English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

A women is the one capable of giving birth and i dont think its a huge leap to think the first being person on this planet might have been able to fertilizer her own eggs ,i dont want to upset the religious people, even god in the bible had to go to a women to bring his son to earth. what do u think?

2007-07-11 03:21:21 · 19 answers · asked by Treat 3 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

sorry i ment planet oh what a difference an e makes eh

2007-07-11 03:27:52 · update #1

19 answers

A male is actually an incomplete female (in a genetical sense) so you could well have a point.

2007-07-11 03:52:37 · answer #1 · answered by zeppelin_roses 4 · 0 1

I believe in the evolution of species by natural selection. I assume that by "person" you mean an individual member of the species Homo sapiens.

There's no way to tell if the first H. sapiens was male or female.

Take chicken/egg as an example, it's easier.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? This is evolution/creation in microcosm. Creationists "know" that Elohim made chickens, poof, chickens and roosters, who do what roosters and chickens do, et voila, eggs. Whence come more chickens. Evolutionary scientists understand that there came a point in time when an animal who was NOT Gallus gallus laid an egg from which an individual Gallus gallus hatched.

So there came a point in time when a woman who was NOT H. sapiens (possibly H. erectus, but not H. neanderthalensis) gave birth to an individual H. sapiens. There's no telling if that was a boy or a girl. And it is an enormous leap (almost as enormous as believing that all the species on the planet popped into existence thanks to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and His Noodly Appendage) to think that the first H. sapiens was parthenogenetic.

2007-07-11 10:35:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Life is much more complicated than being a Male or Female.
There is a Lifeforce that comes from our Creator. It flows out into Creation and then back. We understand these as the Masculine and Feminine. Because Males and Females take on certain aspects of these forces in order to bring them together and help our Creator to create Life.
Our spirits chose to live as a Male or Female when they come into this world. Each spirit is made of both the Masculine and Feminine energies, and we use both in a days time. Needing to take control when someone tries to manipulate us and hurt us. And giving up the control when we deal with a baby, or loved one. And care for their needs.
There are Masculine Women and Feminine Men, and that doesn't necessarily mean they are gay or lesbian. Which shows how complicated it gets. All the rest is an Ego trip!

2007-07-11 10:47:45 · answer #3 · answered by THE NEXT LEVEL 5 · 0 1

I always thought it would make more sense to make woman first. Or at the very least the same time. I think the Eve part of the story was made up to make woman listen to thier husbands. Many Pagan faiths revered the woman as the creator of life. egyptian Women could hold property and I believe ask for divorce. They had more rights then most Jewish or Christian women.

2007-07-11 10:26:02 · answer #4 · answered by ~Heathen Princess~ 7 · 1 1

If you read 1Timothy 2:11-15, you will find that God actually doesn't really appreciate women, and thrust child birth on them as punishment for Eve eating the apple.

He also states that the way to salvation for a woman is through ChildBirth, so maybe you are right and Paul was paying homage to women being first?

2007-07-11 10:26:07 · answer #5 · answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7 · 1 2

well if your talking about christian theology, then man was first and then god created woman.

if you are talking from an evolutionist perspective, then the first organisms were those that reproduced asexually. then eventually somehow creatures that reproduced sexually formed. and through cross breading and sexual reproduction and natural selection, all the species of the earth were formed. then eventually humans came up. doesn't matter if the first thing that had mutated enought to be called human was male or female and there's no way to know.

2007-07-11 10:48:38 · answer #6 · answered by Shamus O'Larry 4 · 0 1

A woman who successfully self-reproduces only gives birth to another female (there have been cases).

Actually, to do what you hint at would require asexuality - and therefore could not be considered male or female.

~ Eric Putkonen

2007-07-11 10:36:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

According to your theory, the first person on Earth was a hermaphrodite, both male and female.

Since nobody was there to take pictures and write notes, we'll never know for sure, and what difference does it make. We're all here now.

2007-07-11 10:28:43 · answer #8 · answered by jack of all trades 7 · 1 1

If the woman was the first person on the planet, who gave birth to her?

2007-07-11 11:03:11 · answer #9 · answered by Mike 3 · 0 1

It seems apparent to me that the first person on this earth was either male or female and popped out of a non-H. s. sapiens.

2007-07-11 10:27:44 · answer #10 · answered by John C 6 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers