Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Most of us would feel embarrassed or ashamed to go naked in public. As gorillas and chimpanzees do go without clothing. They evidently feel no need to wear anything to "cover up." (their nakedness)
That's what I thought you might say. They did not have to die before they disobeyed. On the day they ate from that tree, yes, they would die. And, as we slightly discussed before, a biblical day can mean something other than a 24 hour period. But it doesn't matter, because the 'day' they ate from that tree, as God told them, they would surely die. I know it may be hard to get for some, but anyway, go back to the idea that gorillas do not feel the need to wear and manufacture clothing or newspapers or books. Stick to clothing for a while.
A molar doesn't wear clothes.
There are no facts that demonstrate a change in allele frequencies in populations over time?
You believe in the Adam and Eve story in the Bible. Like, it actually happened, right?
Because wearing clothing is a learned response. As the poster said.
That is because you were taught to be embarrassed. Clothing provides protection from the elements. In areas where it is not needed it is often dropped. There are still areas in the tropics where women regularly go topless.
Yes, I said that because I know more of the history of the Bible than you do. What is your evidence that Moses was real?That's what I thought you might say. They did not have to die before they disobeyed. On the day they ate from that tree, yes, they would die. And, as we slightly discussed before, a biblical day can mean something other than a 24 hour period. But it doesn't matter, because the 'day' they ate from that tree, as God told them, they would surely die. I know it may be hard to get for some, but anyway, go back to the idea that gorillas do not feel the need to wear and manufacture clothing or newspapers or books. Stick to clothing for a while.
I do not know at all if Denisovans wore clothing. Jawbones with a few teeth do not tell us a lot about behavior. But we can tell that they were a different subspecies of humans from them. You see the teeth had DNA in them. From that they were able to tell that they were, as I said, a different subspecies of humans. They could also tell that at times they interbred with people. Neanderthals almost certainly wore clothing. Remains of skinned mammals have been found in their sites. And they lived far enough to the north to make clothing a must at times. And once again , DNA tells us quite a bit about them.@Subduction Zone , btw, do you think 'scientists' know if so-called Denisovans or Neanderthals wore clothing? I'm not sure about that, but some of you who are so into the truthfulness of evolution and biologic(?) history of mankind (not gorillas necessarily) might offer an answer. As far as Denisovans go, as far as I know so far, a molar was discovered and it was determined it was pre-homo sapien but humanoid I suppose. An ancestress.
Not only. Humans are special in that they start feeling embarrassed when naked around puberty. Primitive tribes in warm climates have clothing that covers the pubic area.
It is a way of controlling mating. And we see mating control in all sorts of mammals, usually enforced by either the alpha male, the alpha female, or both.
Yes, but other mammals don't wear clothes. That's a unique human trait. And someone had to have come up with the idea at one point. The "tradition" argument can't explain the first use of clothes (for mating control).
They are not able to do so. Wearing clothes probably started as a need when humans (and Neanderthals too) moved to Europe and northern Asia. There has been plenty of time for something that began as a necessity against winter to become a cultural thing too.
They were able to make up explanations that seemed logical at the time.
Just as you are doing now. We don't know if clothes were first invented as a necessity. It could have been a sexual/cultural thing within the hominins before they left Africa.
Possibly, but I do not think that there is any evidence of clothing before then. I will have to check.
Interesting, I didn't know that. Anyhow, it remains conjecture, though a reasonable one. And even if the first clothes were made out of necessity, I still don't agree that us still using them is purely cultural. Even the most primitive tribes in the rain forests retained them, long after they lost their usefulness. I suspect a genetic component (that may have evolved after the invention of clothes). Body shame, especially in puberty, is too strong an emotion to be purely cultural.
There are some rather delicate wobbly bits for both sexes. I would not want to wander through the rain forest without some protection. They are still useful.
Not a claim, just an alternative hypothesis. Raise children in a nudist's camp and see if they start feeling shame or "invent" clothes when starting puberty. That's the test for falsification of my hypothesis.
But it isn't. Our sexual mores would be part of why people would want to cover up. How do you get rid of thousands of years of those?