ContraBardus Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 Okay, so I admit that evolution of other creatures may be the beginning result, but evolutionists won't be happy until they can prove it was so for human kind as well. Imagine if you were a Creator, and you wanted to create something unique. Would you be surprised over the result of you designed it? Nope. But if you created a process which could lead to any kind of creature you never thought of, and then add your spirit to it, wouldn't that be more interesting? So why couldn't God? Well since the basis of this topic involves Biblical accuracy, as in Genesis and Adam and Eve being literal truth... Why would God be surprised? Why would he find it any more interesting either way? Isn't he supposed to be omnipotent, all knowing, omnipresent, and all that jazz? Now, I could see this being the case if he was not. There is that possibility after all, however, that leaves the basic premise of this in question out to dry as it would mean that the Bible is not inerrant. It says that God is all powerful, and all knowing. If he's not, then wouldn't he be not God, or at the very least, not Christian God, and the God of Abraham, as 'his' own book gives him these very specific qualities? Even if he still is, and the Bible is just in error about it, that still leaves the Bible open to error. What else is it wrong about? Why is it wrong if it's divinely inspired? What parts are credible and what parts aren't? How do we find out which is which? Why assume that the Garden of Eden story and the existence of Adam and Eve is true if it's wrong about God being all powerful and all knowing? Why assume that any one part of it is right if even one part is in error? That's not to say it should be assumed that because one part is wrong that all of it is incorrect, but it does mean that we should probably double check and figure out which parts are and which parts aren't in error. We'd need a method for that, I wonder which one would work best...hmmm... [heavy implication here.] It also shoots the idea of prophecy in the foot. How does God know what the end of the world will be like if he's not all knowing? If he can't see the future, then what's the deal with all those prophets making assertions about it? Why bother giving visions and making guesses about the future if he doesn't really know what will happen? How does he know he'll destroy Satan and cast him into the 'lake of fire'? What if Satan casts him into it instead? Isn't that the same thing as counting his chickens before they hatch? It would explain why the prophecies don't get fulfilled without wild convoluted twisting and 'metaphorical' interpretation or reading into them far more than any rational person should. Most of them weren't accurate and never really came to pass. Perhaps it's just what he 'plans' to do, but that still means he's got no idea if it will work out that way or not. Maybe he's not being quite so honest about the 'all knowing' and 'all powerful' stuff? It also leaves the question of why create such a complex system of Evolving life, and then put something else that's not a part of the system in place later? Why add humans outside of the system at all? Wouldn't it be better, and easier to just use the system to gain the desired results? That certainly makes a great deal more sense than evolving the rest of life for billions of years, and then adding another new form a few hundred thousand years ago. Why wait so long? Why stick it in at that point? Why waste a perfectly good system that can attain the same results? After all, if God can create the system and make it do what he wants, why can't he use it to create humans as well as everything else? What is it in their design or structure that required them to be made outside the system? Why bother with not using the system already in place that's working just as it should to begin with? What makes humans so special that they needed to be made outside the established system? Why bother using the same types of parts already in use? Why include Vestigial Organs that have no function such as the coccyx, small muscles around the ears, appendix, or tonsils? What was it he couldn't accomplish with the system that could be done outside of it? Wouldn't that make him not 'all powerful' as it's something he can't do? Having humans be a separate creation outside the system doesn't make much sense. They would be alien to the system, and either they, or it would have to adjust. Wouldn't the microbes and environment have destroyed early humans if this was the case? I suppose it's possible they'd survive, but the adjustment period would be a real bitch. Having to develop immunity to all those diseases and adjust to the environment. How could only two such creatures survive long enough to breed? Now, if God isn't all knowing, and could be surprised by the results of what he was making, I could see the entertainment value of evolution. Might be kind of cool. However, that would by definition, make him not the God of Abraham, or the 'father' of Jesus. Much like how a human quadruped would not be 'human' by very definition. Agnostic God would fit this template, but Christian God just doesn't work. So, the very basis of the argument, that the Bible is inerrant and that Genesis is true, doesn't really fit the scenario. In the end, assuming for the sake of argument that a God definitely exists, you're left with far more support for the Agnostic view of God, with little to no room for Christian God being the correct answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraBardus Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 So to insist that there are no intermediary forms, or that huge gaps in the fossil record preclude human evolution requires "willful ignorance." "Deliberate ignorance." The only explanation for failing to see the obvious is because you don't want to see the obvious. I stand by my claim, "You just want it to be "incomplete."" It doesn't take a mind reader to see this. I can't fault that reasoning, even if I wouldn't make the argument myself. I think it would be Hypocritical of me as I often fuss at Christians for making similar statements. However, I was referring as much to this part as the particular quote he chose: When the only "hole" left is your great-great grandmother, you will hide the body to be sure that hole is never fillled because you don't care how complete the record is. I'm not trying to fuss, as I know it wasn't that serious and mostly sarcasm. He did exaggerate quite a bit when he [jokingly] commented against it. I might have agreed with his counterpoint if he hadn't taken it too far and tried to play the victim. Even as a joke he tried to imply that we're all ganging up on him and beating him down just because he's Christian. It's got nothing to do with the fact that he's Christian. It's because what he's saying blatantly contradicts all known evidence, and has none at all to support that it's true. Thus, we call it a stupid idea, and it is. It's got nothing to do with the religious basis of the idea at all. It's stupid for reasons completely independent from the religious basis of the beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 When the only "hole" left is your great-great grandmother, you will hide the body to be sure that hole is never fillled because you don't care how complete the record is. I'm not trying to fuss, as I know it wasn't that serious and mostly sarcasm. He did exaggerate quite a bit when he [jokingly] commented against it. I might have agreed with his counterpoint if he hadn't taken it too far and tried to play the victim. Even as a joke he tried to imply that we're all ganging up on him and beating him down just because he's Christian. It's got nothing to do with the fact that he's Christian. It's because what he's saying blatantly contradicts all known evidence, and has none at all to support that it's true. Thus, we call it a stupid idea, and it is. It's got nothing to do with the religious basis of the idea at all. It's stupid for reasons completely independent from the religious basis of the beliefs. I don't know why I go to such extremes to make a point, when I could have just stuck with the facts. I guess the logic went like this: 1. Every fossil creates two more "gaps" on either side. 2. A complete fossil record would mean every human being ever born that has had progeny. 3. The insistence on a complete record is absolutely ridiculous, and suggests that it is not even the point. 4. In the impossible hypothetical situation of a "complete record", if one does not want to face the implications of evolution (the motivation behind the theist objections to evolution), then it would be necessary to keep the record incomplete - or face the fact that evolution did occur. If there were one body missing, that would be incomplete. I chose his great-great-grandmother figuring that she would be part of the fossil record, and without her his fossil family history would be "incomplete." So it was extreme and in poor taste. But when I keep asking, "What would it take...?" I keep coming up with answers that are vague, but imply the impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraBardus Posted October 7, 2009 Share Posted October 7, 2009 It's a case of him seeming to not understand that every piece of evidence is not required to make a competent and correct conclusion. For example, a criminal cannot get out of a murder charge by stating there's no 'photo of him committing the murder' in the face of numerous other evidence that all concludes that he did indeed commit the crime. Such an excuse would not stand up against DNA, Eye witnesses, records that place him at the scene, a murder weapon with only his fingerprints on it, a piece of his clothing in the dead victim's hands, scratch marks on his face that match the victim's fingernails, the victim's blood on his clothes, and an audio recording of an emergency phone call with his voice and an audio record of the act. Yes, the evidence is not complete, there is no image of him performing the act, but that does not discredit all the other evidence. He still did it, it's obvious he did it, and everyone will know that he did without any reasonable doubt. The evidence for Evolution is similar in nature. It overwhelmingly points to the same thing, all of it indicates the same conclusion. The fact that the fossil record is incomplete is irrelevant, because all the evidence still points to the same thing. The incomplete fossil record still indicates that conclusion, and it is supported by the other evidence such as DNA, Radiometric dating, biological observations, practical application, a working predictive model, and numerous other things that all reach the same conclusion. Evolution is correct, and that includes Human Evolution. The fact that he doesn't see or comprehend the facts and evidence, intentionally or not, does not discredit them. They are still there, still evidence, and still point to the same conclusion. The 'Garden of Eden' idea doesn't stand up, has no evidence, and regardless of what he believes, is not a fact and is not true. Evolution is, it meets all the standards of evidence, stands up to repeated verification and continued study, and works in both practical application and as a predictive model. Faith can't trump that, no matter how strong it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 You just want it to be "incomplete." Hurry!! Hurry!! The Christian! Lets say he is crude, unintelligent, and tell him what he 'is thinking' and then bash him! Stupid Christians Go back and read your OP. Stupid is as stupid writes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Faith can't trump that, no matter how strong it is. Ah, you have so little faith in faith. Faith