| The Rib of Adam Part 3 |
 |
 |
May 3, 2009
Adam's Rib and the X and Y chromosomes: Part 3.
First let me admit that I have always had a problem with biology. I don't have a problem with
looking at blood but I have never really gotten used to the idea cutting poor little innocent
animals to use just for research. I have called the anatomy department to get some history
of their demise so I would feel less guilt about the prospect of doing research on them but
my calls were never returned.
There. A confession. I know absolutely nothing, okay?
However, I can ask the right person the right questions and get some answers. But let us
just think about the last questions first. From one particle in time and space, the "Big Bang",
a male and a female evolves in just about every species. And even if the species are able to
cross breed (as they must have), would that mean they mated with "unnatural" groups who
were just Adam and Steve and others which were Madam and Eve*? (See, this discussion IS
about gender and sex?) Just questions. Maybe I need to dissect a frog to get some answers
because, as excellent as the classes were, this subject was not covered adequately in my
evolution classes. It was probably the day I missed. (smile) Not dismissing the theory of
evolution either but like another question which one of my labor brothers asked, "if we are all
descended from apes (or chimps), why do we still have apes and chimps on the earth?"
My point? First notice all the gender related questions. No one need deny their faith but
maybe we should not be so nasty to each other when discussing issues regarding gender
and sexual orientation and conditioning. Maybe all the bones we have discovered on the
Earth which are billions and billions of years old can not fully explain the literal interpretation
of the Bible. However, maybe the Big Bang and other theories do not adequately coincide
with other scientific and Biblical interpretations for some either.
I don't know. Just be nice folk. I guess folks still want to know, "Which came first, the chicken
or the egg? And they want PROOF!"
Adam's Rib and the X and Y chromosomes: Part 3.
First let me admit that I have always had a problem with biology. I don't have a problem with
looking at blood but I have never really gotten used to the idea cutting poor little innocent
animals to use just for research. I have called the anatomy department to get some history
of their demise so I would feel less guilt about the prospect of doing research on them but
my calls were never returned.
There. A confession. I know absolutely nothing, okay?
However, I can ask the right person the right questions and get some answers. But let us
just think about the last questions first. From one particle in time and space, the "Big Bang",
a male and a female evolves in just about every species. And even if the species are able to
cross breed (as they must have), would that mean they mated with "unnatural" groups who
were just Adam and Steve and others which were Madam and Eve*? (See, this discussion IS
about gender and sex?) Just questions. Maybe I need to dissect a frog to get some answers
because, as excellent as the classes were, this subject was not covered adequately in my
evolution classes. It was probably the day I missed. (smile) Not dismissing the theory of
evolution either but like another question which one of my labor brothers asked, "if we are all
descended from apes (or chimps), why do we still have apes and chimps on the earth?"
My point? First notice all the gender related questions. No one need deny their faith but
maybe we should not be so nasty to each other when discussing issues regarding gender
and sexual orientation and conditioning. Maybe all the bones we have discovered on the
Earth which are billions and billions of years old can not fully explain the literal interpretation
of the Bible. However, maybe the Big Bang and other theories do not adequately coincide
with other scientific and Biblical interpretations for some either.
I don't know. Just be nice folk. I guess folks still want to know, "Which came first, the chicken
or the egg? And they want PROOF!"
Or an easier question? Which came first: the caterpillar or the butterfly?
Hopefully, all these questions will generate some interest in the field of science also.
Updated May 3, 2009
Hopefully, all these questions will generate some interest in the field of science also.
Updated May 3, 2009
May 4, 2009.
Adam's Rib and the XY Chromosomes: Part 4.
So, the question still is: which came first: the chicken or the egg?
Well, according to the "Big Bang" theory, the "one" would have had to come before the
"two".
According to many other religions, such as Asian religions, the "two" comes from the "One"
and will return that way because existence is but a circle.
I am not theologian. Talk to one. However, according to Genesis 2:18-23, it would appear
that "the two" came from the "one". Eve was made from Adam.
Genesis 2:23 states: woman was taken out of man.
And Genesis 2:7 states man was formed from the dust of the earth.
If you dismiss the word "dust", the last verse correlates with the latest scientific evidence
about the beginnings of life on Earth starting in a watery environment.
The "evidence" of faith is mentioned on the very first pages of the Bible. It very clearly
states the origins of the male and the female. However, you have to really search for
information about how the sexes were separated during the evolutionary process.
However, let us be completely fair about this: there could be other evidence in the scientific
community that may have been dismissed because it did not fit into the prevailing political
and theological social structures. That is just the way it is. Others tend to accept "facts"
which "verify" what they already "know". Sorry but it is true. We don't want to admit it but we
all tend to be bias.
However, to continue:
Genesis 1:27 states, man was created after the image of God himself: "let US create man in
OUR image."
It gets extremely complicated and I can deal with it but not today.
The key to this complexity (to me) once again may be one component: LANGUAGE!
But let's venture a guess and try and answer the first question before we ask other
questions:
Which came first? the chicken or the egg?
From the available evidence of faith and science, it would seem that the "egg" came first.
I know that this will lead to one question that is very predictable in this discussion about
gender:
Does that mean Adam and Eve were one and the same: male and female? That we all have
"male and female" in all of us?
Possibly. Very, very, very possible.
However, be very careful. Would that mean my children, which came from my lions, and I
are one and the same?
In some respect, I hope so but in other respects, God, I hope not! (smile) And I am sure
they would say the same!
That would be the conservative perspective.
Tricky, huh? One question and there are many, many more (and answers!), worthy of a
discussion. Somewhere.
The liberal perspective?
You must also remember that the Creator used the pronoun "we" when referring to Himself.
Or some would say Herself because they can envision the Godhead with so-called feminine
and masculine qualities, if such attributes exists, because Adam and Eve was made in His
image!
Furthermore, I guess they would suppose, that according to other scriptures, God has
always existed and was never created. Therefore there was no evolutionary or similar
process where two came from the One,so he IS male and female!
However, we also must remember that the key word when discussing the attributes of God
is "image". Which would indicate that man was made to look LIKE God in some form or
another. Not necessarily made as He was made or, like the images of offsprings, not in any
specific image either. Humans have a terrible problem of trying to anthropomorphize God.
We do it will space creatures; we do it with EVERY thing! Despite all the scriptures above, it
really is a sin to do so, you know.
We really must think outside the box.
That is extremely difficult to do sometimes. Especially when time is limited! So it can all
sound twisted and it gets very, very tricky. But it isn't overly complicated. Just difficult to
explain sometimes. It would take pages and pages for me to make my point. I really don't
want to discuss that aspect of it! However, now you know why most philosophers write the
way they do. They have so many other things to write about and don't want to debate the
small stuff. So they try to stick all the details in at the first try if they can!)
Next question because this is an interactive website:
Based on the above references, why would the aspect of language be so important in this
discussion? Or is it? What evidence does it provide, if any?
Updated May 4, 2009.
Adam's Rib and the XY Chromosomes: Part 4.
So, the question still is: which came first: the chicken or the egg?
Well, according to the "Big Bang" theory, the "one" would have had to come before the
"two".
According to many other religions, such as Asian religions, the "two" comes from the "One"
and will return that way because existence is but a circle.
I am not theologian. Talk to one. However, according to Genesis 2:18-23, it would appear
that "the two" came from the "one". Eve was made from Adam.
Genesis 2:23 states: woman was taken out of man.
And Genesis 2:7 states man was formed from the dust of the earth.
If you dismiss the word "dust", the last verse correlates with the latest scientific evidence
about the beginnings of life on Earth starting in a watery environment.
The "evidence" of faith is mentioned on the very first pages of the Bible. It very clearly
states the origins of the male and the female. However, you have to really search for
information about how the sexes were separated during the evolutionary process.
However, let us be completely fair about this: there could be other evidence in the scientific
community that may have been dismissed because it did not fit into the prevailing political
and theological social structures. That is just the way it is. Others tend to accept "facts"
which "verify" what they already "know". Sorry but it is true. We don't want to admit it but we
all tend to be bias.
However, to continue:
Genesis 1:27 states, man was created after the image of God himself: "let US create man in
OUR image."
It gets extremely complicated and I can deal with it but not today.
The key to this complexity (to me) once again may be one component: LANGUAGE!
But let's venture a guess and try and answer the first question before we ask other
questions:
Which came first? the chicken or the egg?
From the available evidence of faith and science, it would seem that the "egg" came first.
I know that this will lead to one question that is very predictable in this discussion about
gender:
Does that mean Adam and Eve were one and the same: male and female? That we all have
"male and female" in all of us?
Possibly. Very, very, very possible.
However, be very careful. Would that mean my children, which came from my lions, and I
are one and the same?
In some respect, I hope so but in other respects, God, I hope not! (smile) And I am sure
they would say the same!
That would be the conservative perspective.
Tricky, huh? One question and there are many, many more (and answers!), worthy of a
discussion. Somewhere.
The liberal perspective?
You must also remember that the Creator used the pronoun "we" when referring to Himself.
Or some would say Herself because they can envision the Godhead with so-called feminine
and masculine qualities, if such attributes exists, because Adam and Eve was made in His
image!
Furthermore, I guess they would suppose, that according to other scriptures, God has
always existed and was never created. Therefore there was no evolutionary or similar
process where two came from the One,so he IS male and female!
However, we also must remember that the key word when discussing the attributes of God
is "image". Which would indicate that man was made to look LIKE God in some form or
another. Not necessarily made as He was made or, like the images of offsprings, not in any
specific image either. Humans have a terrible problem of trying to anthropomorphize God.
We do it will space creatures; we do it with EVERY thing! Despite all the scriptures above, it
really is a sin to do so, you know.
We really must think outside the box.
That is extremely difficult to do sometimes. Especially when time is limited! So it can all
sound twisted and it gets very, very tricky. But it isn't overly complicated. Just difficult to
explain sometimes. It would take pages and pages for me to make my point. I really don't
want to discuss that aspect of it! However, now you know why most philosophers write the
way they do. They have so many other things to write about and don't want to debate the
small stuff. So they try to stick all the details in at the first try if they can!)
Next question because this is an interactive website:
Based on the above references, why would the aspect of language be so important in this
discussion? Or is it? What evidence does it provide, if any?
Updated May 4, 2009.
May 9, 2009:
I have decided to discuss the language aspects of the Creation Story on the Philosophy of
Mind page. I am not sure it is the right place but I am almost about sure it does not belong
on this site.
I have decided to discuss the language aspects of the Creation Story on the Philosophy of
Mind page. I am not sure it is the right place but I am almost about sure it does not belong
on this site.