Why do men have nipples?

[46AND2]

You would be the exception. Do you have anything worthwhile to discuss other than whether I read every post of this 11 page thread?

"You would be the exception."

You sure about that? I suspect it would be pretty common.

The point is not whether you have read all the posts. The point is that you introduced documentation that has been thoroughly picked apart. So the better question would be, do YOU have anything worthwhile to discuss?

 

[mathetes123]

"You would be the exception."

You sure about that? I suspect it would be pretty common.

The point is not whether you have read all the posts. The point is that you introduced documentation that has been thoroughly picked apart. So the better question would be, do YOU have anything worthwhile to discuss?

Try me. You have wasted 5 responses, nearly a third of your total post count, concerning yourself about whether I have read every post in this thread. Do you agree or disagree that male nipples present more questions than answers for evolutionists?

 

[46AND2]

Try me. You have wasted 5 responses, nearly a third of your total post count, concerning yourself about whether I have read every post in this thread. Do you agree or disagree that male nipples present more questions than answers for evolutionists?

I wasn't aware that posts were something to be preserved...

Your question is meaningless. How would you even quantify it? What conclusion could possibly be made based on the answer?

What questions do you think male nipples raise that scientists have not answered?

 

[AV1611VET]

What questions do you think male nipples raise that scientists have not answered?

Where the first set came from.

 

[mathetes123]

I wasn't aware that posts were something to be preserved...

Your question is meaningless. How would you even quantify it? What conclusion could possibly be made based on the answer?

What questions do you think male nipples raise that scientists have not answered?

By raising this question what are evolutionists saying the implications of the male nipples are? Is this supposedly a vestigial organ? If so, would they be suggesting that males are more evolved than females or that males once nursed babies?

 

[CabVet]

By raising this question what are evolutionists saying the implications of the male nipples are? Is this supposedly a vestigial organ? If so, would they be suggesting that males are more evolved than females or that males once nursed babies?

Sorry I have to say this, but your lack of scientific knowledge is amazing... What you write is equivalent in religious terms to someone saying that Moses wrote the book of Revelations.

 

[CabVet]

Where the first set came from.

Yeah, or what came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[46AND2]

By raising this question what are evolutionists saying the implications of the male nipples are? Is this supposedly a vestigial organ? If so, would they be suggesting that males are more evolved than females or that males once nursed babies?

Question 1: The question, in this case, was raised by a creationist. But the implication is, essentially, that it seems odd that God would design a body part that generally has no real function. And a secondary point: why are there men with lactating mammary glands if God designed women to feed the young?

Question 2: Was answered in the thread. No, they are not vestigial, and they had no prior "alternate" use.

Question 3: Since the answer to 2 is no, it makes this question moot. However, even if they were vestigial, it would not mean that males are more evolved than females, or that males once nursed babies, necessarily.

 

[46AND2]

Where the first set came from.

There was no first set. Individuals do not evolve, populations do. It's like asking who the first French speaker was.

 

[Metal Minister]

Yeah, or what came first, the chicken or the egg?

For "creationists", that's easy the chicken. Or at least its first "kind".

 

[AV1611VET]

There was no first set.

In a literal Genesis 1 creation, there was.

Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

I understand that, and this bears repeating:

Non-theistic creationism deals with individuals (Adam & Eve), whereas evolutionism deals with whole populations at a time.

It's like asking who the first French speaker was.

He was a descendant of Gomer.

 

[Naraoia]

Platypusses don't have nipples, but they are considered mammals. They do have specialized lactation glands, but no nipples.

Also, why don't we find an animal with feathers and nipples?

Couldn't resist.

"You would be the exception."

You sure about that? I suspect it would be pretty common.

FWIW, usually I don't even click on threads if they are so long that I'm not willing to read them.

 

[46AND2]

In a literal Genesis 1 creation, there was.



I understand that, and this bears repeating:

Non-theistic creationism deals with individuals (Adam & Eve), whereas evolutionism deals with whole populations at a time.



He was a descendant of Gomer.