can trump anything and have you marching over the cliff with the rest of the lemmings in a flash. For most people (if not all) faith is before facts. Even Einstein had trouble accepting the facts in the face of what he believed the Universe should be like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraBardus Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Faith can't trump that, no matter how strong it is. Ah, you have so little faith in faith. Faith can trump anything and have you marching over the cliff with the rest of the lemmings in a flash. For most people (if not all) faith is before facts. Even Einstein had trouble accepting the facts in the face of what he believed the Universe should be like. Ah, but he was also proved wrong. Even if he didn't like the way it sounded, he was still incorrect in the end. His faith didn't change the reality of the situation. Just like it won't in this case. People might prefer faith over facts, but that doesn't mean that faith trumps known evidence. Evidence wins in the end, even though it is often a long and painful process. People were burned at the stake to try and quell the idea that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of the Galaxy. However, eventually, the facts won out over faith. Just as people once believed that the world was flat, but again, faith was eventually beat down by a brutal pack of undeniable facts. People on the whole don't like accepting things that are true, but at the end of the day, they run into the wall of reality, and it knocks their delusion silly and takes it's lunch money before giving it a wedgie. Just takes a couple of generations sometimes. All the stupid, ignorant, stubborn people have to get old and die, and their faith becomes forgotten and replaced with the facts that their children secretly believed while thinking their elders were morons. In relation to the opening post. Abiyoyo, after thinking on it for a time, I do have to wonder how you came to the rather odd conclusion that birth pains have anything to do with the placement of the pelvis? Seriously. What brought you to the rather odd conclusion that it was completely unrelated to the practice of squeezing something the size of a watermelon out of an orifice the size of a lemon and having the inner wall of an internal organ peeled away in the process? I fail to see how having the pelvis at a slightly different angle would have anything to do with the discomfort involved with such an event. I'm rather confused at how you came to this rather odd idea that a slightly different pelvic position would make this a painless process or do anything at all to make it any more comfortable. I fail to see how walking around on one's knuckles changes anything that would create discomfort in the matter of childbirth. It's a very strange rationalization that led to this conclusion I think. It doesn't matter where your hips are, such a large physical trauma is going to hurt regardless of how straight your back is when you move about. No matter where the pelvis is located, the child still has to go through it in pretty much the same place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 No matter where the pelvis is located, the child still has to go through it in pretty much the same place. I remember hearing the reason why birth was so painful in humans was because of the large head. A big head needed to contain all that knowledge . I've got it when man ate the tree of knowledge man's head got really big causing birth pains. Oh my God! This proves the creation story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I remember hearing the reason why birth was so painful in humans was because of the large head. A big head needed to contain all that knowledge . I've got it when man ate the tree of knowledge man's head got really big causing birth pains. Oh my God! This proves the creation story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Phanta that makes sense, but does it mean that other primates experience a lesser degree of pain? I couldn't imagine what a horse goes through myself or any animal that has hoofs! Ouch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhoof Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 We raised cows and goats for a number of years after moving out here to the sticks. I can assure you, cows and goats suffer "travail" during birthing (hence the question to Yoyo about other mammals gods). I'm sure more than a few people here are aware that calves need to be literally pulled from the cow fairly often. We lost a cow and calf when she wandered off in the night to give birth (There are a few tell-tale signs to look for, but she wasn't showing yet). When we found her in the morning, it was too late. Goats are another story. The ones we had liked to kid in the middle of the night, on the coldest nights imaginable... out in the barn hallway, away from the heat lamps. More than once, I moved them into the basement when I knew they were due and have had them rest their foreheads against me and push with all their might (nearly knocking me over) as they gave birth. Some would even shed tears in the proccess. So, yeah. Other mammals suffer during childbirth too. Like someone had said earlier, this was just some story a Bronze Age people told new mothers to explain yet something else they couldn't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 That was awesome about the horses Phanta! I've always loved horses, but Santa would never bring me one! It does look as if the mother is protected from the hooves (corrected spelling! HA!). But you know, that still has to hurt! I agree with your post completely! In some of my spiritual CDs, they talk about pain and the resistance to it actually does make it harder because this resistance causes more muscular activity instead of letting it pass through you as just another sensation. He even