IntroductionWithout a sense of the past, there is no memory, no consciousness and no responsibility If we seek to understand the cognitive environment of the world ancient, we must strive to understand how people thought about the past. How people understand the past provides a key to acting in the present. This research topic is divided into two sections: the first deals with origins and the human being and the second deals with the role of the human being in the cosmos (world). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The gist of my argument is the question of the theory of evolution (man develops from a simple animal to a complex) Ethics which in the 20th century was EE Confirmed by J. Huxley, C Waddington (Great Britain), E. Holt R. Gerard (USA), Teilhard de Chardin (France) and others. EE considers the moral behaviors of man as the functions of his adaptation to the environment. The criterion of morality is the process of development which embraces the entire living world. Everything that favored him is good; anything that hinders it is bad. Man processes ideas and moral concepts to orient himself in natural and social phenomena. Society is only the highest form of the natural association of living beings of the same species. In this regard, the researcher will want to refute the theory of evolution by profiling the facts about human origin from a historical point of view. Accounts or allusions to human origins are found in Sumerian Akkadian and Egyptian texts. Most of the stories are brief (a few lines), the longest (Enki, Ninmah and Atrahasis) extending over several dozen lines. Song of the HoeHymn to E-enguraEnki and Ninmah AkkadianAtrahasisEnuma FishEgyptianPyramid Texts 445, 522 (Khnum on the potter's wheel)Coffin textsCoffin texts Fate 1130Instruction of MerikareNeither the Egyptian nor Sumerian accounts place human origins in the context of conflict between the gods as do the Akkadian accounts, although two of the Sumerian accounts indicate that the people take up the work of the gods. The stories generally focus on the process and materials of creation, as well as the rules or functions of humanity. Ancient Near Eastern texts generally speak of human origins in collective terms (polygenesis). There is no indication of an original human couple who became the ancestors of the entire human race (monogenesis), this is one of the distinctive features of the Genesis account. The only extent text that has been suspected of representing the original human couple is KAR4. This idiosyncratic text has both Akkadian and Sumerian versions, with the main example from Ashur dated to around 1100 BC, the most important line (19-49) describes all the intended functions of human beings as gods plan to create. Line 39 says: "they will be called Ullegarra and Annegarra", the problem is that these names, which seem like they could be the names of the first human in context, are preceded by the divine determiner, which suggests that they belong to the kingdom divine. This text still contains many uncertainties linked to its reading and interpretation. The next one then sees men multiplying and anticipates that “learned after uninstructed scholar after uninstructed will germinate like grain, germinating without being born. This is still a far cry from the Israelites' view that Adam (or Noah for that matter) is the ancestor of the race. These have little knowledge of human origin, but fail to have a broader understanding of who the creator is because they mentioned gods instead of God, thecreator of heaven and earth and of all living creators, including man (human beings). What are humans made of? ? Although there are many common motifs, there is no awareness in the ancient Near East regarding the composition of humans. Two Sumerian stories feature characters emerging from the earth (song of the Hoe, Hymn to E-engura). Clay alone is used in the Egyptian pyramid text (Using a potter's wheel) and in a Sumerian story (Enki and Ninmah). Some Egyptian stories use a product of the living creator deity, while Akkadian stories come from a slain rebel deity. In Atrahasis, flesh and blood are used, while in Enuma Elish and KAR4 only blood is mentioned. Only in Atrahasis is there a combination of common and divine materials. Divine infusion can be represented by means of the mother goddess giving birth to humans (Enki and Ninmah) or by divine breath (merikare coffin texts instruction). Thus, in the coffin texts, the divinity declares: “I will lead them and animate them, through my mouth which is life in their nostrils. I will direct my breath towards their threats” (refers to all creatures, not just humans). In the Israelite story, the elements are the dust and the breath of the Divinity; these have an air of familiarity but carry an important distinction. As in the ancient Near Eastern narrative, there is no physical element provided by the Divinity (tears, blood or flesh). Breath, as in the Egyptian stories, is not part of the Godhead, although it indicates that the Godhead is the source of life. . In Egypt and Israel, this indicates that the breath of Divinity characterizes all sentient life, not Jesus' humans. The ingredients used in human creation offer an archetypal analysis of what the belief about the nature of humanity was by those who preserved these stories. The difference between polyganism and monoganism indicates, among other things, a fundamental difference in the role played by the archetype and how humanity is subsequently perceived. Archetypal humanity is represented in Mesopotamian texts in at least two identifiable ways. The first and most common is its corporate and collective representation. This corporate identity makes it clear that the story of human origins, featuring discussions of role and ingredients, extends to all of humanity. The second depiction is in Enki and Ninma, in which the mother goddess, Ninmah, takes on the challenge of creating archetypes of certain classes of disabled or defective humans for whom Enki, the god of wisdom, must find a role. Archetypal discussion by definition focuses on connectivity and relationship because archetypes offer a paradigm or example. Archetypes establish a pattern and present themselves as representatives of a specified group. class. Connection and relationship are essential in attempting to understand the ancient meaning of personal and corporate identity. One aspect of this can be seen in an Akkadian pun that connects the term "man" (awilu) with the term for god (ilu). The Hebrew also offers a pun connection of the archetypal nature, indicating that the term 'Adam is appropriate since it is taken from adamah (ground) and Issah (woman) takes from him (man) by offering an understanding of how things fit together in these puns. reflecting a sense of order, several associations of archetypal relationships are addressed in the ancient world: from humans to divinity, from man to woman, from humans to the created world, from humans to previous and future generations. Even modern theologians wonder whether the human person is.