7 ms·

Another 'coincidence' is that the order that plants, water animals, land animals, flying animals, and humans are created seems to match what you might derive fr

by elwell 7y ago

Another 'coincidence' is that the order that plants, water animals, land animals, flying animals, and humans are created seems to match what you might derive from evolution theory. And, that man is created from dust of the earth. Kind of weird to even think that different animals came about within an orderly process. Kind of weird to think that the universe had a beginning; seems to make more sense to assume it just always was and will be, but current science agrees: universe had a beginning and will have an end.

tomrod 7y ago
More on what eats what I reckon :)
raducu 7y ago
What do you make of Adam being ashamed of being naked in the presence of God? To me, that seems to be just something a clothed adult in a pudic society would think, not something the first man would actually feel.
- elwell 7y ago
  The transition from being unashamed to ashamed is a big part of the Garden story. First: "Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." Then, later: "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths." I don't know, or care to focus on, how literal or figurative the story is. Perhaps it's describing a change that occurred during evolution to (or within) homo sapiens, a change that caused us to be more self-aware (in a bad way?), self-reliant, conscious of good and evil. Just speculation here.
  - anthk 7y ago
    More like "shit and pee attracts predators". Also, boobs, the vagina, the nuts and the penis are pretty sensitive to the sun/branches/grass and so on.
    - raducu 7y ago
      It takes children yeara to develop nakedness shame, and they develop it because of their peers, not something biological.
      - mcv 7y ago
        Shame is definitely learned. In that sense, the biblical story makes sense: shame is the product of sin there.
  - omarchowdhury 7y ago
    Adam fell into the duality of the subject object relationship when he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this much is implied in the very name of the tree which relates two opposing and irreconcilable terms. After eating from this tree, Adam began to see himself as seperate from God. This led to the absursity of his shame, since putting on clothes is not going to hide what's underneath from the all knowing being. For man, it is absurd that he sees himself as seperate from God, whose existence man depends on for his own being. Seeing his nakedness after having not seen it previously also speaks to man's mode of being shifting from the inward to the outward, with the surface of the body being the limit of outward development and the preoccupation with it being exposed pointing to this shift and fall. The two eyes of the two individuals, again signifying duality, being opened also attests to this shift since the eyes that see the nakedness can only see outwardly. And finally, recall that this shift from the inward to the outward is precisely the fall of man, since the "Kingdom of God is within you."
  - tikwidd 7y ago
    > Perhaps it's describing a change that occurred during evolution to (or within) homo sapiens, a change that caused us to be more self-aware (in a bad way?), self-reliant, conscious of good and evil. Just speculation here. This is something I think about sometimes. We now know that anatomically modern humans shared a timeline and even bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, probably others. So there was a period when anatomically modern humans, probably cognitively modern (thus capable of language) or close to it, were interacting with these other archaic homo sapiens and probably became aware of their cognitive differences. Maybe these ancient stories reflect an early rationalisation of how human-neanderthal or human-denisovan physical and cultural practices differed. Of course the stories would have to be transmitted for thousands of generations... Bonus armchair biblical hermeneutics: the Nephilim [1] are the biblical reflex of older stories about one or more archaic homo sapiens. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
    - mcv 7y ago
      That could certainly explain how Cain, son of allegedly the first man and woman, was afraid of what other people might do to him when he was exiled. Clearly his family wasn't the only people on Earth. Though I don't think that's really about Denisovans and Neanderthals. It's just a transition from creation myth to other kinds of myth, and not reflective of any real events. I'm a Christian, and I'm firmly convinced that the first half of Genesis (possibly all of it, but definitely the first part) is just a collection of older mythological stories shaped into a somewhat cohesive whole, with some mention of God shoehorned in, whether it makes sense or not. It's certainly not meant to be taken literally in any way. There might be a kernel of truth to some of them (there probably was a big flood where someone saved a lot of animals), but that kernel is small. From Abraham onward, it starts to look more like it might be based on real events.
- tenpies 7y ago
  You are free to take it as literally as you want, but it seems like it would allude to milestones in evolution: * As we get closer to the modern human, we lose body hair to better suit our hunting style. The trade off is we're much more vulnerable since our skin is pretty bad compared to almost every animal out there. * We make up for this by literally taking other animals' skins and putting it on top of our own. * Hunting societies begin to emerge in parallel to this change, and shame is a key element of the social interaction that allows that. Shame allows reinforcement and communication of expectations, all without violence or even language. Being exposed means that you cannot even take care of yourself, so you have to be able to show you are ashamed otherwise it means you're absolutely clueless and why would the group want you around if you're clueless?
  - eesmith 7y ago
    That's not universal. Only some hunter-gathers use animal's skins. Some use, eg, gourds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteka .
    - eesmith 7y ago
      The modern Sentinelese are hunter-gathers and also essentially naked, wearing only "bark strings", says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese . These observations support my view that the statement "Being exposed means that you cannot even take care of yourself" is not universally correct.
      - raducu 7y ago
        I'm genuinely curious as to why do they even bother with those strings then? Is it shame? Is it something else?
        eesmith 7y ago
        I am no anthropologist. A quick search on the topic (not specific to those people) suggests decoration, identity, and "perception of how to live life" are possible reasons. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-c... comments that it might be decoration. > Gilligan points out that humans were probably decorating themselves long before clothes even existed. "When you look at contemporary hunter-gatherers who don't use clothing, they decorate themselves brilliantly with body painting. You don't need clothing in order to do that." https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/debunking-colonial-myth-naked-bushman/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/debunking-colonial... points to several "contexts and situations where elements of dress [broadly speaking] seem to have been of particular relevance." One example is: > a hunter, before he tracks his prey, must cut himself and rub the cuts with a root called ssho /oa. And he must rub his body with it and wear ssho /oa in a band around his shoulders. This is to get the game to “run foolishly”, not knowing that it is afraid, and to approach the hunter as an equal. ... > Far from being naked, or nearly naked, the Bushmen of colonial southern Africa had a complex and meaningful practice of dress. It was intimately related to subsistence, identity and their perception of how to live life in the world as they knew it. The author's book is at http://witspress.co.za/catalogue/dress-as-social-relations/ http://witspress.co.za/catalogue/dress-as-social-relations/ .
eesmith 7y ago
You write: "the order that plants, water animals, land animals, flying animals, and humans are created seems to match what you might derive from evolution theory" I don't see that. Genesis 1:21 says "great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" were created on the 4th day, and "every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind" were on the 5th." Evolution theory has that whales specifically (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans ), and all marine mammals, evolved first on land then entered the sea. The same for winged creatures. Additionally, the Bible has two creation stories, with different orderings. Genesis 2 has man created before animals. Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:19 - "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them"
- mcv 7y ago
  > "Additionally, the Bible has two creation stories, with different orderings. Genesis 2 has man created before animals." This is an incredibly important detail that a lot of people ignore. Genesis 2 is a fairly old and classic creation story, whereas Genesis 1 is probably the most recent addition to Genesis, probably written during the Babylonian Exile. It's a poem, structured by the days of the week, that tells that God didn't only create animals and humans, like Genesis 2 tells, but also the very fabric of the universe, light, darkness, the sun and stars, etc. It expands the scope of Creation compared to the more human-level view of Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is the human story of creation, Genesis 1 is the scientist's story of creation (at the time; Babylonians were the scientists of their age and studied the stars).
- elwell 7y ago
  Thanks for your strong points. I guess I would say that it's still interesting to me how close it is to current details of evolution theory. According to my other reasons for believing in God and the value of the Bible, it seems wiser to assume that the scientific community has yet to observe enough. But, I understand how someone would prefer the current consensus of the senses.
scotty79 7y ago
And yet God made Sun, 'day' after he made fruit-bearing trees. Wonderful lack of coincidence.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mcv 7y ago
  In Genesis 1, light and dark, day and night, were created well before plants and trees. It's just the sun and stars that came later somehow.
  - scotty79 7y ago
    Yea... but we know that light comes from fusion happening inside the sun, so the light on day 1 must be some other kind of light. Some spiritual light? Not sure how plants can photosynthesize that.
    - mcv 7y ago
      We know that, but the author of the poem didn't. During the day, light seems to come from everywhere, and not just the sun. Raleigh refraction was not a familiar concept at the time.
      - scotty79 7y ago
        Author didn't know what he was talking about and any relation of his writings to actual reality is purely accidental.
- elwell 7y ago
  I'm fairly certain that having plants before the Sun contradicts most scientific consensus. Though, right now I'm focused on the things that are strikingly similar to our current observable knowledge. I also leave a lot of room for the scientific community to discover reasons to adapt their theories, as has historical happened. It is important to note that 'light' existed on 'day' one, and perhaps in a few hundred years we will discover a more specific description of how that was true, but the story doesn't claim plants grew without light. (Regarding the 'days' of the creation story, I certainly leans towards interpreting that poetically, for a few reasons, not the least of which being the lack of the Sun until 'day' four.)

by elwell 7y ago

tomrod 7y ago

More on what eats what I reckon :)

raducu 7y ago

What do you make of Adam being ashamed of being naked in the presence of God? To me, that seems to be just something a clothed adult in a pudic society would think, not something the first man would actually feel.

elwell 7y ago
The transition from being unashamed to ashamed is a big part of the Garden story. First: "Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." Then, later: "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths." I don't know, or care to focus on, how literal or figurative the story is. Perhaps it's describing a change that occurred during evolution to (or within) homo sapiens, a change that caused us to be more self-aware (in a bad way?), self-reliant, conscious of good and evil. Just speculation here.
- anthk 7y ago
  More like "shit and pee attracts predators". Also, boobs, the vagina, the nuts and the penis are pretty sensitive to the sun/branches/grass and so on.
  - raducu 7y ago
    It takes children yeara to develop nakedness shame, and they develop it because of their peers, not something biological.
    - mcv 7y ago
      Shame is definitely learned. In that sense, the biblical story makes sense: shame is the product of sin there.
- omarchowdhury 7y ago
  Adam fell into the duality of the subject object relationship when he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, this much is implied in the very name of the tree which relates two opposing and irreconcilable terms. After eating from this tree, Adam began to see himself as seperate from God. This led to the absursity of his shame, since putting on clothes is not going to hide what's underneath from the all knowing being. For man, it is absurd that he sees himself as seperate from God, whose existence man depends on for his own being. Seeing his nakedness after having not seen it previously also speaks to man's mode of being shifting from the inward to the outward, with the surface of the body being the limit of outward development and the preoccupation with it being exposed pointing to this shift and fall. The two eyes of the two individuals, again signifying duality, being opened also attests to this shift since the eyes that see the nakedness can only see outwardly. And finally, recall that this shift from the inward to the outward is precisely the fall of man, since the "Kingdom of God is within you."
- tikwidd 7y ago
  > Perhaps it's describing a change that occurred during evolution to (or within) homo sapiens, a change that caused us to be more self-aware (in a bad way?), self-reliant, conscious of good and evil. Just speculation here. This is something I think about sometimes. We now know that anatomically modern humans shared a timeline and even bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans, probably others. So there was a period when anatomically modern humans, probably cognitively modern (thus capable of language) or close to it, were interacting with these other archaic homo sapiens and probably became aware of their cognitive differences. Maybe these ancient stories reflect an early rationalisation of how human-neanderthal or human-denisovan physical and cultural practices differed. Of course the stories would have to be transmitted for thousands of generations... Bonus armchair biblical hermeneutics: the Nephilim [1] are the biblical reflex of older stories about one or more archaic homo sapiens. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
  - mcv 7y ago
    That could certainly explain how Cain, son of allegedly the first man and woman, was afraid of what other people might do to him when he was exiled. Clearly his family wasn't the only people on Earth. Though I don't think that's really about Denisovans and Neanderthals. It's just a transition from creation myth to other kinds of myth, and not reflective of any real events. I'm a Christian, and I'm firmly convinced that the first half of Genesis (possibly all of it, but definitely the first part) is just a collection of older mythological stories shaped into a somewhat cohesive whole, with some mention of God shoehorned in, whether it makes sense or not. It's certainly not meant to be taken literally in any way. There might be a kernel of truth to some of them (there probably was a big flood where someone saved a lot of animals), but that kernel is small. From Abraham onward, it starts to look more like it might be based on real events.
tenpies 7y ago
You are free to take it as literally as you want, but it seems like it would allude to milestones in evolution: * As we get closer to the modern human, we lose body hair to better suit our hunting style. The trade off is we're much more vulnerable since our skin is pretty bad compared to almost every animal out there. * We make up for this by literally taking other animals' skins and putting it on top of our own. * Hunting societies begin to emerge in parallel to this change, and shame is a key element of the social interaction that allows that. Shame allows reinforcement and communication of expectations, all without violence or even language. Being exposed means that you cannot even take care of yourself, so you have to be able to show you are ashamed otherwise it means you're absolutely clueless and why would the group want you around if you're clueless?
- eesmith 7y ago
  That's not universal. Only some hunter-gathers use animal's skins. Some use, eg, gourds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koteka .
  - eesmith 7y ago
    The modern Sentinelese are hunter-gathers and also essentially naked, wearing only "bark strings", says https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese . These observations support my view that the statement "Being exposed means that you cannot even take care of yourself" is not universally correct.
    - raducu 7y ago
      I'm genuinely curious as to why do they even bother with those strings then? Is it shame? Is it something else?
      - eesmith 7y ago
        I am no anthropologist. A quick search on the topic (not specific to those people) suggests decoration, identity, and "perception of how to live life" are possible reasons. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-clothes http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160919-the-real-origin-of-c... comments that it might be decoration. > Gilligan points out that humans were probably decorating themselves long before clothes even existed. "When you look at contemporary hunter-gatherers who don't use clothing, they decorate themselves brilliantly with body painting. You don't need clothing in order to do that." https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/debunking-colonial-myth-naked-bushman/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/debunking-colonial... points to several "contexts and situations where elements of dress [broadly speaking] seem to have been of particular relevance." One example is: > a hunter, before he tracks his prey, must cut himself and rub the cuts with a root called ssho /oa. And he must rub his body with it and wear ssho /oa in a band around his shoulders. This is to get the game to “run foolishly”, not knowing that it is afraid, and to approach the hunter as an equal. ... > Far from being naked, or nearly naked, the Bushmen of colonial southern Africa had a complex and meaningful practice of dress. It was intimately related to subsistence, identity and their perception of how to live life in the world as they knew it. The author's book is at http://witspress.co.za/catalogue/dress-as-social-relations/ http://witspress.co.za/catalogue/dress-as-social-relations/ .