takes this into sadomasicism. I just wished I would have known this before I had my daughter almost 11 years ago. Yet, the pain wasn't as bad as I expected. Early on, the doctor was concerened that my pelvis wasn't large enough for her to fit through. Everything went okay though and I delivered with 3 pushes and he told me to stop or I'd shoot her across the room! Okay, too much information! Anyway, anytime now that I have pain, I try to relax and let it do what it's going to do instead of resisting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 We raised cows and goats for a number of years after moving out here to the sticks. I can assure you, cows and goats suffer "travail" during birthing (hence the question to Yoyo about other mammals gods). I'm sure more than a few people here are aware that calves need to be literally pulled from the cow fairly often. We lost a cow and calf when she wandered off in the night to give birth (There are a few tell-tale signs to look for, but she wasn't showing yet). When we found her in the morning, it was too late. Goats are another story. The ones we had liked to kid in the middle of the night, on the coldest nights imaginable... out in the barn hallway, away from the heat lamps. More than once, I moved them into the basement when I knew they were due and have had them rest their foreheads against me and push with all their might (nearly knocking me over) as they gave birth. Some would even shed tears in the proccess. So, yeah. Other mammals suffer during childbirth too. Like someone had said earlier, this was just some story a Bronze Age people told new mothers to explain yet something else they couldn't understand. Oh, that's an awesome story Karhoof and what you did for them. And I agree that they suffer pain also. Well, you know if humankind can be blammed for the suffering of humanity, why not all of creation? Eve not only caused suffering for us but the snake and everything else too. Damn that Eve... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Ah, but he was also proved wrong. Even if he didn't like the way it sounded, he was still incorrect in the end. His faith didn't change the reality of the situation. Just like it won't in this case.[ People might prefer faith over facts, but that doesn't mean that faith trumps known evidence. Evidence wins in the end, even though it is often a long and painful process. If faith didn't trump facts, evidence, and supported theories, people would not believe in ghosts, fairies, and gods at this late date. However, people, even educated people, do believe such things. People are mainly irrational with some small ability to use logic. This is one of the facts. It is irrational to think that people are rational and would prove themselves so if only they knew the facts. I think that the idea that education will stop superstition is itself a superstition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auracle Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 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? Um, as a woman who has endured childbirth a couple of times, I don't think I'm too far off in stating that the pain in childbirth is more due to the muscular contractions of the uterus (which can be felt even during menstruation, though typically less severe) as it tries to squeeze the baby out into the world with a head with a greater diameter than the cervix. And unless I'm mistaken, quadrupeds experience labor pains too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraBardus Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Um, as a woman who has endured childbirth a couple of times, I don't think I'm too far off in stating that the pain in childbirth is more due to the muscular contractions of the uterus (which can be felt even during menstruation, though typically less severe) as it tries to squeeze the baby out into the world with a head with a greater diameter than the cervix. And unless I'm mistaken, quadrupeds experience labor pains too. I am male, and thus have no firsthand experience. However, I do have several relatives and friends who have experienced vaginal birth first hand. I visited most of them in the hospital to see their children, laugh at their condition [if they were of good enough humor], and listen uncomfortably while they described some of the discomfort involved. Not one complained of 'pelvic discomfort'. It was always other things, soreness from stretching, irritation in the inner wall of the uterus, soreness from overworked muscles. I've heard stories of muscle cramps, and stretching pain, vaginal tearing, but never a word about 'pelvic discomfort'. There was also mention in some cases of breast feeding causing soreness as well. The position of the pelvis may increase the chance of a birth being more complicated and dangerous for humans, but as far as I've ever heard, it's got nothing to do with making it any more or less painful. I wouldn't argue against research that says pelvic position creates a greater risk factor, and may complicate things a little, but I've never seen anything that says it's more or less painful because of it. I still don't think that pelvic position has anything at all to do with the comfort level of bearing a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted October 10, 2009 Author Share Posted October 10, 2009 Um, as a woman who has endured childbirth a couple of times, I don't think I'm too far off in stating that the pain in childbirth is more due to the muscular contractions of the uterus (which can be felt even during menstruation, though typically less severe) as it tries to squeeze the baby out into the world with a head with a greater diameter than the cervix. And unless I'm mistaken, quadrupeds experience labor pains too. I am male, and thus have no firsthand experience. However, I do have several relatives and friends who have experienced vaginal