JulieB Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Pain in childbirth depends on many things - number of children already delivered (in 99% of cases the first is the worst, it gets progressively easier), size of the hips (in the vast majority of cases women with wider hips have an easier time in childbirth) and the size of the baby (smaller babies are almost always easier to deliver). In normal cases I would say more like 100% of cases the first is the worst. MYTH: GIVING BIRTH IS EASIER FOR WOMEN WITH BIG HIPS Fact: It is not hip size which determines the space a baby must navigate through the birth canal, but rather the pelvis width and shape. The size of the pelvis correlates with the size of the feet. This explains why women with small feet are more likely to find it difficult to give birth naturally and may need to have a Caesarian. Research in the Netherlands has revealed pregnancy rates were higher among pear-shaped (large-hipped) women than apple-shaped women (whose hips are not their widest measurement). It appears pregnancy rates are higher in women with big hips and that foot size is more the determining factor. Edit Add: Although I would say that I have size 7 feet and my daughter size 8 which is big for a woman. Both of us had very very difficult first labours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I'm absolutely nowhere near an expert on evolution, but re the childbirth question my guess would be: if the pain stopped some females breeding so well and food was scarce and two hundred other factors, then the females that gave birth 'easier' would prevail as it happens, a lack of predators, an abundance of food and an abundance of potential mates means there is little problem solving evolutionary selection going on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 IIRC In preganancy a woman realeases hormones which enables bones to move and ligaments to stretch, but I'd ask why so much pain? What? Hormones? Show me where in the bible it supports this nonsense you speak of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Now, what happens when you have a reduced birthing space and an increased skull diameter? A flipping painful birth! In women that have naturally wider hips, this is much less of a problem. No I can't accept this point You can't accept that yet you can accept that God, an all powerful creator with infinite intelligence and ability, would make it painful? The Bible explicity states that Eve's birth pangs would be increased as a punishment for her disobediance. If she was the first human female, then that trait would have been inherited by all us. I just wondered what the alternative explanation was from an evolutionary perspective as to why human females go through so much pain in child birth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Julie, Who are the people of the old testament that the bible mainly speaks about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 IIRC In preganancy a woman realeases hormones which enables bones to move and ligaments to stretch, but I'd ask why so much pain? What? Hormones? Show me where in the bible it supports this nonsense you speak of. Bible doesn't mention hormones... I do find Psalms 139 interesting though about babies and pregnancy because of the genetic code we all have in our DNA which is individual to each and every one of us. (Psalm 139:13-14) . . . For you yourself produced my kidneys; You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. 14 I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.. . .16. . .Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing,. . . "All it parts" ie the genetic code are indeed present right from the moment of conception as we know from Science... and indeed recently we've cracked the genetic code. However how would the Psalmist have known this.... why speak of an embryo and all it's parts being present as an embryo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Now, what happens when you have a reduced birthing space and an increased skull diameter? A flipping painful birth! In women that have naturally wider hips, this is much less of a problem. No I can't accept this point You can't accept that yet you can accept that God, an all powerful creator with infinite intelligence and ability, would make it painful? The Bible explicity states that Eve's birth pangs would be increased as a punishment for her disobediance. If she was the first human female, then that trait would have been inherited by all us. I just wondered what the alternative explanation was from an evolutionary perspective as to why human females go through so much pain in child birth? The bible's version seems perfectly sensible and reasonable when you realise the truth - the bible was written at a time when practically nothing was understood about science and human anatomy. How could these people possibly have any idea about the true history of human origin? It makes perfect sense for them to invent stories about gods and demons in order to explain things they didn't understand, the exact same approach has been utilised by cultures all over the world since the dawn of humanity. The story of adam and eve existed as nothing more than a 'placeholder' until the truth was finally revealed. What doesn't make sense is why god would inflict the punishment for eve's mistakes on all women for the rest of time. It is a truly wicked thing to punish a son for the sins of his father, let alone to repeat this process for thousands of years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 What doesn't make sense is why god would inflict the punishment for eve's mistakes on all women for the rest of time. It is a truly wicked thing to punish a son for the sins of his father, let alone to repeat this process for thousands of years! It was Eve's punishment for disobedience to God and choosing to follow a wicked angel.... (Genesis 3:16) 16 To the woman he said: “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.” Since that time pregnancy and giving birth has been painful and what's more men have indeed dominated women in the main. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 The bible's version seems perfectly sensible and reasonable when you realise the truth - the bible was written at a time when practically nothing was understood about science and human anatomy Agreed so how would the Psalmist King David so accurately describe an embryo? My post from above... Quote: (Psalm 139:13-14) . . . For you yourself produced my kidneys; You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. 14 I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.. . .16. . .Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing,. . . "All it parts" ie the genetic code are indeed present right from the moment of conception as we know from Science... and indeed recently we've cracked the genetic code. However how would the Psalmist have known this.... why speak of an embryo and all it's parts being present as an embryo? Also it's always struck me as an interesting choice of words to use as "screened off"... the only other place that occurs in the Bible is in regard to the Temple in Jerusalem and the Holy of Holies being "screened off" it therefore implies seperateness... Why would an embryo be "screened off" or seperate within a mother? Actually in recent times it's been shown that even though a human female carries the embryo - it carries the father's blood and is kept completely seperate from the mother in the womb with only a limited amount of fluids and other components passing from the mother to the child via the umbilical chord. Interesting choice of words for a simple shepherd I thought anyhows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Wow! I'm only on page 5! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 The bible's version seems perfectly sensible and reasonable when you realise the truth - the bible was written at a time when practically nothing was understood about science and human anatomy Agreed so how would the Psalmist King David so accurately describe an embryo? My post from above... David was the second king of Israel. He comes from the bloodline of Adam and Eve, Son of Cain etc. Were Adam and Eve Jewish too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 The bible's version seems perfectly sensible and reasonable when you realise the truth - the bible was written at a time when practically nothing was understood about science and human anatomy Agreed so how would the Psalmist King David so accurately describe an embryo? My post from above... Quote: (Psalm 139:13-14) . . . For you yourself produced my kidneys; You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. 14 I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.. . .16. . .Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing,. . . "All it parts" ie the genetic code are indeed present right from the moment of conception as we know from Science... and indeed recently we've cracked the genetic code. However how would the Psalmist have known this.... why speak of an embryo and all it's parts being present as an embryo? Also it's always struck me as an interesting choice of words to use as "screened off"... the only other place that occurs in the Bible is in regard to the Temple in Jerusalem and the Holy of Holies being "screened off" it therefore implies seperateness... Why would an embryo be "screened off" or seperate within a mother? Actually in recent times it's been shown that even though a human female carries the embryo - it carries the father's blood and is kept completely seperate from the mother in the womb with only a limited amount of fluids and other components passing from the mother to the child via the umbilical chord. Interesting choice of words for a simple shepherd I thought anyhows. Carries the fathers blood?? Julie, where in the blue hell did you hear that nonsense? I thought you said you were good with biology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regular_john Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 What doesn't make sense is why god would inflict the punishment for eve's mistakes on all women for the rest of time. It is a truly wicked thing to punish a son for the sins of his father, let alone to repeat this process for thousands of years! It was Eve's punishment for disobedience to God and choosing to follow a wicked angel.... (Genesis 3:16) 16 To the woman he said: “I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children, and your craving will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.” Since that time pregnancy and giving birth has been painful and what's more men have indeed dominated women in the main. To reiterate, it is wholly wicked to punish a son for the sins of his father, don't you realise how cruel and unjust your beliefs make god seem? Also, don't you think it is much more likely that the MEN who authored the bible would invent such a story in order to oppress women? Would a loving god condemn a whole gender to a lifetime of male dominance simply for the sins of one woman? The story of adam and eve is a fairytale, nothing more than a cruel and farcical justification for male dominance over women and a wonderful method of oppressing women since birth. I find it simply astonishing that you fail to see this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Yes but that part of the bible was written well after men had already been dominating women and childbirth had scone painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 11, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 11, 2011 Dawkins is full of sh1t... Perhaps you have read it and just don't understand it. That seems to be the response to those who have read the bible and aren't brain washed by it. I seriously doubt you have ever actually read any of Dawkins work, why would you considering you think the bible is without flaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 The bible contradicts itself all the time. It certainly wasn't written by god. Unless god employed a retard as a biographer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Who built the Ark? Noah, Noah, Who built the ark? Brother Noah built the ark. Old man Noah build the Ark, He build it out of hickory bark. He build it long, both wide and tall. With plenty of room for the large and small. Who built the Ark? Noah, Noah, Who built the ark? Brother Noah built the ark. In came the animals two by two, Hippopotamus and kangaroo. In came the animals three by three, Two big cats and a bumble bee. Who built the Ark? Noah, Noah, Who built the ark? Brother Noah built the ark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 11, 2011 Moderator Share Posted November 11, 2011 Thanks Wainy... that seems to clear the opening question of the thread up. I'm prepared to take that as irrefuable proof that Noah did indeed build the ark. The clever ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted November 11, 2011 Administrator Share Posted November 11, 2011 If mankind is the pinacle of an evolutionary tree, I'll pause you right there. Your supposition is invalid. Mankind is most definitely not the pinnacle of anything to do with evolution. This single "if" shows you have no knowledge of the theory of evolution. Evolution isn't targeted. The environment causes random changes. Some are good and some are bad. Both good and bad mutations may survive and even speciate. The fact that there is so much wrong with the human body would lead someone to believe that it was thrown together by chance rather than designed. But perhaps we are made from clay, or was that another translation error? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 We were forced to sing that song as well, I even remember some of the words: "In came the animals, two by two, the hippopotamus and the kangaroo." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts