Evidence for God from Science

Himantolophus wrote:

You still try to avoid that pain in women is unique because of structure. Animals, none, don't have this structure and so don't have pain as anyone would define pain. Contractions are not the point. Its a tight squeeze unique to the female form. Evolution agrees to this and gives a explanation.

yes, humans are the only fully bipedal mammal (please don't counter saying a kangaroo is) so yes the baby of a human has a difficult way "out".

BUT, there is pain in our fellow mammals. Maybe not as much pain, but this is a relative term because the human female condition is the most EXTREME in the animal kingdom. I wouldn't argue that fish experience pain, or frogs, but egg layers do not experience anything simply because the size of their egg/young is so much smaller. Human babies, and other mammal babies, are so large in relation to their parents (for the most part) that they have to squeeze the young out over a period of time. This is the reason for the pain.

Evolution has an explanation that there are trade-offs for having certain traits. In humans, we became upright but must pay for that "benefit" by having an awkward birth canal (as well as a bad back and knees with age). In order to fit in all of our organ systems into our abdominal cavity and have the ideal bone structure for upright walking, we couldn't afford to have larger birth canals or ones situated like "lower mammals". So a horse or a mouse has less trouble giving birth but to say it experiences no pain or discomfort is lacking in evidence. If you can provide me with ANY information supporting your continual assertion, I ask you to please post it.

The evidence, evolutionarily speaking and Biblically speaking, points to pain in humans from the beginning. Death from childbirth was a common ailment in ancient times and I'm sure that was the case in pre-history too. Neanderthals and Homo erectus and Australopithicus had the same "design" and thus the same "flaw". Their pelvic structure is similar to our own.

Then your stilling missing the mark.
The reason for the pain is not that mammals must squeeze the offspring out. The pain is exclusive to women because the passage it, twisted, and with the larger size of kids it leads to a unique exclusive severe painfull experience. It is not relative. Its yes and no.
The discomfort or momentary slight DISCOMFORT for a minority of each kind of creature has nothing to do in substance or reasons RELATIVE to our girls.
You are wrong.
The agony of event and duration of women is as separate from animals as it is from mens irritation while watching.
Theres good material for the public just by googleing.
Rob Byers

Ah yes, I would ask you your references but then it seems so unfair that I would actually read yours and yet you are so implacable when even reading four links I have provided. Seems rather silly. I have read my fair share (and have shared with you, yet you refuse to even check them out).

Let me try to back up and clear the air....

*YOU* were the one claiming that contractions don't hurt, I merely pointed out (without negating your point about the size of the head and the passageway) that contractions are very painful. Ask any woman if the contractions hurt....oh yes, they hurt.

Nobody is debating that a woman's childbirth is painful. Infact, no one here debates that women have more painful labors than animals. The point remains; however, that animal labor IS painful, they HAVE contractions, and anyone who has witnessed ANY birth, be it human or animal, would have to be blind not the know that contractions are painful and the labor is painful. (Which would be painfully (ha) obvious if you read ANY of my links).

The point of contention, for me at least, has always been

1) Was this pain in existence before the fall ? (at any level)
2) Does the pain in the curse FROM THE HEBREW refer to physical pain or sorrow?
3) The fact that you are making an assertion (a change in the anatomy) and insisting that this assertion is supported by scripture when , in reality, it is only remotely supported by YOUR INTERPRETATION of scripture.


I would like to have an actual exchange with you, instead of you simply repeating the same stuff over and over. I feel like I keep bringing up new evidence (which you conveniently ignore or refuse to read) but you simply play your statement over and over again. I have defended my statements and provided references

Can we actually tackle point number 2?

It seems that there is a clear case for understanding that the Hebrew word in the curse is indicating that women will endure great SORROW in childbirth, not necessarily indicating some new physical pain. What is your argument that the Hebrew word MUST mean physical pain? Do NOT simply say "You're wrong", or repeat what you have said over and over again. I understand WHAT your position is, I am asking you to DEFEND it.

Zoegirl: I wouldn't have bothered to type that all out. Do you actually expect to get anywhere with him? You're going to see the same stuff in his next reply, I'd be willing to bet.

Then your stilling missing the mark.
The reason for the pain is not that mammals must squeeze the offspring out. The pain is exclusive to women because the passage it, twisted, and with the larger size of kids it leads to a unique exclusive severe painfull experience. It is not relative. Its yes and no.

It IS relative since you have no provided any proof that the difference between US and MAMMALS is BLACK and WHITE. Since the others have posted links that prove that animsl experience pain, there is CLEARLY a gray area in between simpler animals and humans. So this would mean the pain in humans is extreme relative to other mammals!

The discomfort or momentary slight DISCOMFORT for a minority of each kind of creature has nothing to do in substance or reasons RELATIVE to our girls.

You provide no evidence PROVE IT How do you know animals have ONLY slight discomfort?

You are wrong.

I could easily stoop to insults but I can't really accuse you of anything because you haven't said anything new or interesting since this thing started. If I'm wrong, PROVE IT.

The agony of event and duration of women is as separate from animals as it is from mens irritation while watching.

You provide no evidence PROVE IT How do you know how the animals feel (ignore the humans for once)?

Theres good material for the public just by googleing.

DO IT

Does anyone remember the original point of contention here? lol

I have debated this with evolutionists and always beat them when actual references were inquired.

That's a remarkable claim. Especially since your use of references here has been sparse and your ability to interact and refute direct sources has been quite lacking to my observation.

It's an easily proven claim however. How about providing us some links to these debates where we can observe your claims for ourselves?

zoegirl wrote:Ah yes, I would ask you your references but then it seems so unfair that I would actually read yours and yet you are so implacable when even reading four links I have provided. Seems rather silly. I have read my fair share (and have shared with you, yet you refuse to even check them out).

Let me try to back up and clear the air....

*YOU* were the one claiming that contractions don't hurt, I merely pointed out (without negating your point about the size of the head and the passageway) that contractions are very painful. Ask any woman if the contractions hurt....oh yes, they hurt.

Nobody is debating that a woman's childbirth is painful. Infact, no one here debates that women have more painful labors than animals. The point remains; however, that animal labor IS painful, they HAVE contractions, and anyone who has witnessed ANY birth, be it human or animal, would have to be blind not the know that contractions are painful and the labor is painful. (Which would be painfully (ha) obvious if you read ANY of my links).

The point of contention, for me at least, has always been

1) Was this pain in existence before the fall ? (at any level)
2) Does the pain in the curse FROM THE HEBREW refer to physical pain or sorrow?
3) The fact that you are making an assertion (a change in the anatomy) and insisting that this assertion is supported by scripture when , in reality, it is only remotely supported by YOUR INTERPRETATION of scripture.


I would like to have an actual exchange with you, instead of you simply repeating the same stuff over and over. I feel like I keep bringing up new evidence (which you conveniently ignore or refuse to read) but you simply play your statement over and over again. I have defended my statements and provided references

Can we actually tackle point number 2?

It seems that there is a clear case for understanding that the Hebrew word in the curse is indicating that women will endure great SORROW in childbirth, not necessarily indicating some new physical pain. What is your argument that the Hebrew word MUST mean physical pain? Do NOT simply say "You're wrong", or repeat what you have said over and over again. I understand WHAT your position is, I am asking you to DEFEND it.

I like just to discuss without homework. I know that studies here or there say there is complaint from female animals at childbirth. However my general observation of numerous nature shows of animals giving birth, horses, deer, many others, is of creatures with no evidence of what one would call pain. Then I know the direct reason for woman having pain and duration and so see it as black and white. The animals on this matter are the same and its not every creature is different.

When I said contrations were not painful I meant for animals ONLY.

Your point two.
The context of the verse and the context of the reality of birthpain must insist that the great pain and travail giving birth means just that. This is the traditional interpretation. I don't know hebrew but to see even as a option that its about sorrow seems a great stretch. To punish in such a abstract way seems unlikely when the obvious interpretation is well obvious.
Point one. I presume childbirth was like animals and so basiclly painless.
Point three. The great anatomical difference between women and female creatures which is the cause of the pain seems to insit is what changed. It is the most resonable and first conclusion.

I suspect most people do not know that women and birthpain is unique and just imagine that all female creatures suffere equally or size of the creature being a factor. Yet the bible and its first audience, a agricultural people close to the animal kingdom, had no doubts that women were unique. A separate reason for why they suffer at this time with labour pain as opposed to critters would catch their attention.

You still want to say its a matter of severity or degrees. Well to be its a defining severity and many degrees as to make the birthing experiences of both parties black and white.
Rob Byers

Himantolophus wrote:Zoegirl: I wouldn't have bothered to type that all out. Do you actually expect to get anywhere with him? You're going to see the same stuff in his next reply, I'd be willing to bet.

Then your stilling missing the mark.
The reason for the pain is not that mammals must squeeze the offspring out. The pain is exclusive to women because the passage it, twisted, and with the larger size of kids it leads to a unique exclusive severe painfull experience. It is not relative. Its yes and no.

It IS relative since you have no provided any proof that the difference between US and MAMMALS is BLACK and WHITE. Since the others have posted links that prove that animsl experience pain, there is CLEARLY a gray area in between simpler animals and humans. So this would mean the pain in humans is extreme relative to other mammals!

The discomfort or momentary slight DISCOMFORT for a minority of each kind of creature has nothing to do in substance or reasons RELATIVE to our girls.

You provide no evidence PROVE IT How do you know animals have ONLY slight discomfort?

You are wrong.

I could easily stoop to insults but I can't really accuse you of anything because you haven't said anything new or interesting since this thing started. If I'm wrong, PROVE IT.

The agony of event and duration of women is as separate from animals as it is from mens irritation while watching.

You provide no evidence PROVE IT How do you know how the animals feel (ignore the humans for once)?

Theres good material for the public just by googleing.

DO IT

The evidence I provide is the bible saying a unique punishment was put on women when giving birth.
Then knowledge of why women have labour pains. Which is not a hidden matter. I aid just google and even suggested a poular account in Nat geographic. Thats the evidence.
It includes why animals don't have pain. I also know from general observation of the common nature shows and everything that one can observe a effortless birthing.

Relative? Well we are defining relative down.
I say our women suffer great pain/agony and creatures don't. On average probably creatures have discomfort. Yet the big powerful point is that they don't have the pain because of the structure of their bodies. Our women structure is the cause of the pain. I would also add that evolutionists , who publish on the subject, never deny the great difference and instead put forward a evolutionary reason for the pain. The evolutionary reason is premised on the reallty of unique human upright walking.
This is pretty good witness by all sides that women are unique in why they have pain.
Creationists say punishment. Evolution says we walk different from all other creatures.
I don't see how I've been wrong in my reasoning.
Rob byers

byers wrote:I like just to discuss without homework

This is a remarkably silly statement. It's not as if I asked you to write a 15 page paper, for goodness sake! It's a sad statement that reading through a reference is considered an onerous task!

And since when can anybody discuss anything without doing reading and research?!?!? You are sounding like one of my teenage students who wishes that they don't have to read or study. YOu must INTERACT with people in order to discuss. THis, at its simplest level, means engaging in the evidence and arguments.

It's as simple as this.

You have made an assertion-animals don't experience pain.

I have provided three good references that back up my disagreement, you did not provide one reference at all

You maintain that contractions aren't painful in animals, a statement NOT supported by evidence. I am willing to agree that the passage of the baby's head makes it painful, but contractions of the uterine muscles ARE painful. You better be able to back up your claim that contractions aren't painful. They are, in simplest terms, spastic muscular contractions, painful!!

I asked you to tackle point two FROM THE HEBREW. You say that you haven't looked at the Hebrew, that right there should be a good reason for you to step back and examine the verse before you make such a rigid stand.

byers wrote:I don't know hebrew but to see even as a option that its about sorrow seems a great stretch.

But I have given you references, again, that show the Hebrew. It's not as if I am pulling this from thin air!! Sorrow is a valid meaning of the word!!

Go back and read the quote....unless you are unwilling to do a 5-10 minute homework assignment!

Himantolophus wrote:Does anyone remember the original point of contention here? lol

I believe it had something to do with a jaw perhaps?

Hip bone connected to the thigh bone

Is not

Is too

Not

too

Canuckster1127 wrote:

I have debated this with evolutionists and always beat them when actual references were inquired.

That's a remarkable claim. Especially since your use of references here has been sparse and your ability to interact and refute direct sources has been quite lacking to my observation.

It's an easily proven claim however. How about providing us some links to these debates where we can observe your claims for ourselves?

Richard,

As a moderator and in accordance with our Discussion Guidelines, which I suggest you read, I suggest you either respond to this request, retract your claim and/or cease making unsubstantiated claims.

Please note as well that our discussion guidelines very clearly suggest a familiarity with the subject and doing one's homework when engaging in threads of this nature. Certainly none of us have exhuative knowledge but we all try to maintain at least a passing familiarity with the subject matter. That's especially appropriate when you're directly presented the material.

Disagreement is fine. There's a standard, especially for those making absolute claims of the nature that you are doing, to be able to back things up.

Please private mail me if you questions or need help in this area.

Regards,

Canuckster1127 (moderator)

I think I have to lay this out as simply as possible...

We do not contest that:

1. Womem have pain at childbirth
2. The pain is due to our poorly "designed" birth canal and the tight squeeze for the infant
3. Humans are unique in this "design" and so suffer a bit more pain than other mammals

What you are wrong about is:

4. Stating animals do not experience pain in childbirth
5. Stating that contractions associated with animal birth is not painful, as it is in humans
6. That human pain in childbirth was nonexistent before the Fall
7. The skeleton changed somehow after the Fall

You must address the said questions above using sources.

What exactly is your whole point about this darn childbirth thing anyway???? If evolution has a reasonable explanation and creation has its own explanation, then how exactly does this support YEC?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

I have debated this with evolutionists and always beat them when actual references were inquired.

That's a remarkable claim. Especially since your use of references here has been sparse and your ability to interact and refute direct sources has been quite lacking to my observation.

It's an easily proven claim however. How about providing us some links to these debates where we can observe your claims for ourselves?

Richard,

As a moderator and in accordance with our Discussion Guidelines, which I suggest you read, I suggest you either respond to this request, retract your claim and/or cease making unsubstantiated claims.

Please note as well that our discussion guidelines very clearly suggest a familiarity with the subject and doing one's homework when engaging in threads of this nature. Certainly none of us have exhuative knowledge but we all try to maintain at least a passing familiarity with the subject matter. That's especially appropriate when you're directly presented the material.

Disagreement is fine. There's a standard, especially for those making absolute claims of the nature that you are doing, to be able to back things up.

Please private mail me if you questions or need help in this area.

Regards,

Canuckster1127 (moderator)

I am very familiar with the subject. You guys are being introduced to a new subject. Likewise your unfamiliar with my name. Its robert. Unless you mean someone else here.
my references are what I told people to googgle. Nat geographic articles etc. I don't collect references anymore then i do for state capitals. Its simple work and I only suggest it when people question me about common topics.
I don't need new info.
The links on pain in critters are silly and I've read a few before in the past. Posters here should make their own case in a few words and in which i don't doubt their integrity.
We've been around the block anyways and the subject is exhausted.
I leave it to the voters.
Robert Byers

Himantolophus wrote:I think I have to lay this out as simply as possible...

We do not contest that:

1. Womem have pain at childbirth
2. The pain is due to our poorly "designed" birth canal and the tight squeeze for the infant
3. Humans are unique in this "design" and so suffer a bit more pain than other mammals

What you are wrong about is:

4. Stating animals do not experience pain in childbirth
5. Stating that contractions associated with animal birth is not painful, as it is in humans
6. That human pain in childbirth was nonexistent before the Fall
7. The skeleton changed somehow after the Fall

You must address the said questions above using sources.

What exactly is your whole point about this darn childbirth thing anyway???? If evolution has a reasonable explanation and creation has its own explanation, then how exactly does this support YEC?

The moderator is on me about links or something so I guess we're done here.

My whole point is to show the bible is giving a answer to a unique human condition. The separation of women from animals shows the accuracy of the curse and hints at the separation of humans from animals. The explanation of evolution is just a attempt to explain however the bible is direct with a answer. Its good for bible believers and the rest. YEC is supported by making evolution have to hustle for a answer. Here I was fought even that there was a unique separation by everyone to some extent until the end. So I didn't reach the attack on evolution.

Your not contesting number two is because thats not the contest.
Number three's a bit more pain is scientifically wrong I insist.
Number 4, Pain is not a characteristic of animals at birthing even if some have it in some percentage. Its a whole different matter.
number 5, contractions in animals i know nothing about. I just know birthing is quick and easy by and large for one offspring.
Number 6, i guess there could be a bit of pain before the fall but the point is the great chasm of difference after the curse and between woman and animals. The great segregation of the great pain and travail.
Number 7, The skeleton change is the logical conclusion as it cause the pain and evolution agrees it is the source of difference.
Rob Byers