birth first hand. I visited most of them in the hospital to see their children, laugh at their condition [if they were of good enough humor], and listen uncomfortably while they described some of the discomfort involved. Not one complained of 'pelvic discomfort'. It was always other things, soreness from stretching, irritation in the inner wall of the uterus, soreness from overworked muscles. I've heard stories of muscle cramps, and stretching pain, vaginal tearing, but never a word about 'pelvic discomfort'. There was also mention in some cases of breast feeding causing soreness as well. The position of the pelvis may increase the chance of a birth being more complicated and dangerous for humans, but as far as I've ever heard, it's got nothing to do with making it any more or less painful. I wouldn't argue against research that says pelvic position creates a greater risk factor, and may complicate things a little, but I've never seen anything that says it's more or less painful because of it. I still don't think that pelvic position has anything at all to do with the comfort level of bearing a child. The technical information of the pelvic region during childbirth is explained as a normal process in which the pelvic bones separate, from the normal cm to an extra 2-3 cm for childbirth. This causes pain to different degrees. It is called pubic symphysis diastasis http://www.fastbrowsersearch.com/results/gogetit.aspx?fbsa=1&fbsl=3&fbsu=http%3a%2f%2fmtwb.infospace.com%2fclickserver%2f_iceUrlFlag%3d1%3frawURL%3dhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FDiastasis_symphysis_pubis%260%3d%261%3d0%264%3d64.106.240.196%265%3d76.97.115.152%269%3d082ccdb0c67d4e1ba17983487749ca01%2610%3d1%2611%3dmtwb.full.v2.unpaid.tbar%2613%3dsearch%2614%3d239138%2615%3dmain-title%2617%3d5%2618%3d4%2619%3d0%2620%3d0%2621%3d5%2622%3dgm02%252Bu5x41A%253D%2640%3dIDJSN1TK7CwiLzluL%252FccwA%253D%253D%26_IceUrl%3dtrue&fbss=pubic+symphysis+diastasis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraBardus Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Well, I never heard any woman mention any such thing. That's not to say it doesn't happen, but based on what I've been told by those who have actually had vaginal birth, it's unusual. I heard plenty about other soreness and pain, but never anything about pelvic discomfort. It's not exclusive to humans but is common in mammals including quadrupeds, particularly in mammals that give birth to larger offspring [in relation to the size of the parent, such as cattle, horses, mice, monkeys, apes, etc.] The young still have to get past the pelvis to exit the vagina in any mammal. There is still no indication that childbirth would be any more or less painful with the pelvis being at a slightly different angle. Less risky perhaps, and with less chance of complication, but there's still no reason to think it's any more or less uncomfortable. The 'exit' is still in the same place in relation to the pelvic bone. Your opening post just doesn't really have any basis to assume that it might be true. There's no reason to think that childbirth would be any more or less comfortable for a 'quadrupedal human' as a biped. Not that there is or ever was such a thing as a 'quadrupedal human' to begin with. I was aware of pubic symphysis diastasis, though I didn't know the term for it. It would still happen even in the case of a quadruped. The baby would still have to get through the same amount of space, and the bone would still need to dislocate to accommodate. It's not a very good hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Heck my wife popped both boys out like nerf darts. She swore that it was the extra doses of vitamin e that she was consuming upon the advice of Adelle Davis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Although I have never given birth (and will do just about anything to avoid it) but there are positions that women can be in that help alleviate the pains of birth; apparently, squatting is less painful of the positions (excluding water births) and labor is facilitated by gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraBardus Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Although I have never given birth (and will do just about anything to avoid it) but there are positions that women can be in that help alleviate the pains of birth; apparently, squatting is less painful of the positions (excluding water births) and labor is facilitated by gravity. I've heard that as well. My sister had hers that way. However, it's entirely possible to do so for a biped. Taking a more comfortable position is an option that can be taken by any woman. That's a matter of personal preference and not really supportive of the opening post's argument. It still doesn't mean that being a quadruped makes it any easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auracle Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 No matter where the pelvis is located, the child still has to go through it in pretty much the same place. I remember hearing the reason why birth was so painful in humans was because of the large head. A big head needed to contain all that knowledge . I've got it when man ate the tree of knowledge man's head got really big causing birth pains. Oh my God! This proves the creation story I remember hearing from one of my CCD (Catholic religious ed.) teachers that the Blessed Virgin Mary didn't suffer labor pains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhoof Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I remember hearing from one of my CCD (Catholic religious ed.) teachers that the Blessed Virgin Mary didn't suffer labor pains. ... but then, when you're writing your own doctrine, you can also claim that she remained a virgin her entire life. (even though the bible states that Heysoos had siblings ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts