advances are increasing the our evolutionary chances since it encourages the survival of mutated members of the human species. If at one point having an increased risk of heart failure presents itself as an evolutionary advantage, we will be glad for health care.

> Capital punishment and torture remained acceptable means of doling out justice up until quite recent history

The only periods that comes to mind where 'christians' murdered non-christians for
being different were spanish inquisition and scattered witch trials. Relatively
uncommon compared to the alternative.

The Crusades? The colonization of the Americas? Just to point out, Christians also murdered/tortured Christians in fairly significant numbers too. See: the history of Europe from AD 100-1945 for some examples. Still not very Christ-like.

A lot of things were done because of misinterpretation or a gross misuse of the teachings of the Bible. While one can blame "Christians", they should not blame Christ by proxy.

why is it that so many people accept a theory that you equate to chance?

Faith.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, remember?

This is a lesson about how all are guilty of sin and we must practice forgiveness. It is not a law about how to treat criminals.

[JellySlayer]

I'll answer to this, as other is clearly result of not thinking about the problem, like "who will be torturing whom", and such.

You're going to ignore the major claims where I clearly lay out, with documentation from the Bible, where it says that hell is a place of punishment and torture to focus on the details of the footnote? Or do you concede the point?

God didn't "create" sin. Sin is a state of being against God. It's just this way: whole world lives and works only because of God, as you get 'farther' from Him, you lose His support. And suffer. It's not that He 'makes' us suffer. Instead, He does not make us not to suffer, but only those, who do not want to be with God.

God created the universe and everything in it. He defined sin and its properties. If sin results in suffering, it is because God chooses that sin results in suffering.

And Jewish 'laws', described in Old Testament were given only because people lost their natural ability to see what's good and what's not. So God tells: "OK, as you cant think for yoursalves that's it: this is bad, and this is good".

I'll argue the contrary. See below.

About Adam and Eve:
"having no concept of right and wrong" - where did you get this strange thought?

From the Bible, of course. Read the account of Adam and Eve. The punchline is Genesis 3:22:
22 And the LORD God said, ?The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.? 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Clearly Adam and Eve had no concept of good and evil (right and wrong) prior to eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

"no concept of death" - where did you get this strange thought?

From the Bible, of course. Adam and Eve do not experience the concept of death until after the Fall.

"who had deceptive powers beyond their abilities to appreciate" - where did you get this strange thought?

It's generally accepted that the serpent is the devil, who is himself a fallen angel. The devil has powers beyond human capacity--see, for example, the temptation of Jesus.

"did not give Adam and Eve much choice in the matter" - have they been expelled from Eden right at the moment of eating that fruit?

I'm not sure what difference this makes.

A lot of things were done because of misinterpretation or a gross misuse of the teachings of the Bible. While one can blame "Christians", they should not blame Christ by proxy.

I'll have to dig back in the thread to double-check this, but I don't actually believe that I ever ascribed blame to Christ for the behaviour of Christians. What I did say was that his teachings were mostly ineffective at actually achieving their intended purpose. Christians generally don't behave more morally than anybody else (with possibly the exception of whatever town gut lives in), and in some cases behave in ways that are outright evil.

[gut]

you didn't quote any of my jibberish...

[fazisi]

I'll have to dig back in the thread to double-check this, but I don't actually believe that I ever ascribed blame to Christ for the behaviour of Christians. What I did say was that his teachings were mostly ineffective at actually achieving their intended purpose. Christians generally don't behave more morally than anybody else (with possibly the exception of whatever town gut lives in), and in some cases behave in ways that are outright evil.

I just wanted to make sure people are blaming the right culprits. Many so-called "Christians" make the most ruthless murderers seem like good baby-sitter candidates.

[JellySlayer]

you didn't quote any of my jibberish...

Didn't mean to leave you out I'm pretty sure if I had tried to cover both you and Dorten, I would have been way over 10k characters. His stuff took precedence because there's more there that I strongly disagree with.

I thought maybe you meant the seeming lack of evlolution in human bodies
that would allow to fight the virii without outside help.

Virii and bacteria evolve much more quickly than we do, given that they can reproduce on a scale of minutes or hours, whereas we reproduce on the scale of decades. I don't know how many generations it would take for us to develop a resistance to a given pathogen--my knowledge of immunology is basically zero--but I'd assume that it's not likely to be something we'd see on the timescales we're dealing with.

So you are saying it is a matter of faith with them

Faith is belief without evidence.

> I would contend that if something were designed intelligently, then it would be reasonable to believe that it should
be distinguishable from something that is based on chance

It is OK for me to not share that assumption? I have heard that assuming makes
an ASS out of U and ME

In that case, how do you know something is intelligently designed at all?

I do believe there was a guiding intelligence somewhere in there, somewhat based
on the fact that I don't believe theories such as 'first there was nothing, then it
exploded' and 'with ENOUGH billions of years (with proper conditions, no natural
disasters, etc...) it could happen'.

You prefer 'first there was nothing, then God spoke, and then there was something'? I'll also just point out that evolution doesn't deny the existence of natural disasters. There have been many mass extinctions during the history of the Earth. There hasn't been one that was so bad to wipe out all life, rather self-evidently.

As I've said previously in this thread, I sometimes wonder if it is evil/disrespectful
for me to simply not care what roll said intelligence played or when. After years of
thought I came to the conclusion that it is not

I agree entirely. I just also consider the possibility that intelligence didn't play a role at all.

Perhaps they were as you, endoctinated into (one of) the prevailing religions, got
old enough to think for themselves, decided it wasn't quite as true as they were
lead to believe, then went on to prove the old saying that 'zealots make the best
converts'.

Could be. Many Christians (eg. Roman Catholics) accept evolution as well though. As I mentioned earlier, Charles Darwin himself was an ordained minister and devout Christian.

> So you agree that many Christians don't believe Jesus' teachings

If they don't follow Jesus's teachings, how do you/them refer to them as christians?

Generally, if someone says that they are Christian, I assume that they're telling the truth. They may not have the same understanding of Christianity is another person, but then again, there's over 10000 denominations of Christianity, so that isn't really surprising. I think simply saying that someone who follows Jesus' teachings is a Christian is a gross oversimplification of the problem, to be honest. Particularly because, from what I've seen, most people who claim to be Christian are woefully ignorant of their own theology.

Again, what do I believe, what you tell me, or what I live? I have seen it with
my own eyes numerous times. I'll give an unofficial gut estimation that about 2/3
of young men in my area have changed lives do to jesus' influence, and heaven and
hell do play their part.

Are these people who were raised Christian? Or are these people who were formerly non-Christian and their lives changed after they became Christian?

the counter being that if you really believe in good, you won't do evil...

Sorry, let me be more specific. According to prevailing Protestant theology, the only criteria under which it is decided whether a person will go to heaven or hell is that they have accepted Jesus as their personal lord and saviour and believe that God has raised him from the dead. There is no requirement under the scheme of salvation to do good works, to believe in good, or to follow any of Jesus' teachings.

Somewhat tangentially, many Protestant Christians believe that once a person is "saved" that they are saved forever. That is because I accepted Jesus back when I was in my teens, even though I am now an atheist and no longer believe any of it, under their theology I still get into heaven.

> Jesus didn't claim to create hell, but he did claim to be God,

to the best of my memory, it is not as simple as a=b=c

Jesus is God or he isn't. Law of excluded middle.

I am open to the idea that most people's theories about any religion have been
screwed through time, translations, and such.

Very progressive of you. I agree completely.

" atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

How about we quote things in context?
"Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]"

I think it's a little disingenuous to take the "In a narrow sense" line and ignore the parts that lay out what other positions atheists can take. Yes, there are some atheists who have a positive belief that there is no God or gods. There are others who are unconvinced that there is evidence for deities, and therefore don't believe in them by default (eg. there's no evidence for unicorns, therefore I don't assume that they exist until evidence is provided). Others still, are atheist implicitly--that is, if you've never heard of god or Gods, you are atheist truly by default. Many people who claim to be atheist may also/actually be apatheist.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. If I knew scripture like you, I'd prolly
be an athiest too.

I'm tempted to change my sig to that quote.

> However you believe we came into this state is entirely to the fault of God.

You say fault, I say credit. I'm not particularly unhappy with life.

By "state" there, I was referring to "state of sin" that Dorten was alluding to. If you mean this in context... I'm not exactly sure how to interpret you.

[edit]Shocked that isn't 10k.

[gut]

>> many, many people believe that life came to be what it is now due to a process
that you describe as essentially based on chance

>> Ahh, many people believe. So you are saying it is a matter of faith with them

> Faith is belief without evidence.

They have evidence that 'life came to be what it is now' through nothing but chance?
Also, 'many' people believing anything has little impact on me.

>>> I would contend that if something were designed intelligently, then it would be reasonable to believe that it should
be distinguishable from something that is based on chance

>> It is OK for me to not share that assumption?

> In that case, how do you know something is intelligently designed at all?

Most abstract art COULD have been made by a randomly exploding clown, but was actually made
by an intelligence. I don't know 100% sure that my soda can doesn't exist as the result of
aluminum molecules randomly bumping into one another for millions of years, but such order
as I see in that can hints to me that it is more than the product of 100% non-intelligent
actions.

> You prefer 'first there was nothing, then God spoke,

If we are talking my preferences, I don't think I'd start with 'first there was nothing'.
Frankly, I don't think I'd start at all, as I have very little to start with.

> if someone says that they are Christian, I assume that they're telling the truth.

More assumption. No, not everybody that claims to be a christian is one.

> They may not have the same understanding of Christianity

They may not even care. There are people who will go to church every sunday and even fork over
10% of their paycheck for no other reason than to not be thought badly of.

> saying that someone who follows Jesus' teachings is a Christian is a gross oversimplification

would you consider a budhist who follows the teachings of budha the same?

> most people who claim to be Christian are woefully ignorant of their own theology

if they don't know the teachings of christ, then are they really christians

> Are these people who were raised Christian? Or are these people who were formerly non-Christian and their lives
changed after they became Christian?

I don't know them individually, and care little to associate with most, as they enjoy things I
don't (and we'll leave it at that). It is as simple as this, I see them before they start going
to church, and refering to themselves as christians, and I see them after. I prefer after.

> There is no requirement under the scheme of salvation to do good works, to believe in good, or to follow any of Jesus' teachings.

The counter, again, being that if you have 'accepted ... personal...' then you will be a changed
person that will live your life the right way. If you don't, then you didn't.

> many Protestant Christians believe that once a person is "saved" that they are saved forever.

never seen or heard of that branch, but then again, I never looked or listened for it. In other
news, some 'christians' believe in forcing their children handle rattlesnakes.

> That is because I accepted Jesus back when I was in my teens, even though I am now an atheist
and no longer believe any of it, under their theology I still get into heaven.

You came to know jesus? You had a personal relationship with jesus? You accepted him into your
heart because you knew he was real? If so, you are a traitor for betraying what you know to be
real. If you didn't know jesus was real, but just went through the motions because of some
deluded notions you had, then it wasn't a true acceptance, so didn't take

>>> Jesus didn't claim to create hell, but he did claim to be God,

>> to the best of my memory, it is not as simple as a=b=c

> Jesus is God or he isn't. Law of excluded middle.

If it had been that simple/logical, I might have actually studdied it. There are distinctions
between father/son/holy ghost in most (all?) branches of christianity. I am sorry that I am
not more informed on the subject.

>>> Religion of somethingism is like: you don't treat is as religion => you are not somethingist

>> Ahh, but what if you DO treat it like a religion?

" atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

>> People who are open-minded, yet unconvinced are agnostic.

> How about we quote things in context?

In my opinion, that was in context.

Dorten stated that athiestism isn't a religion because they refuse such notions as faith (which
you defined as 'belief without proof'). How do they prove that no diety exists? No, I was not
refering to all athiests (even specifically excluding agnostics), I was specifically refering
to the type of athiest which I did quote. In context.

> "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In
a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most
inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is
contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one
deity exists.[5][6]"

> I think it's a little disingenuous to take the "In a narrow sense" line and ignore the parts
that lay out what other positions atheists can take.

To be fair, let's break that paragraph down. I see:

is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities
and
> specifically the position that there are no deities
and
> Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least
one deity exist
as opposed to
> Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

Which mirrors agnosticism, which I quoted seperately.

> I'm not exactly sure how to interpret you.

[JellySlayer]

> Faith is belief without evidence.

They have evidence that 'life came to be what it is now' through nothing but chance?
Also, 'many' people believing anything has little impact on me.

Evolution doesn't say that life came about through nothing but chance. No, I'm not contradicting what I said earlier. I said earlier that you believe evolution is based on chance, and asked you to evaluate a series of claims based on that premise.

There is plenty of evidence for evolution.

Most abstract art COULD have been made by a randomly exploding clown, but was actually made
by an intelligence. I don't know 100% sure that my soda can doesn't exist as the result of
aluminum molecules randomly bumping into one another for millions of years, but such order
as I see in that can hints to me that it is more than the product of 100% non-intelligent
actions.

There's a problem with this argument. The only reason that you know the pop can was designed is because you can compare it to things that you know were not--things in nature. If everything was designed, there would be no reason to make this sort of distinction.

> if someone says that they are Christian, I assume that they're telling the truth.

More assumption. No, not everybody that claims to be a christian is one.

> They may not have the same understanding of Christianity

They may not even care. There are people who will go to church every sunday and even fork over
10% of their paycheck for no other reason than to not be thought badly of.

I'll point you in the direction of the no true scotsman fallacy.

> saying that someone who follows Jesus' teachings is a Christian is a gross oversimplification

would you consider a budhist who follows the teachings of budha the same?

Bad example (Buddhism has many distinct branches and sacred texts), but I get the point. Here's the thing. Nobody follows all of Christ's teachings. How about the one where you are supposed to sell everything you own and give it all to the poor? Or the one where you should gouge out your eyes if they cause you to sin? Regardless, Christians also rely on other texts besides just the words of Jesus to build their faith--most importantly the epistles of Paul, but the whole of New and Old Testament are part of standard Christian theology.

> most people who claim to be Christian are woefully ignorant of their own theology

if they don't know the teachings of christ, then are they really christians

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
Do all of those people who you claim to have been changed by Christianity follow all of Christ's teachings?

I don't know them individually, and care little to associate with most, as they enjoy things I
don't (and we'll leave it at that). It is as simple as this, I see them before they start going
to church, and refering to themselves as christians, and I see them after. I prefer after.

How do you know they're true Christians?

You came to know jesus? You had a personal relationship with jesus? You accepted him into your
heart because you knew he was real? If so, you are a traitor for betraying what you know to be
real.

Yes, I believed all of those things. I no longer do. When I was six, I believed Santa Claus was real. I saw him in the malls. I received letters from him in the mail. My parents told me he was real. The weather network tracked his sleigh on Christmas Eve. Presents showed up under the tree from Santa, and they were always exactly what I wanted. Based on the available evidence at the time, I believed with all my heart that Santa was real. Who could doubt it? The next year, I figured out Santa Claus didn't exist.

Likewise, I came to believe that Jesus was real. I talked/prayed to him regularly. He sometimes provided answers to my prayers, and sometimes provided direction to me about his will and desires for my life. I knew all about him from the Bible. Sometimes during worship, I'd feel a heat that would swell up in my chest, which I associated with the Holy Spirit. I had seen miracles performed. I knew people who had been healed. I knew people who spoke in tongues. If I committed a sin and didn't confess it, it would bother me all day--conviction by the Holy Spirit, you understand. Based on the available evidence, I believed with all my heart that Jesus was real. Who doubt it? Then I figured out God didn't exist, and Jesus was probably just a nice guy with some good ideas but wasn't resurrected and wasn't divine. And all those feelings that I experienced were just that--feelings, intuition, conscience, but nothing more.

[gut]

>>>>>>if the process is natural selection, with only factors you understand, the THEORY
ABOUT HOW THE RESULT CAME TO BE is 'elegant', yet if a guiding inteligence was
involved, said intelligence is 'a terrible designer'.

>>>>> Let me put it this way... many, many people believe that life came to be what it is now
due to a process that you describe as essentially based on chance.

>>>> Ahh, many people believe. So you are saying it is a matter of faith with them

>>> Faith is belief without evidence.

>> They have evidence that 'life came to be what it is now' through nothing but chance?
Also, 'many' people believing anything has little impact on me.

> Evolution doesn't say that life came about through nothing but chance.

Just because evolutionary theory doesn't say 'there is no room for intelligent design in this
theory, therefore it is at the mercy of chance alone' doesn't mean I can't evaluate for myself
that it is so. I see that saying 'nothing but chance' was badly worded. It implied that I was
saying there were no other aspects to evolutionary theory than chance.

> There is plenty of evidence for evolution.

None of that evidence proves there was no guiding intelligence involved. You have said:
> Chance plays a role in evolution in the sense that mutations, transcription errors, DNA mixing
So if you don't have intelligence AND chance, you only have chance. Right? That is what I meant
by 'nothing but chance'.

> The only reason that you know the pop can was designed is because you can compare it to things that
you know were not--things in natur

that isn't true.

> If everything was designed, there would be no reason to make this sort of distinction.

I can't formulate a response to this, as the first part was false.

>>> if someone says that they are Christian, I assume that they're telling the truth.

>> More assumption. No, not everybody that claims to be a christian is one.

>>> They may not have the same understanding of Christianity

>> They may not even care. There are people who will go to church every sunday and even fork over
10% of their paycheck for no other reason than to not be thought badly of.

> I'll point you in the direction of the no true scotsman fallacy

I don't think that applies. I am not saying 'no TRUE christian would do such a thing'. I am not
saying that some people are less christian than others. I AM saying that some people, literally,
fake it. The reason I know this is because not all of them remain silent about it forever.

> Nobody follows all of Christ's teachings.

agreed. most religious texts acknowledge the imperfection of man.

> the one where you should gouge out your eyes if they cause you to sin?

If your eyes somehow make you want to murder someone, then yeah, I guess I'd prefer to live next
to a bunch of blind neighbors than to be murdered by any of them.

> Christians also rely on other texts besides just the words of Jesus to build their faith--

I don't have a problem with that in general, but when the texts conflict with those of jesus,
wouldn't a christian give more credibility to the teachings of christ?

> Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

Would that make a difference in our debate?

> Do all of those people who you claim to have been changed by Christianity follow all of Christ's teachings?

Being imperfect, I would not think so, yet I'll repeat, I don't really know them individually.
The teachings they follow make them better people. They stop mistreating females, they cut out
the vices they had, they become less abusive toward family/friends, they become better
employees, they become better husbands and fathers. When they speak of the old days, they don't
do so nostalgically, like they are missing out now, but with regret and an explaination like
"but that was before I got saved".

> How do you know they're true Christians?

better question, why would I care? (<--not meant to sound snarky)

> I talked/prayed to him regularly.

not me

> He sometimes provided answers to my prayers

not once for me, unless the answer was the silent treatment

> and sometimes provided direction to me about his will and desires for my life.

I wish

> I knew all about him from the Bible.

I've read maybe 20 pages in my life.

> Sometimes during worship, I'd feel a heat that would swell up in my chest,

nope

> I had seen miracles performed. I knew people who had been healed.

nope, and nope

> I knew people who spoke in tongues

actually yes, but vocally accused them of faking

> If I committed a sin and didn't confess it, it would bother me all da-

heh, no

> Then I figured out God didn't exist,

Funny, you who had seen and felt all that wound up not believing in god, and me, who experienced
none of it does.

> all those feelings that I experienced were just that--feelings, intuition, conscience, but nothing more

maybe it was just your feelings, but does that invalidate it? On a different tact, even if it
was your body chemistry, that wouldn't exclude the possibility that god exists, just that it
wasn't god making you feel differently when you were younger.

[Dorten]

You're going to ignore the major claims where I clearly lay out, with documentation from the Bible, where it says that hell is a place of punishment and torture to focus on the details of the footnote? Or do you concede the point?

God created the universe and everything in it. He defined sin and its properties. If sin results in suffering, it is because God chooses that sin results in suffering.

Hae you read what I wrote? I'll repeat: think who will be torturing whom.

From the Bible, of course. Read the account of Adam and Eve. The punchline is Genesis 3:22:
22 And the LORD God said, ?The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.? 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Clearly Adam and Eve had no concept of good and evil (right and wrong) prior to eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 4:1
And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah.

Clearly Adam had no concept of his wife prior to being expelled from Eden.

That's the problem of translation. The tree was not just giving the knowledge of what is good and what is bad. Eating from it meant expiriencing evil, deciding what is good and what is evil. Like, "Lord, I think, that you are wrong at your good/evil conceptions, I'll make my own decisions". Before that God decided what is good. Now, man started deciding by himself, becoming like God. But man was still not perfect, and so his decisions were wrong, leading to experience of evil

From the Bible, of course. Adam and Eve do not experience the concept of death until after the Fall.

As with good and evil. Experience and knowledge are different things.

It's generally accepted that the serpent is the devil, who is himself a fallen angel. The devil has powers beyond human capacity--see, for example, the temptation of Jesus.

Adam was far more smart than we are. See theological interpretation of naming the animals, for example.

I'm not sure what difference this makes.

Oh... Read some books already.
The Fall was not eating from the tree, but blaming God for that. And while you continue to blame God for existence of sin, it just shows us the presence of Initial Sin in you.

Likewise, I came to believe that Jesus was real. I talked/prayed to him regularly. He sometimes provided answers to my prayers, and sometimes provided direction to me about his will and desires for my life. I knew all about him from the Bible. Sometimes during worship, I'd feel a heat that would swell up in my chest, which I associated with the Holy Spirit. I had seen miracles performed. I knew people who had been healed. I knew people who spoke in tongues. If I committed a sin and didn't confess it, it would bother me all day--conviction by the Holy Spirit, you understand. Based on the available evidence, I believed with all my heart that Jesus was real. Who doubt it? Then I figured out God didn't exist, and Jesus was probably just a nice guy with some good ideas but wasn't resurrected and wasn't divine. And all those feelings that I experienced were just that--feelings, intuition, conscience, but nothing more.

Typical story of protestant, who was disappointed by his sect (not the sect in the bad meaning of the word, but like a branch of protestantism).
You seek miracles, you seek emotional comfort, misinterpret psychical affects as being spiritual experience, and then you think, oh, something is wrong with Christianity... And what was really wrong is not a Christianuity, but your view of it.

I still suggest that you read some theological books. preferably the ones which was written before 10th century.

[Theym]

Genesis 4:1
And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah.

Clearly Adam had no concept of his wife prior to being expelled from Eden.

"And the man knew his wife" Is a way to say that they had relations......