Oldest known human fossil found in Europe

[Canuckster1127]

Its not debatable. The evidence is that there is now skeleton alignment that is the cause of the pain. So since pain came at the fall therefore the skeleton.
Rob byers

No. It is debatable. You have a theory but no irrefutable evidence. As noted the passage speaks to an increase in pain, and doesn't state there wouldn't be no pain before. You're stating more than the Scripture itself states. What gives you that authority?

[Gman]

My premise isn't wrong. Its bulls eye.
Your own verse says WITH PAIN as opposed to before WITHOUT. Greatly means so much more. since we know the amount now then the previous state at worst must not be much.

The verse clearly says that pain was already there. That's the point... You cannot say that it was introduced. It was merely multiplied like you said. It had already existed.

Also where is your verse that says that other new pains would be introduced into the world now? This verse only talks about childbirth....

Perhaps the little pain is no more then what female critters now have. Some here said they have pain and some here said women don't (in churches or something) so you guys need to get on the same page.

Ok, then why on earth would God let us feel a little pain? Do you think that there was a reason for it? Why would God warn us of some potential pain in the beginning before sin?

Sorry for the intellectual shock. It is a hidden thing from the masses for obvious reasons.

What intellectual shock?

The pain was a real punishment worthy of note and to separate from the previous state. I don't know the hebrew but since we know the amoint of pain now then we can extrapolate back to the original position and conclude that there was not pain but perhaps minor momentary irritation like with animals . They don't have pain but some are irritated.
The difference of our woman and critters is defined by the word pain. There is reasons for the pain. Animals don't have these reasons.

Animals don't have pain?

Surely the writer of genesis felt he was explaining a great difference in childbirth between women and animals.
If you think this is a bad premise well that explains why your mom creationist ideas are not well rooted.
Rob byers

That's a problem... Because when it comes to sin, the Bible tells us that death was passed upon to all men, not animals... For that all have sinned... Can animals sin?

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

[Himantolophus]

You contradict yourself. If birthpain is from standing erect then animals must not have same pain.
No they do nor grin and bear it. In fact animals are more scarry of pain then people.

you just contradicted YOURSELF. In sentence one you say that animals do not have pain since they do not stand erect, yet in the next sentence you say they do not grin and bear it because they DO experience pain. And you said in earlier posts that animals DO NOT feel pain. What do you believe????

this is sad attempts.

that is a sad attempt at English

Only our women have pain. The internet can provide details.

please use said internet to answer the questions posed to you in this topic.

]Indeed the evolution thumpers do have to reach for reasons why man is unique in this way.

evolution thumpers? Doesn't the Bible assert that Man is unique? If Man is unique evolutionarily speaking is does not go against what the Bible says (Man is unique). Science and the Bible in harmony.

You mean you have gone thrue life thinking all females have birthpain? No nature shows? Why would the author of genesis bring the subject up from a non believer point of view? They knew their audience surely was aware of this unique situation.
Theres a nat geographic article on it from a within a few years ago.

I highly doubt you read national geographic because that article was about the flaws in the human "design". It wasn't a creationist article. And you still haven't told me if you can actually speak to animals and ask them if they experience pain.

[Robert Byers]

Zoegirl and Canuckster.
I have been surprised at the resistance because obviously the posters are knowledgeable (more then average) people.
Evidence.
Women have pain because of anatomical alignments of the their bodies. This is the standard model. If women don't birthpain or less with each pregancy it is likewise because of understoof reactions and changes in the body. Yet birthpain is so common that it defines the birthing experience for the mother. Long discomfort and literal pain to severe pain is what everybody knows goes with the show.
The reasons for the pain are the unique anatomy of women and the child needing to transport thru. This is data that can be found where the subject is brought up.
Female animals do not have the same anatomy as women in this area. None of them. big or small rhino or ape.
This is a great difference in women and female creatures.
Now the bible notes this. It says that pain and distress with mark the women when giving birth. This was a punishment. Before this bithing was not painful or very little.
Therefore the change must be in the anatomy. Since creatures don't have pain because of the anatamy and women do then one MUST submit to the logic that womens anatomy changed a little to allow pain.
Otherwise women would have the same anatomy and yet no pain to speak of. An abursdity when we know why there is pain.
Rob byers

[jenna]

I haven't read all the posts on pain between animals and humans, but being there when puppies and kittens were actually being born, I would have to say that animals definitely experience pain when giving birth. It is more than just "irritation".

[Robert Byers]

Gman
The context and actual words leaves no room for doubt that the unique birthpain of women was introduced as a punishment. I suspect the accurate interpretation of the hebrew is that there is no hinting women would already be having pain. However if there was a pang here or there it in no way can obscure the clear intent of the author. We know how much pain there is for women and so can extrapolate back from great pain/travail to what a little is. The little surely would be what female animals have. Non existant or veru minor irritation. The author, God, is explaining that woman got punished with birthing pains and this would be understood by a agricultural audience.
The unique pain by women is the clear punishment of God. In short there was no pain to talk about.
There is no pain female animals for the reason there is in woman. Anatomical construction.

If you believe that anaimals have pain then you must show this pain occurs? We know about our women.
Rob byers

[zoegirl]

Zoegirl and Canuckster.
I have been surprised at the resistance because obviously the posters are knowledgeable (more then average) people.
Evidence.
Women have pain because of anatomical alignments of the their bodies. This is the standard model. If women don't birthpain or less with each pregancy it is likewise because of understoof reactions and changes in the body. Yet birthpain is so common that it defines the birthing experience for the mother. Long discomfort and literal pain to severe pain is what everybody knows goes with the show.
The reasons for the pain are the unique anatomy of women and the child needing to transport thru. This is data that can be found where the subject is brought up.

Have never debated this....teach it every year...not a surprise... pretty familiar with the anatomy and process.

If pain is a direct result of the curse AND A PUNISHMENT, then how do those few women escape the curse AND PUNISHMENT (you have women who don't even realize they are in labor who suddenly deliver!! Are they somehow outside of the curse? Does God choose to not punish them? How do you explain this?)

Female animals do not have the same anatomy as women in this area. None of them. big or small rhino or ape.
This is a great difference in women and female creatures.

Understatement of the year, that!
While I do not dispute that the anatomy is different, nor do I dispute that the level of pain is different, I disagree that animals do not experience pain in labor

I have provided several weblinks that show you that animals indeed suffer in labor. Dogs pant, dig, whine, show distress, and are restless throughout birth. Dilating eyes, increases in heart rates, increases in adrenaline, breathing rates are all hallmark signs of responses to pain as well as marked behavioral changes (going off alone to give birth). LIkewise any other animal shows symptoms of distress. Is it easier, shorter than humans? sure... can you make such blanket statements as yours that animal births are pain free? NO

Now the bible notes this. It says that pain and distress with mark the women when giving birth. This was a punishment. Before this bithing was not painful or very little.

Gman and Canuckster have both addressed this....it INCREASED.

Therefore the change must be in the anatomy. Since creatures don't have pain because of the anatamy and women do then one MUST submit to the logic that womens anatomy changed a little to allow pain.

Animals DO have pain during birth...but the verses don't necessarily mean physical pain exclusive to other pain.

Otherwise women would have the same anatomy and yet no pain to speak of. An abursdity when we know why there is pain.
Rob byers

It has taken you this long to even provide an argument instead of just repeating yourself over and over!! Finally!!

My comment is that you have absolutely no proof of this change, merely an assertion. The scriptures themselves make no reference to any anatomical change and only refers to an increase in pain, when this pain can be emotional, spiritual, with Eve understanding the corruption and sin any children are born into.

[zoegirl]

Gman
The context and actual words leaves no room for doubt that the unique birthpain of women was introduced as a punishment. I suspect the accurate interpretation of the hebrew is that there is no hinting women would already be having pain. However if there was a pang here or there it in no way can obscure the clear intent of the author. We know how much pain there is for women and so can extrapolate back from great pain/travail to what a little is. The little surely would be what female animals have. Non existant or veru minor irritation. The author, God, is explaining that woman got punished with birthing pains and this would be understood by a agricultural audience.
The unique pain by women is the clear punishment of God. In short there was no pain to talk about.
There is no pain female animals for the reason there is in woman. Anatomical construction.

If you believe that anaimals have pain then you must show this pain occurs? We know about our women.
Rob byers

Did you not even read the couple of weblinks I provided?


http://www.asaabstracts.com/strands/asa ... absnum=378

http://www.uoguelph.ca/research/news/ar ... pain.shtml

http://www.2ndchance.info/caninelaborstages.htm

Stage One of Labor:
During the first stage of labor the cervix begins to dilate and uterine contractions begin. These contractions are painful and perplexing to the dog. She will appear quite uncomfortable and restless - pacing, shivering and panting. She probably will not eat and she may even vomit. Some dogs whine persistently. Others occupy themselves building a nest. Uterine contractions, although occurring, are not as easy to see as in humans. This is the longest stage of labor. It generally lasts six to eighteen hours. By the end of this period the dog's cervix will have completely dilated for the puppies to pass. During this period keep the mother's environment quiet and calm. I usually shut them off in a darkened area such as the bathroom.

Stage Two of Labor:
During the second stage of labor uterine contractions begin in force. As this stage progresses the placental water sacks break and a straw-colored fluid is passed. Placentas are expelled after each puppy or sporadically during labor. Pups usually appear every half-hour or so after ten to thirty minutes of forceful straining. As the pups deliver, the mother will lick the puppy clean and bite off the umbilical cord. It is important to let the mother do this, if she will, because through this process she bonds with her puppies and learns to recognize them as her own. The rough licking of the mother stimulates the puppies to breathe and improves their circulation. The mother will probably eat some of the afterbirths. If the ***** does not tear away the sac and lick the pups to stimulate respiration, the owner should tear the sac open, clear all fluid away from the pup's nose and mouth, and vigorously rub the pup to stimulate breathing.
It is not uncommon, however, for the mother to take rests during labor and up to four hours can pass between some puppies. If more than four hours have passed without a puppy and you are certain more puppies are present take the dog to a veterinary hospital. Also seek assistance if the mother strains forcefully for over an hour without producing another pup. If you see the rear legs of a puppy protruding from the dog's vagina you can assist the mother by gently pulling the puppy in a downward and rearward arcing motion. You must do this very gently because puppies are fragile and easily hurt. It is normal for many puppies to be born rear feet first or breach. When a mother dog is stuck in incomplete labor the first thing I do is administer oxytocin and calcium to stimulate uterine contractions. If the puppies are too big to pass through the birth canal or the oxytocin fails to induce successful labor, I perform a cesarean section on the dog.

Stage Three of Labor:
The concept of a third stage of labor is borrowed from human labor terms. It is a very indistinct period in dogs. Once all the puppies have been born the dog enters this third stage of labor during which time the uterus contracts fully, expelling any remaining placenta, blood and fluid.

Doesn't sound like the ridicul;ously easy process you claim it to be.

[Canuckster1127]

Zoegirl and Canuckster.
I have been surprised at the resistance because obviously the posters are knowledgeable (more then average) people.
Evidence.
Women have pain because of anatomical alignments of the their bodies. This is the standard model. If women don't birthpain or less with each pregancy it is likewise because of understoof reactions and changes in the body. Yet birthpain is so common that it defines the birthing experience for the mother. Long discomfort and literal pain to severe pain is what everybody knows goes with the show.
The reasons for the pain are the unique anatomy of women and the child needing to transport thru. This is data that can be found where the subject is brought up.
Female animals do not have the same anatomy as women in this area. None of them. big or small rhino or ape.
This is a great difference in women and female creatures.
Now the bible notes this. It says that pain and distress with mark the women when giving birth. This was a punishment. Before this bithing was not painful or very little.
Therefore the change must be in the anatomy. Since creatures don't have pain because of the anatamy and women do then one MUST submit to the logic that womens anatomy changed a little to allow pain.
Otherwise women would have the same anatomy and yet no pain to speak of. An abursdity when we know why there is pain.
Rob byers

You're missing the point. You're making an assertion beyond that which the scriptures itself makes and further you're being inconsistent in its application.

[Robert Byers]

You contradict yourself. If birthpain is from standing erect then animals must not have same pain.
No they do nor grin and bear it. In fact animals are more scarry of pain then people.

you just contradicted YOURSELF. In sentence one you say that animals do not have pain since they do not stand erect, yet in the next sentence you say they do not grin and bear it because they DO experience pain. And you said in earlier posts that animals DO NOT feel pain. What do you believe????

this is sad attempts.

that is a sad attempt at English

Only our women have pain. The internet can provide details.

please use said internet to answer the questions posed to you in this topic.

]Indeed the evolution thumpers do have to reach for reasons why man is unique in this way.

evolution thumpers? Doesn't the Bible assert that Man is unique? If Man is unique evolutionarily speaking is does not go against what the Bible says (Man is unique). Science and the Bible in harmony.

You mean you have gone thrue life thinking all females have birthpain? No nature shows? Why would the author of genesis bring the subject up from a non believer point of view? They knew their audience surely was aware of this unique situation.
Theres a nat geographic article on it from a within a few years ago.

I highly doubt you read national geographic because that article was about the flaws in the human "design". It wasn't a creationist article. And you still haven't told me if you can actually speak to animals and ask them if they experience pain.

No I'm not contradicting myself. Just Poor writing.
Animals do not have birthpains like women because of the unique anatomical structure of woman.
Animals , as can be observed on nature shows but anyways is data somewhat well known, have little distress or any.
Animals, on fact, are not as tough as you think. No GRIN and BEAR it going on.
Anyways if you think animals have pain like our women then it shouldn't be hard to show it by data.
just google birthpain and many articles on it will come up. The nat geographic was not a creationist article but just useful to us.

As I said before evolution tries to say that standing upright is the reason for the pain. Standing erect is unique to humans . Therefore logically, animals don't have pain at birthing.
The pain was a punishment to Eve. Before she did npt have pain and therefore not the anatomy responsible for the pain. Rob byers

[Gman]

Gman
The context and actual words leaves no room for doubt that the unique birthpain of women was introduced as a punishment. I suspect the accurate interpretation of the hebrew is that there is no hinting women would already be having pain.
However if there was a pang here or there it in no way can obscure the clear intent of the author. We know how much pain there is for women and so can extrapolate back from great pain/travail to what a little is. The little surely would be what female animals have. Non existant or veru minor irritation. The author, God, is explaining that woman got punished with birthing pains and this would be understood by a agricultural audience.
The unique pain by women is the clear punishment of God. In short there was no pain to talk about.
There is no pain female animals for the reason there is in woman. Anatomical construction.

So you are saying since one verse is talking about the increase of pain in childbirth then other pains like death are also going to be allowed into the world as well?

Rob, do you know what you are saying? We need to be extremely careful with God's word. If we start injecting our own beliefs into it, it can have some severe ramifications. We cannot take a verse and try to make it fit our point of view. The verse is clearly taking about an increase in pain and we cannot say at what intensity that original pain was before the sin. In other words, there is no argument. Even if it only pertains to childbirth, we cannot say now that physical death was introduced into the world. This is a gross misuse of scripture... Sorry for being so blunt.

If you believe that anaimals have pain then you must show this pain occurs? We know about our women.
Rob byers

Rob, you never really answered my question from another post so I will ask it again. If you found out later that God instituted death and pain before man's sin would you despise Him for it? Please be honest with me...

[Canuckster1127]

You contradict yourself. If birthpain is from standing erect then animals must not have same pain.
No they do nor grin and bear it. In fact animals are more scarry of pain then people.

you just contradicted YOURSELF. In sentence one you say that animals do not have pain since they do not stand erect, yet in the next sentence you say they do not grin and bear it because they DO experience pain. And you said in earlier posts that animals DO NOT feel pain. What do you believe????

this is sad attempts.

that is a sad attempt at English

Only our women have pain. The internet can provide details.

please use said internet to answer the questions posed to you in this topic.

]Indeed the evolution thumpers do have to reach for reasons why man is unique in this way.

evolution thumpers? Doesn't the Bible assert that Man is unique? If Man is unique evolutionarily speaking is does not go against what the Bible says (Man is unique). Science and the Bible in harmony.

You mean you have gone thrue life thinking all females have birthpain? No nature shows? Why would the author of genesis bring the subject up from a non believer point of view? They knew their audience surely was aware of this unique situation.
Theres a nat geographic article on it from a within a few years ago.

I highly doubt you read national geographic because that article was about the flaws in the human "design". It wasn't a creationist article. And you still haven't told me if you can actually speak to animals and ask them if they experience pain.

No I'm not contradicting myself. Just Poor writing.
Animals do not have birthpains like women because of the unique anatomical structure of woman.
Animals , as can be observed on nature shows but anyways is data somewhat well known, have little distress or any.
Animals, on fact, are not as tough as you think. No GRIN and BEAR it going on.
Anyways if you think animals have pain like our women then it shouldn't be hard to show it by data.
just google birthpain and many articles on it will come up. The nat geographic was not a creationist article but just useful to us.

As I said before evolution tries to say that standing upright is the reason for the pain. Standing erect is unique to humans . Therefore logically, animals don't have pain at birthing.
The pain was a punishment to Eve. Before she did npt have pain and therefore not the anatomy responsible for the pain. Rob byers

Robert again, reasserting your claim without addressing the evidence and definitions you've been provided is not debate or remotely productive.

I've observed your presence on other boards where Christians are not present to a large degree. Most of us here are Christians and we're being far more patient with you than what you experienced on other forums. As a Christian who has enough scientific training in the field of Psychology to understand the Scientific Method and how to deal with evidence, I have to say that what you're offering here is less than even a competent Young Earth Creationist would offer.

You've been shown clearly that animals have pain in childbirth. You've been shown that the scriptural text itself speaks not of the introduction of pain but the increase. Yes that can clearly be seen to have been a result of sin. Yet you continue to speak in terms of introducing pain rather than ampliphying it and contradict yourself within your own post.

Your "logic" fails on several levels. You're reading elements into the Scripture that aren't there and switching back and forth at your convenience between positions, even within your own posts. You're inferring physical consequences of sin that again the Scriptures don't clearly state and you're using premises that are unproven and in fact, already called into dispute.

Your response is to restate your assertions and not deal with what you're being presented and not bring forth much evidence to support what you're saying.

Here's an example. Above you claim evolutionists state standing upright is "the" reason for pain.

1. Evolutionists claim it is a reason, not the sole reason.
2. You made a similar claim, asserting that the fall resulted in skeletal changes which explains the pain.
3. In effect, you're making a similar claim and where you appear to disagree it in terms of cause for why those physiological changes took place.
4. You offer no proof by way of comparison as to what the skeletal and physiological state of man was prior to the fall to support your claim.
5. You introduce a concept into Scripture that doesn't come from the Scripture itself related to the increase of pain meaning the introduction of pain.
6. You ignore and do not address direct evidence given to you that animals experience pain.
7. You appear to choose not to define your terms and be consistent with them.
8. You accuse others of not being logical and not understanding science.

I've missed several other elements but, that's enough for now.

[Himantolophus]

No I'm not contradicting myself. Just Poor writing.
Animals do not have birthpains like women because of the unique anatomical structure of woman.
Animals , as can be observed on nature shows but anyways is data somewhat well known, have little distress or any.
Animals, on fact, are not as tough as you think. No GRIN and BEAR it going on.
Anyways if you think animals have pain like our women then it shouldn't be hard to show it by data.
just google birthpain and many articles on it will come up. The nat geographic was not a creationist article but just useful to us.

As I said before evolution tries to say that standing upright is the reason for the pain. Standing erect is unique to humans . Therefore logically, animals don't have pain at birthing.
The pain was a punishment to Eve. Before she did npt have pain and therefore not the anatomy responsible for the pain.

all of this has been refuted already by previous posters. it has been shown...

1. That animals experience pain in childbirth
2. Upright posture is not a prerequisite for said pain
3. The Bible does not support your assertions that women had no pain before the Fall
4. There is no skeletal evidence in existence of your assertion that humans had a different body plan before the Fall
5. What body plan would allow us to remain upright but yet experience no pain?
6. So, in conclusion, your whole rambling is baseless and unsupported by any sort of evidence.

So, if you are going to come on and act like we don't know what childbirth is, or that female humans experience pain, or what the Bible says on it, then you are mistaken. Move on please!

[Robert Byers]

Zoegirl.
I must insist that women having birthpain is a actual fact. If some women don't it is a exception. The punishment of women by birthpains is not nullified by the exceptions. The birthpains are a real and defining aspect of childbirth.,
The great pain, even maybe agony, of women is not duplicated in female animals. Some female animals for this or that reason may have irritation or even pain but they are defined as not experiencing anything like the childbirth of women.
Again there is a anatomical or scientific reason. The baby in women is forced to squueeze thru in a more difficult passage. All female creatures do not have this same anatomical passage problem.

To rearrange the clear meaning of scripture of great pain and travail being proscribed by God and the reality of the unique pain is a clear attempt to deny the scripture surely. I have to say so.
Why such desperate fighting against a minor pint? I must of hit a nerve here that you guys aren't admitting too directly.
Rob Byers

[Robert Byers]

Gman
I guess I didn't understand you. I thought we were talking about the unique birthpain of woman as comparede to no pain of animals. I never said death was involved in this.
There was no death or pain before the fall. Gods punishment is actually what it is. A increase in such a way as to be obvious its a punishment. Therefore thee must of been no pain before the new stuation for women. The use of the word increase doesn't mean there had to be original pain. anyways no more pain then the conception (a joke).
The whole point is to show the truth of scripture on a interesting case. The separateness of woman from female animals is clearly dealt with in scripture. Human knowledge confirms this uniqueness and evolution must scramble to come up with another reason.
Score one for YEC.
Rob byers