A literal Genesis 1 creation is only possible in one way...God is a deceptive trickster.

Non-theistic creationism?

Is dealing with individuals somehow superior in your mind? In reality, if a population gets down to just a pair of individuals, that population is going to go extinct.

"He was a descendant of Gomer."

Right. You don't even know if that person was a "he," much less a descendant of a particular person. A person you can't prove existed, I might add.

 

[Split Rock]

Men have nipples 'cause God made Adam with nipples.

That settles it!

 

[Metal Minister]

A literal Genesis 1 creation is only possible in one way...God is a deceptive trickster.

I see this all the time, how is a literal Genesis God a "deceptive trickster"?

 

[46AND2]

I see this all the time, how is a literal Genesis God a "deceptive trickster"?

If the literal interpretation of Genesis is true, then God made the earth and universe look exactly like it is extremely old, that all living beings share common ancestors, and that the flood never happened.

The evidence for all of these is overwhelming.

 

[Metal Minister]

If the literal interpretation of Genesis is true, then God made the earth and universe look exactly like it is extremely old, that all living beings share common ancestors, and that the flood never happened.

The evidence for all of these is overwhelming.

It's overwhelming by your interpretation. If you follow Genesis literally, you'll find that same evidence has another explanation. In Genesis it says that God created light, and then on another day created a source for the light. This would debunk the "billions of light years" issue I'm sure you're referring to. A global flood could easily create the rock strata we see today by the depositing of immense amounts of sediment over nearly a year. This could also easily account for the incredible number of fossils we find,considering animals do not readily fossilize. (Especially soft bodied creatures such as octopus and squid.) If you're referring to creation as a whole, remember, God created in a series of miracles, and not by the natutalistic way science views things.
I would also agree with you, if God had not given us the manual of how He created. However, He did. It would've been deceptive and even slightly malicious if He had created in 6 days and then left us with no clues.

Edit:
Sorry, missed the spot about common ancestry. Would it not make sense that if a certain way of creating life worked, that God would stick with it? Also, there would've been an enormous genetic bottleneck after the flood, so the animals of today would've all come from those "common ancestors" if you will.

 

[CabVet]

It's overwhelming by your interpretation. If you follow Genesis literally, you'll find that same evidence has another explanation. In Genesis it says that God created light, and then on another day created a source for the light. This would debunk the "billions of light years" issue I'm sure you're referring to. A global flood could easily create the rock strata we see today by the depositing of immense amounts of sediment over nearly a year. This could also easily account for the incredible number of fossils we find,considering animals do not readily fossilize.

This is misleading to say the least. Creating the light and then a source for it does not explain the vastness of the universe. A global flood does not "easily create the rock strata" we see today. If it did, that would be the explanation. Furthermore, if you had all animals living before the flood, you would not have them all ordered in the strata, they would be all mixed up (rabbits together with dinosaurs). Or are you proposing that there were thousands of floods to kill everything, make fossils and organize the strata as they are?

If you're referring to creation as a whole, remember, God created in a series of miracles, and not by the natutalistic way science views things.

That nobody can refute, so you can stick to it.

I would also agree with you, if God had not given us the manual of how He created. However, He did. It would've been deceptive and even slightly malicious if He had created in 6 days and then left us with no clues.

No clues would be better than clues that do not fit the story you say he gave us.

Edit:
Sorry, missed the spot about common ancestry. Would it not make sense that if a certain way of creating life worked, that God would stick with it? Also, there would've been an enormous genetic bottleneck after the flood, so the animals of today would've all come from those "common ancestors" if you will.

Again, not supported by genetics or any other field of science. There are no "common ancestors", just a single ancestor.

 

[Metal Minister]

Suit yourself, I know who to place my faith in, and your approval isn't required.

 

[CabVet]

Suit yourself, I know who to place my faith in, and your approval isn't required.

Excellent, as it should be. Just don't come here and say that science supports a global flood, a young universe, or "common ancestors" because it does not. You can say the Bible supports that all day long, and say that you believe that with all your energies, and you would be correct, but saying that science supports that is simply not true.