Where Adam And Eve Quadrupedal?

[Abiyoyo]

Genesis 3:16

16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

 

So, the bipedal nature of humans is the reason that child birth is as painful involving the pelvic region of the body.

 

Could Adam and Eve been quadrupedal in the Garden of Eden?

[Vixentrox]

Did you ever think that was god just being his usual sadistic self? Of course the real reason is these moron tribes people needed a reason why childbirth hurts. Why not blame it on Eve...

[ContraBardus]

If 'Adam and Eve' were different physiologically, then they weren't human.

 

Humans aren't quadrapeds. If they were and had a different pelvis structure then they were an earlier species of hominid that evolved into humans. You know, like evolutionary science already suggests without the influence of a magic sky being.

 

The following videos explain in great detail Evolution, Abiogenesis, the problems with the 'Theory' of Intelligent Design, and should answer any questions you might have about these issues and explain why creationism is neither a theory, or a valid scientific principal, why it definitely should -not- be taught in Science classes at all [it's not a Theory at all, just an idea, and not Scientific in the slightest], and why Evolution is considered a fact. Which it is.

 

I highly suggest watching them, as they are the answers to this, and other questions you've posed about Evolution in recent posts.

 

This video series is awesome, and I highly recommend checking this guy's youtube channels out. He's got two, one for this 'made easy' series, and another for debunking the crap and idiocy of unqualified morons.

 

He also gets into the origins of the universe and how planets formed with other videos, as well as climate change, and other interesting topics. He also sticks to Science, known evidence, and verifiable theories with evidence to support them, and explains exactly why the proponents who speak against them have no idea what they're talking about and either completely misunderstand them or intentionally lie and misrepresent the facts to promote their views.

 

 

[ContraBardus]

[ContraBardus]

[ContraBardus]

[ContraBardus]

From the 'debunked' channel by Potholer54...

 

 

[ContraBardus]

There. That's why you're wrong. In explicit detail with references, evidence, and detailed explanations for exactly why you are wrong. It explains what the evidence is, why it's considered evidence, and why creationist and ID evidence is not considered evidence, but rather just religious propaganda and unfounded ideas without any support from Science.

As I mentioned, there's a few more videos detailing the origins of the Universe and Planets, explaining exactly how we know what we know, as well as a few dealing with Climate Change.

And no, Science is not limited to 'natural'. The Scientific method applies to any and everything, natural or supernatural. It comes up in the videos, but it's worth restating. Science is used to explain -anything- that happens, natural or not.

If this can't explain it to you, you're beyond help and should step aside because it's beyond your ability to understand or argue for or against, because it doesn't get any simpler than it is here.

[ContraBardus]

The whole series, minus the Climate Change and Ice Age videos is up on a topic in Science v. Religion now in the proper order.

 

There's several more videos there than here.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/33734-the-made-easy-videos/

 

A few more to add to this one as well...

 

 

[ContraBardus]

And one more, while not directly related, it's often used to argue against the evidence presented thus far, so I though it should be mentioned here as well...

 

[chefranden]

Genesis 3:16

16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

 

So, the bipedal nature of humans is the reason that child birth is as painful involving the pelvic region of the body.

 

Could Adam and Eve been quadrupedal in the Garden of Eden?

 

Absolutely, and they could lick their own asses after taking a dump too*. Adam could also lick his own pecker thus becoming the first homosexual, a thing that embarrassed him to no end after he ate that fruit.

 

*Having to wipe his ass with a corn cob was one of Adam's punishments. It brought a lot of sweat to his brow, let me tell ya.

[Abiyoyo]

Okay, I thought I turned my computer off before posting this, but I guess I didn't. I was going way more into death of the subject, but this thread has already been ruined by some troll posting a million videos up for no reason other than they feel I don't know what evolution is

 

I am reading a book Contra. Go back to the other thread please and read my posts. I just laid out the reason of my topic on evolution which is much deeper than this regurgitated junk everyone keeps PUSHING! PLEASE STOP!

 

[par4dcourse]

You claim t be "deeper" but your initial question is ludicrous and shows basic ignorance of the subject, hence the perceived need for the videos.

In a nutshell no, homo sapiens has ;never been a quadraped.

[Deva]

Okay, I thought I turned my computer off before posting this, but I guess I didn't. I was going way more into death of the subject, but this thread has already been ruined by some troll posting a million videos up for no reason other than they feel I don't know what evolution is

 

Between this and the other thread, I question whether you know what it really is too.

[Abiyoyo]

You claim t be "deeper" but your initial question is ludicrous and shows basic ignorance of the subject, hence the perceived need for the videos.

In a nutshell no, homo sapiens has ;never been a quadraped.

 

Why? Because you say so? They were in the Garden of Eden with a talking,....snake But you are telling me that to believe that Adam and Eve could have been quadrupeds in the Garden is,....ignorant

 

When did snakes begin to speak?

[Vigile]

You claim t be "deeper" but your initial question is ludicrous and shows basic ignorance of the subject, hence the perceived need for the videos.

In a nutshell no, homo sapiens has ;never been a quadraped.

 

Why? Because you say so? They were in the Garden of Eden with a talking,....snake But you are telling me that to believe that Adam and Eve could have been quadrupeds in the Garden is,....ignorant

 

When did snakes begin to speak?

 

Are you having us on?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Between this and the other thread, I question whether you know what it really is too.

 

Deva. Deva. Deva. That is like saying that because you question a specific aspect of the Bible, ...you really never knew the Bible at all. Have I ever said that to you?

 

I am reading a fascinating book on evolution as we speak, and how the hands would've evolved over time into the eloquent tools we have today being able to accomplish the most precise functions. The hands are still a mystery of the evolution of the human, but is under progress, especially since Lucy. I also am reading into the brain, and it's psychological and neurological relevance to the hands in humans. I personally am combining the two in question, which is, shouldn't the apes being experimented on have shown more improvement than they have, being as their internal makeup neurologically is similar to humans. My argument is that these apes, or any other, will only be able to be highly trained apes, and never break through as humans once did. Another point is that the human brain, even in crudest forms, is able to think and process the body far superior to that of any ape.

 

My sole question of that thread was a basic question, in which I have either been put down as not knowing evolution, or have been told it is to specific to answer ( even though Hans gave the most honest answer)

 

The explanations to each individual is really getting tiring.

[Guest Davka]

I personally am combining the two in question, which is, shouldn't the apes being experimented on have shown more improvement than they have, being as their internal makeup neurologically is similar to humans. My argument is that these apes, or any other, will only be able to be highly trained apes, and never break through as humans once did. Another point is that the human brain, even in crudest forms, is able to think and process the body far superior to that of any ape.

 

 

This question (and statements) demonstrate once again your fundamental lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution.

 

To answer your question: No. The apes we've been teaching should not have shown any significant evolutionary changes of any kind whatsoever in the few short generations that we've been doing these experiments. If we were to deliberately breed for intelligence for the next 50,000 years, then yes, we could expect to see evolutionary changes, just as we see in dogs and other domesticated animals.

 

Evolution is not the same as individuals learning things. It's not even remotely close. We can (and do) create computer programs which arrive at the most efficient possible method of accomplishing a particular task through evolutionary means. But the program does not "learn" anything along the way, and the computer does not think. The program simply tries numerous possible combinations and discards the least efficient. Evolution is more like trial-and-error on a DNA level, over millions of years.

[par4dcourse]

Evolution is not the same as individuals learning things. It's not even remotely close. We can (and do) create computer programs which arrive at the most efficient possible method of accomplishing a particular task through evolutionary means. But the program does not "learn" anything along the way, and the computer does not think. The program simply tries numerous possible combinations and discards the least efficient. Evolution is more like trial-and-error on a DNA level, over millions of years.

Davka, I've just finished an excellent book on that very subject: AI in diverse places from ant colonies to computers with some evolution theory thrown in. Good read. It's "Complexity, a Guided Tour" by (Dr.) Melanie Mitchell.

[oddbird1963]

Genesis 3:16

16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

 

So, the bipedal nature of humans is the reason that child birth is as painful involving the pelvic region of the body.

 

Could Adam and Eve been quadrupedal in the Garden of Eden?

 

 

I think you should submit this post to one of the authors who writes college and seminary textbooks on the subject of biblical hermeneutics.

 

I sincerely believe they would be willing to make this a paradigm of the mistake of eisegesis - reading your own special interpretation into a text with no textual basis for such an interpretation.

 

Perhaps Eerdmans publishing or some other Christian publishing company will be able to hook you up with an author who can use the quote.

[Guest Davka]

OK, Abiyoyo, I chased down and revised an old post of mine just for you. I'm going to keep a copy of it, along with a link to the original, so I won't have to keep repeating myself.

 

Here is my brief explanation of Theory and the Scientific Method.

 

Please read it so we can continue this conversation from a place of better mutual understanding.

 

(double-posted to make sure to catch your attention)

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Are you having us on?

 

I don't really understand what you mean here vigile, but assume you mean something like, trying to trick you or whatnot. No.

 

I was just thinking that it may have been possible (even though it doesn't say in the Bible) that they had already had children, and after the serpent deceived them, and God made it become painful, they just changed from quadrupeds to bipedal.

 

The genealogy from Adam to Christ was 6000-12000 years, the mainstream is around 6000. My thought was really simple, maybe to fantasy for here, but just exploring some thoughts.

 

Before this decree to Adam, Eve, and the talking snake; God created the Earth, and Earth was active so to speak. I ponder what if the time-lines are inaccurate all around, the Bible and the age from the earth and dating systems used.

 

There are flaws in all the concepts of our dating resources. Some may be smaller than others, debated, etc; but they are present. What I am saying is that there is no exact science when it comes to the Earth's relative age (even though I am sure many here we disagree) and this leaves room for wonder.

 

Lucy is my thought though. It is confirmed that she was bipedal. If Adam and Eve were quadrupedal, and were displaced from Eden and transformed into bipedal, Is it not possible that there would have been the same process as Darwin originally explained, the first step of the evolution of man would have been going from quadrupedal to bipedal. Yet, we don't have that missing link, so I still am left in wonder if it were possible that there is no missing link and man was made that way by God.

 

The next problem is the dating. Lucy is around 4 Mya which would make that ponder totally bogus, if the time-line is accurate. I guess I just wonder if maybe Lucy was a descendant of Adam, in crude form.

 

If you think about it and take away the time tables for a second from evolutionists, the process would still be the same, just quicker than thought. The reason I believe most think the process took so long is because as creationists, evolutionists want to fit the time-line. So, maybe Adam and Eve were Neanderthals in a sense, lacking supreme agility in some areas of the body, but evolved, quicker than thought, into the human we know today, same with brain growth. Just quicker. These are just all thoughts, and wonders.

 

Then we have dinosaurs? Where did they fit in? Funny thing is that the bible mentions giants being born from angels basically, but you don't hear that on Sunday morning. Could these giants, that mated with humans, have killed dinosaurs, that would be if the time table is wrong and Earth is much younger than expected.

 

The Mayans believed a Flood occurred around 3000BC. Sumerians recorded a regional flood around that same time. Now here's my deep thought for today. Adam lived 900 years plus, right? The Bible makes it from Adam to Flood in around 1600years. That was already half of Adam's life span. Lamech, the father of Noah, was born around 873 years after Adam was born, before Adam died at 930. It is still around 6 generations, but up to Lamech, they all were before Adam died. The point is that if you view it in this sense, it is like a man of today having great great great grandchildren.

 

In that, the flood happens when Noah comes about. Noah was born only 125 years after Adam died, which I would assume since there would have had to been some obvious differences in this world then and now for them to have lived that long, 125 years may be the equivalent of 2-3 years to us now ( just a guess).

 

Back to dinosaurs. Adam and his descendants Biblically are the only humans on Earth. That would make a small amount of people, all I presume within the same area, also considering that the land could have all been connected at this time, or at least the sea levels where lower than now.

 

Pondering for now. What if the Flood destroyed the dinosaurs and the fossils we believe to be millions of years old were the result of the Flood. There is only about a 500 year gap between Noah and Abraham, which many believe Abraham did live around 2000BC?

[oddbird1963]

 

 

Are you having us on?

 

I don't really understand what you mean here vigile, but assume you mean something like, trying to trick you or whatnot. No.

 

I was just thinking that it may have been possible (even though it doesn't say in the Bible) that they had already had children, and after the serpent deceived them, and God made it become painful, they just changed from quadrupeds to bipedal.

 

The genealogy from Adam to Christ was 6000-12000 years, the mainstream is around 6000. My thought was really simple, maybe to fantasy for here, but just exploring some thoughts.

 

. . .

 

Pondering for now. What if the Flood destroyed the dinosaurs and the fossils we believe to be millions of years old were the result of the Flood. There is only about a 500 year gap between Noah and Abraham, which many believe Abraham did live around 2000BC?

 

Oh , Brother!

[oddbird1963]

 

 

Are you having us on?

 

I don't really understand what you mean here vigile, but assume you mean something like, trying to trick you or whatnot. No.

 

I was just thinking that it may have been possible (even though it doesn't say in the Bible) that they had already had children, and after the serpent deceived them, and God made it become painful, they just changed from quadrupeds to bipedal.

 

The genealogy from Adam to Christ was 6000-12000 years, the mainstream is around 6000. My thought was really simple, maybe to fantasy for here, but just exploring some thoughts.

 

. . .

 

Pondering for now. What if the Flood destroyed the dinosaurs and the fossils we believe to be millions of years old were the result of the Flood. There is only about a 500 year gap between Noah and Abraham, which many believe Abraham did live around 2000BC?

 

Oh , Brother!

[Deva]

Deva. Deva. Deva. That is like saying that because you question a specific aspect of the Bible, ...you really never knew the Bible at all. Have I ever said that to you?

 

Don't give me Deva, Deva, Yoyo. You have been here long enough to know the effect tossing out your wild speculations will have on this site.

 

The more books you read on evolution the better. It is hopeless when you try to tie evolution to this Biblical account like you are trying to do. Metaphor can only be stretched so far.

 

Answer to your basic question-- No.

 

It may be tiring to you, but you throw this stuff out here like you are serious. It is in my opinion idiotic to speculate about the flood in relation to the dinosaurs.