Why do men have nipples?

[Jamin4422]

Where is the scientific evidence that any of this actually occurred?

I said it COULD have occured. Do you know I was just reading about the Neolithic Revoluion. There are 10 different scientists with ten different theorys about how man went from a food gather to a food producer. All I am doing is showing you the science that applies to the Bible. Don't jump all over me because you guys do not have it all figured out yet. No where does science conflict with the Bible. Science wants to know about who the first farmer was. They put a lot of effort, research and study into all of this. Nothing science has come up with contradicts the Bible in any way. The books on Biodiversity in the Middle east are VERY expensive. They know a lot about the domesticaion of crops in the Middle East. They know about Olives, grapes, wheat, barley and so on. Those are all things you can read about IN THE BIBLE. They have very detailed books about this on Amazon, but they cost about $80, so I am still thinking about if that is a good investment or not. I can assure you though that all the latest DNA research confirms that the Bible is true. So use your LOUD mouth to confirm that to the world: DNA research confirms the Bible.

I read the Bible, I read science and Science again and again and again confirms that the Bible as a History book is very accurate. All the more amazing because as you know, science does not in any way have an interest in proving that the Bible is true. Yet that is exactly what they are doing.

I am going to say this again so you understand. Take anything out of the Bible: Sheep for example. Then read what Science has to say about the domestication of sheep or goats. Science has NOTHING that will contradict the Bible. Even with all the DNA research they do on Sheep, Goats and where they were first domesticated. You can do this with EVERYTHING you read about in the Bible. Grapes, figs, olives, wheat, barley and on and on and on. Read what science says about when they were first domesticated and there is NO contradiction between the Bible and Science. Even with all the latest DNA research on the various crops and animals.

So I have lots and lots and lots of Science that will confirm the Bible is true. I am buying hundreds of dollars of college text books off of Amazon to see if I can find any contradiction anywhere. I can not find any. All of the books I have on the science of geology, biology, ecosystem, evolution and on and on and on, confirms that the Bible is accurate and true.

 

[Jamin4422]

We are also related to the other women and men who lived during the same time period, brother. We just don't share all of them in common.

You can let your imagination run wild but the ONLY thing we need to confirm is the genealogy in Luke and the genealogy in Matthew. Other than that, I do not have to prove that anyone was related to Adam and Eve in the Bible. The Hebrew people are pretty sure those genealogies are accurate and true. Bissop Usshler is sure those genealogies are accurate and true. I am not here to support the traditions of man, I am here to support the Bible. Also there will be 144,000 PURE Hebrews during the tribulation period. 12,000 from each tribe. I have already shown we have the marker for Aaron. So we still need to find the other 11 markers for the other 11 tribes or sons of Abraham. Of course from a scientific perspective that is asking WAY to much for each and every one of Abraham's sons to have a DNA genetic marker to identify them. For now it is ENOUGH to have the mutation or the marker for Abraham.

There is nothing demonstrating that they were even alive at the same time.

YES< YES< YES Science DOES confirm that they lived at the same time. That in and of itself is amazing. Remember, we are looking at the genetic marker in the Y Chromosome of the Bible Hebrew Adam AND we are looking at the MtDNA of Bible, Hebrew Eve.

REMEMBER the Muslim people are descended from HAGAR the Egyptian Maid of Sarah. So not all the middle east people are going to be descended from Eve in the Bible. We are only concerned with the Bible and the people we read about in the Bible and using science to show that the Bible is true. We already know that man's traditions are not true. For example we already know that Noah's flood was what they call a "local" flood that only involved the Biodiversity Ecosystem that we find there in Eden in the Middle east. You should know all about Ecosystems with all your Biology, so it should be no problem for you to identify the Ecosystem that we find in the Middle east. Then you will know what animals, and what crops were on Noahs boat. We know from the Bible that there was sheep, goats and all of that. There is a very nice book on Amazon that I want that talks all about this. "Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The origin and spread of domesticated plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin"

The science does not demonstrate that they ever had any children together, nor does it demonstrate that they were the only man and woman to contribute DNA to those modern populations. Every mutation found in the modern population potentially has a DIFFERENT common ancestor.

You know that the MtDNA follows the women and the Y Chromosome follow the men. So of course that is going to make it difficult to verify that Adam and Eve had children together. I can not verify everything in the Bible. But YOU CAN NOT falsify anything at all. There is lots and lots and LOTS I can prove is true.

What about the DRB1 haplogroups? Those come from common ancestors that are not y-chromosome Adam or mitDNA Eve.

If your not Jewish, if your not descended from Adam and Eve in the Bible then you are a gentile. The Church Age is the time of the Gentiles. Actually even Jesus called the gentiles "dogs". The disciples were VERY surprised when the gentiles were getting saved when they received the Holy Spirit of God. This is a BIG part of the story we read about in Acts. There is lots and lots of discussion among the disciples about what we are going to do with these dirty, filthy, gentiles that were getting saved. Paul said I will take care of this and Peter said fine with me.

This is really difficult because my wife is off work today and she will not quit talking to me when I am trying to figure this stuff out. Now she wants me to go pick my son up somewhere.
​

 

[Loudmouth]

You can let your imagination run wild but the ONLY thing we need to confirm is the genealogy in Luke and the genealogy in Matthew. Other than that, I do not have to prove that anyone was related to Adam and Eve in the Bible.

You have to demonstrate both if you want to claim that the scientific evidence backs your claims.

I have already shown we have the marker for Aaron.

Please show that this marker came from the person called Aaron in the Bible.

YES< YES< YES Science DOES confirm that they lived at the same time.

No, it doesn't.

REMEMBER the Muslim people are descended from HAGAR the Egyptian Maid of Sarah.

Based on what scientific evidence.

You should know all about Ecosystems with all your Biology, so it should be no problem for you to identify the Ecosystem that we find in the Middle east. Then you will know what animals, and what crops were on Noahs boat.

Please provide the evidence that Noah ever existed, or that he went on a boat trip.

We know from the Bible that there was sheep, goats and all of that.

We know from the books on Paul Bunyan that there are trees in the upper midwest, and lo and behold the science supports the existence of Paul Bunyan.

This is the sort of nonsense you are pushing.

If your not Jewish, if your not descended from Adam and Eve in the Bible then you are a gentile.

You haven't even shown that the Jewish people are descended from Adam and Eve.

 

[Papias]

Jamin wrote:

You can let your imagination run wild but the ONLY thing we need to confirm is the genealogy in Luke and the genealogy in Matthew. .....The Hebrew people are pretty sure those genealogies are accurate and true.

Um, the Hebrew people didn't care what Luke or Matthew wrote, those in the New Testament. Plus, the Hebrew people, having the same geneology in Cr, would recognize that all these geneologies are figurative, because they all contradict each other. Lk contradicts Mt, and Mt contradicts Cr.

Mt Gen# .....................Gospel of Matthew has.............................. 1st Chron. Has:
1....................................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .................Solomon's son was
2 ....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,............... Rehoboam,
3 ....................................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,
4....................................Asa .....................................................Asa his son,
5 ....................................Jehoshaphat ....................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6.................................... Jehoram ....................................Jehoram his son
....................................Skipped....................................Ahaziah his son,
....................................Skipped ....................................Joash his son,
....................................Skipped ....................................Amaziah his son,
7..........................Uzziah the father of Jotham, ......Azariah his son,
8.................................... Jotham ....................................Jotham his son,[
9 ....................................Ahaz ....................................Ahaz his son,
10.....................Hezekiah ....................................Hezekiah his son,
11.................................... Manasseh ....................................Manasseh his son,
12 ....................................Amon ....................................Amon his son,
13.................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ..............Josiah his son.

So the Holy Spirit obviously is telling us to interpret these figuratively.


Papias

 

[Loudmouth]

I said it COULD have occured.

Where is the evidence that it DID occur?

All I am doing is showing you the science that applies to the Bible.

That is a bit like applying forestry to books on Paul Bunyan.

No where does science conflict with the Bible.

If you want to claim that the jewish population came from just two people, then yes the science does conflict with the Bible.

So use your LOUD mouth to confirm that to the world: DNA research confirms the Bible.

No, it doesn't.

I am going to say this again so you understand. Take anything out of the Bible: Sheep for example. Then read what Science has to say about the domestication of sheep or goats. Science has NOTHING that will contradict the Bible.

Read about pine trees in books that tell about Paul Bunyan. Science has NOTHING that will contradict Paul Bunyan.

So I have lots and lots and lots of Science that will confirm the Bible is true.

No more so than science confirms the existence of Paul Bunyan.

 

[Jamin4422]

Where is the evidence that it DID occur?

HOW many times do you want to go around and around on this point. I am showing you SCIENTIFIC evidence for the Bible. I am limited because science is limited. I give you lots and lots and lots of evidence. I give you a mountain of evidence and you have the nerve to say but you can not prove this tiny little insignificant point. So what. I just gave you a overwelming mountain of evidence and your trying to give me an insignificant little ant hill. Of course you have not spent the hours and hours and hours I have spent. Even days, weeks, months and years to study the Bible and to study science to verify that all of this is accurate and true. In fact I first got started in 1968. So I began my study on the ancient history of the middle east and my study on DNA almost 45 years ago. Before that, before DNA they were still talking about Mendel's Genetics. They knew about hair color and eye color and all of that.

Read about pine trees in books that tell about Paul Bunyan. Science has NOTHING that will contradict Paul Bunyan.

If that is all you have is nonsense prats then we are done because you have nothing to contribute to the conversation. I got better things to do then to waste my time on nonsense like this. It just shows your brain in in neutral and your not thinking at all. We are NOT talking about the biodiversity ecosystem that Paul Bunyan was a part of. WE are having a discussion on the Biodiversity we find in the Middle east. We are having a discussion on the beginning of farming, domestication of animals, and civilization itself. What is your contribution? Paul Bunyan? I mean I am not expecting you know anything about history, but I thought you knew something about science. But I guess not.

If you want to claim that the jewish population came from just two people, then yes the science does conflict with the Bible.

My claim is the Bible is accurate and true. You do not know anything about the Bible. You do not seem to know anything about science. So it does not look like you have anything to contribute to this conversation. I want people to tear my argument apart to find any error. So far you have failed to do that.

 

[Loudmouth]

HOW many times do you want to go around and around on this point. I am showing you SCIENTIFIC evidence for the Bible.

Then where is the scientific evidence that a woman named Eve was created by a supernatural deity from the bone marrow of a man named Adam?

Where is the evidence that the entire Jewish population was founded by a single pair of human beings named Adam and Eve?

I give you lots and lots and lots of evidence.

But you never give us evidence for your claims.

If that is all you have is nonsense prats then we are done because you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

It is the same argument you are using for the Bible. If it is nonsense for Paul Bunyan then it is nonsense for the Bible too.

 

[DaneaFL]

Any number of things COULD be possible but we don't usually go around just believing whatever is maybe possible... We believe what is probable.

It's possible that there is a magical teapot in orbit around the sun... Why aren't you sitting here strongly advocating magicteapotism? What makes your preferred assumption more important than all the other silly "possible" things in this universe?

Also, the fact that your book contains historically accurate places and people doesn't prove the existence of your god any more than how the existence of new york city proves the existence of spiderman.

 

[Jamin4422]

all these geneologies are figurative, because they all contradict each other.

[FONT=Calibri, Tahoma, Verdana, Arial]Most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth.

