What do you think Adam felt or thought or said when he got his first cut and saw the blood?

This perhaps wasn’t a problem until they left the garden. Presumably whatever genes Adam or Eve received from their more ape-like forbearers dictated their response.

Also, I think a lot of people tend to struggle with blood because of paranoia about germs – it is linked in their minds with the spread of disease. People should be able to cope well in nature, if only because it is to your evolutionary advantage to deal rationally with a wound.

Well. he would have said the pre-historic version of “ouch” because he would have felt a bit of discomfort.

And he probably would have thought, “I’m leaking.”

I doubt that he though much of anything, after-all he was barely more than an ape. He would have panicked like any animal if he bled a lot. Otherwise he would go about his business of foraging,hunting, and screwing Eve.

He would have felt and thought what his mammalian ancestors felt and thought when they got a cut and saw blood.

“ouch.”

I don’t think he thought much of it, especially if it was a small cut. A large cut I hope some sort of instinct would kick in to cover the wound or hold it so the bleeding slowed.

@bolwerk That had never occurred to me, that people worry about germs and that makes them “struggle with blood” as you put it. I think people have been squeemish by the sight of blood long before they even knew about germs existing. Sure present day we worry about Hep C and HIV, but years ago not much really. The person more at risk was the person actually doing the bleeding.

We may infer that he was already familiar with the concept of blood and bleeding from Genesis 3:21, “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.”
So yeah, a variant on, “ouch, that smarts!”

Can I give the first smartass answer, since @ucme isn’t here yet?

I think he’d shout, “You prick!”

I think he was thinking “I probably shouldn’t have eaten that fruit”.

I like how people dragged Adam into the evolutionary chain as if scientists have genetics all figured out. xD

@digitalimpression And religiosity has their thousands of conflicting claims all figured out. I don’t think so.

@ETpro The problem is that you’re trying to play Monopoly with the rules from Clue.

@Nullo ah, the old “you can’t understand it, because you are using the wrong definition of understanding it” theorem ;-) Why should religion be beyond “normal” logic?

@fremen_warrior It’s not beyond ‘normal’ logic; it just has a different initial premise: that there is a God Who created everything, rather than a more popular variety of spontaneous generation. If you change the premise, then the old conclusions don’t work anymore.
Honestly, trying to cram Adam into the evolutionary tree smacks of trolling.

@Nullo That’s precisely what was funny to me about it. xD

“Quit scratching my back bitch, I like it slow & gentle baby!”

@Nullo At the risk of investing an enormous amount of time in what will be a Grail Quest, show me in solid “normal” logic why your sky daddy myth is true and all the others that billions of other humans hold are false. I do respond to logic. I do not respond to circular reasoning, tautologies, appeals to authority and the like. But I am truly open. I would actually love to believe there is a sky daddy and that I can love eternally. I’m very open to proof.

You can’t prove something by creating an unproven and unprovable initial premise that you simply insist is “obviously” true, or is true because some unproven book claims it is true. So don’t even bother to start there.

@ETpro Curious that you would claim to be open whilst using the term “Sky Daddy”. I… don’t believe you. xD Either way, it’s off topic.

I believe Adam probably accepted that things like this were going to happen once he got booted out of the Garden. Imagine the first child birth! Adam probably didn’t say “Get me some towels”.

@digitalimpression The challenge was to @Nullo, but you’re welcome to take it up. Do I have a current position? Yes. After all the assertions you have issued without any confirming evidence (Adam really existed, he was completely outside evolution, your particular version of a creation deity is the one and only correct answer) are you now claiming that I’m biased but you are completely impartial?

@ETpro Alright, I’ll be short and cryptic since it’s past a reasonable bedtime: the book builds on the experience. There. I’m probably going to regret being so brief later.

It’s not like I’m playing favorites, either; It would be inappropriate to wedge any other religion’s origin story into evolution. What you’re doing is effectively the inverse (or converse?) of the Intelligent Design argument. You’re trying to force incompatible paradigms together.
You are not the first person to want proof, and you wouldn’t be the first to find it; let us pray that you do.

“I’m leaking?!”

@ETpro Actually I didn’t assert much of anything. I only found it comical that people were “coloring outside the lines” of the question.

If someone says “Let’s say there was an apple”, I’m probably not going to talk about orange-pomegranate hybrid fruit. The discussion you seem to want to have has nothing to do with this question at all.

@digitalimpression

In case you didn’t notice, let me state the obvious. This question has,been posted in the Social section rather than in General. Therefore a slight tangent is not unwarranted as part of the overall discussion, according to the clearly printed Fluther Guidelines. You can check them if you need a refresher.

The. Q as worded, presupposes an Adam so discussing the implications of that are certainly not out of line.

And considering the subject matter, this is one of the more cordial and less volatile threads on the whole subject of religion, evolution, God etc. that Fluther has seen in quite a while so I see nothing wrong with it at all and obviously the Mods feel likewise.

Its in Social. Relax and enjoy the discussion. Time enough to cavil in General :)

@Buttonstc Thanks for the heads up. It’s my first day.

@Nullo I’m not trying to force anything together. I am looking at observable facts and seeing which extant postulates are supported by them and which are not supported. Observable facts don’t support the Genesis account of creation. Past that, there is the not insignificant problem that the account in Genesis 1 and that given in Genesis 2 don’t even support one another. That suggests to me that the claims of biblical inerrancy, of the Christian Bible of today being the divinely inspired and perfect pronouncement of an omniscient and omnipotent deity, are themselves in conflict with observable facts.