eesmith 7y ago

You write: "the order that plants, water animals, land animals, flying animals, and humans are created seems to match what you might derive from evolution theory" I don't see that. Genesis 1:21 says "great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" were created on the 4th day, and "every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind" were on the 5th." Evolution theory has that whales specifically (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans ), and all marine mammals, evolved first on land then entered the sea. The same for winged creatures. Additionally, the Bible has two creation stories, with different orderings. Genesis 2 has man created before animals. Genesis 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Genesis 2:19 - "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them"

mcv 7y ago
> "Additionally, the Bible has two creation stories, with different orderings. Genesis 2 has man created before animals." This is an incredibly important detail that a lot of people ignore. Genesis 2 is a fairly old and classic creation story, whereas Genesis 1 is probably the most recent addition to Genesis, probably written during the Babylonian Exile. It's a poem, structured by the days of the week, that tells that God didn't only create animals and humans, like Genesis 2 tells, but also the very fabric of the universe, light, darkness, the sun and stars, etc. It expands the scope of Creation compared to the more human-level view of Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is the human story of creation, Genesis 1 is the scientist's story of creation (at the time; Babylonians were the scientists of their age and studied the stars).
elwell 7y ago
Thanks for your strong points. I guess I would say that it's still interesting to me how close it is to current details of evolution theory. According to my other reasons for believing in God and the value of the Bible, it seems wiser to assume that the scientific community has yet to observe enough. But, I understand how someone would prefer the current consensus of the senses.

scotty79 7y ago

And yet God made Sun, 'day' after he made fruit-bearing trees. Wonderful lack of coincidence.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mcv 7y ago
In Genesis 1, light and dark, day and night, were created well before plants and trees. It's just the sun and stars that came later somehow.
- scotty79 7y ago
  Yea... but we know that light comes from fusion happening inside the sun, so the light on day 1 must be some other kind of light. Some spiritual light? Not sure how plants can photosynthesize that.
  - mcv 7y ago
    We know that, but the author of the poem didn't. During the day, light seems to come from everywhere, and not just the sun. Raleigh refraction was not a familiar concept at the time.
    - scotty79 7y ago
      Author didn't know what he was talking about and any relation of his writings to actual reality is purely accidental.
elwell 7y ago
I'm fairly certain that having plants before the Sun contradicts most scientific consensus. Though, right now I'm focused on the things that are strikingly similar to our current observable knowledge. I also leave a lot of room for the scientific community to discover reasons to adapt their theories, as has historical happened. It is important to note that 'light' existed on 'day' one, and perhaps in a few hundred years we will discover a more specific description of how that was true, but the story doesn't claim plants grew without light. (Regarding the 'days' of the creation story, I certainly leans towards interpreting that poetically, for a few reasons, not the least of which being the lack of the Sun until 'day' four.)