[/FONT]Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

 

[Jamin4422]

Any number of things COULD

So you admit, the Bible could be true and you have no evidence that the Bible is NOT true. That is fine. I do not need to establish anymore then that.

the fact that your book contains historically accurate places

Yes, that is very nice that you recognize the historical accuracy of the Bible. But right now we are talking about how current knowledge on evolution, more exact Biodiversity Ecosystems or Biomes and the current research on DNA as they study the domestication of animals and plants. All of this verifies the Bible is accurate and true. But if you just want to write that off as history, that is fine with me. I just find it VERY interesting that Science has something to say about the Ecosystem that we call Eden in our Bible. So people need to study science and biology and even evolution, to better understand their Bible.

 

[Elendur]

So you admit, the Bible could be true and you have no evidence that the Bible is NOT true. That is fine. I do not need to establish anymore then that.

By that standard I created the world three days ago. Because it could be true and you don't have any evidence it's not. That is fine. I do not need to establish anymore then that.

 

[Jamin4422]

By that standard I created the world three days ago.

This whole conversation went right over your head didn't it. Ok I will hit the high points one more time. Daniel Zohary[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] (who is getting kind of old by the way)[/FONT]just updated his book. You can get the old edition for $30 and the new updated edition for $80. What he talks about in his book is the domestication of the crops we find in our Bible in the Middle east. He is a expert on the Biodiversity Ecosystem that we call Eden in the Bible.

THE REASON he updated the book is to include all the latest information from all the recent DNA research. Also he has over 60 archeology sites that have ancient grains that they test the DNA. All of the scientific research and evidence CONFIRMS that the Bible is true.

I have not decided yet if I should pay the $30 which is what I usually do. In fact I got a lot of college science text books I get for 90% off. In this case though, I may just pay the full amount and get the updated book. What do you think? Should I pay the $30 or should I pay the $80?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, that is very nice that you recognize the historical accuracy of the Bible. But right now we are talking about how current knowledge on evolution, more exact Biodiversity Ecosystems or Biomes and the current research on DNA as they study the domestication of animals and plants. All of this verifies the Bible is accurate and true.

So if we find pine trees in Michigan as well as the biodiversity and ecosystems described in the stories of Paul Bunyan then this confirms that Paul Bunyan is real?

I just find it VERY interesting that Science has something to say about the Ecosystem that we call Eden in our Bible.

Just like science has something to say about the forests that Paul Bunyan cut down.

 

[Elendur]

This whole conversation went right over your head didn't it. Ok I will hit the high points one more time. Daniel Zohary[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] (who is getting kind of old by the way)[/FONT]just updated his book. You can get the old edition for $30 and the new updated edition for $80. What he talks about in his book is the domestication of the crops we find in our Bible in the Middle east. He is a expert on the Biodiversity Ecosystem that we call Eden in the Bible.

THE REASON he updated the book is to include all the latest information from all the recent DNA research. Also he has over 60 archeology sites that have ancient grains that they test the DNA. All of the scientific research and evidence CONFIRMS that the Bible is true.

I have not decided yet if I should pay the $30 which is what I usually do. In fact I got a lot of college science text books I get for 90% off. In this case though, I may just pay the full amount and get the updated book. What do you think? Should I pay the $30 or should I pay the $80?

I'm in no way interested in your conversation, I was interested in that specific argument. It was a really stupid thing so say/write.

 

[Loudmouth]

THE REASON he updated the book is to include all the latest information from all the recent DNA research.

Yes, DNA research that you are misrepresenting. MRCA's for y-chromosomes and mitochondria do not indicate that a population sprung from two individuals. It never has.

All of the scientific research and evidence CONFIRMS that the Bible is true.

What scientific research confirms that a woman named Eve was created by a supernatural deity from the bone marrow of a man named Adam?

 

[Papias]

Jamin wrote:

Most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary&#8217;s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph&#8217;s.

Do they? If so, it's only an assumption on their part, and an unscriptural one at that. I haven't heard actual, mainstream Bible scholars make up such a story.

Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus&#8217; legal father), through David&#8217;s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus&#8217; blood relative), though David&#8217;s son Nathan.

Except that's directly contradicted by scripture, which explictly says that both are geneologies of Joseph. Are you going to go by the words of men or the words of God?

There was no Greek word for &#8220;son-in-law,&#8221;

Wrong. The word greek "gambroV" is generally used for "son in law".

and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary.

If that were true, then the whole geneology would be invalid because any one of those named could be a son in law instead of a son. That would destroy Luke's whole point. So much for respecting the scripture. It's a patriarchal geneology - that's why it says "son of" each time.

Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother&#8217;s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth.

And completely unscriptural. The Lukan geneology explictly says it is through Joseph (not Mary), unless you are arguing that we can't trust what is written in the Gospels.

Plus, you didn't address why Cr contradicts Mt. :



Mt Gen# .....................Gospel of Matthew has.............................. 1st Chron. Has:
1....................................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .................Solomon's son was
2 ....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,............... Rehoboam,
3 ....................................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,
4....................................Asa .....................................................Asa his son,
5 ....................................Jehoshaphat ....................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6.................................... Jehoram ....................................Jehoram his son
....................................Skipped....................................Ahaziah his son,
....................................Skipped ....................................Joash his son,
....................................Skipped ....................................Amaziah his son,
7..........................Uzziah the father of Jotham, ......Azariah his son,
8.................................... Jotham ....................................Jotham his son,
9 ....................................Ahaz ....................................Ahaz his son,
10.....................Hezekiah ....................................Hezekiah his son,
11.................................... Manasseh ....................................Manasseh his son,
12 ....................................Amon ....................................Amon his son,
13.................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ..............Josiah his son.

Papias

 

[CabVet]

Yes, DNA research that you are misrepresenting. MRCA's for y-chromosomes and mitochondria do not indicate that a population sprung from two individuals. It never has.

Not only that, but the coalescent time for Y-chromosomes (80-90k years) is different than that for mtDNA (140k years). Neither were in the Middle East, both in Africa. In other words, genetics tells us that mitochondrial "Eve" was not contemporaneous with y-chromosome "Adam". Jazer should try to learn something about the real science behind this story here:

&#8220;Adam,&#8221; &#8220;Eve,&#8221; and why they never got married. &#8211; The Questionable Authority

 

[Loudmouth]

Not only that, but the coalescent time for Y-chromosomes (80-90k years) is different than that for mtDNA (140k years). Neither were in the Middle East, both in Africa. In other words, genetics tells us that mitochondrial "Eve" was not contemporaneous with y-chromosome "Adam". Jazer should try to learn something about the real science behind this story here:

“Adam,” “Eve,” and why they never got married. – The Questionable Authority

Jazer is using the same argument for the MRCA's of the y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups for the Jewish populations. Different MRCA's, but same flawed argument.

I have been over this with John several times, but he never really understands it. He can't understand that the title of mtDNA-Eve is a title given in hindsight. At the time that this Eve existed she was one of thousands of women in that population, no different than any other. Only after hundreds of generations did the female-only lineages of her peers finally run out. The other thing that John still doesn't understand is that those women who lived at the same time as mtDNA can still have descendants in the modern population. What they don't have is an uninterrupted line of daughters going from the modern population to that women in history who lived at the same time as mtDNA-Eve.

In any smallish population (<100,00) you will produce MRCA's quite quickly (geologically speaking). You can have 100,000 people throughout this time period and you will still produce a y-chromosome Adam and a mtDNA-Eve. John just refuses to understand this.

 

[Naraoia]

Wonderful, then it should be NO problem for you to tell me where the elements, IE the atoms come from that make up your body. They come from the food we eat. Where does the food get it from? The soil, IE dirt.

FYI, the carbon in your body comes from the air (via photosynthesis). So does much of the nitrogen (via biological nitrogen fixation).

 

[Smidlee]

It's possible that there is a magical teapot in orbit around the sun... Why aren't you sitting here strongly advocating magicteapotism? What makes your preferred assumption more important than all the other silly "possible" things in this universe?

People do believe in magical teapot yet they usually called it dark matter. The teapot is invisible so you can't see it.