Does God have nipples?

[Ouroboros]

I got a bit tired of one of the other threads where it started to become nit-picking of evolution, that somehow evolution is not good enough explanation unless we can prove every minute step that evolution went through.

 

Here I’m posting an opposite thread where Christians can explain certain features in animals and humans that can be given a rational explanation through evolution, but so far, the Bible comes short.

 

In all these cases we know how it works, the DNA have the genetic sequence for these things, and evolution can tell us why (through rational reasoning), but the Bible doesn’t.

 

For the human features, maybe the only Biblical explanation there is, is that we were created to the image of God, i.e. clones or copies of God, so the explanation would be that God also have these features.

 

So let’s start.

 

1. The tailbone – why does Human have a tailbone, does God have one too?

2. The appendix – same question

3. Male Lobules and areola – breast milk glands and nipples in males

 

 

This is just the starting list. There is for sure many more.

 

I’m just curious, does God have nipples?

That’s a question no one dares to answer…

[Mr. Neil]

I'll tell you right away that creationists have fairly weak arguments for these.

 

I'll give you an example for the appendix. Creationists, particularly those who listen to AiG, Kent Hovind, or other lazy forms of pseudo-scholarship, will tell you that the appendix is part of the immune system and is therefore not a vestigial structure.

 

This, of course, reveals that creationists have no idea what "vestigial" means. Vestigial means a degenerated structure; not one which has lost function. And in the case of the appendix, it's clearly lost it's original function, since it's actually attached to the digestive track, yet does nothing to aid digestion.

 

And then, of course, there's nothing to say that vestigial structures can't also gain new functions, such as that described of the appendix's relation to the immune system.

 

Vestigial structures, as revealed by the fossil record, are a hot bed of evolutionary adaptations and gains. One such example is the mammalian ear, which has its origin in a redundant jawbone.

 

I'll leave it to some of the other guys to answer the other two points.

[Reach]

I’m just curious, does God have nipples?

That’s a question no one dares to answer…

If you mean the Christian God, he is on record for having breasts. Now, what good are breasts without nipples? Does the name El Shaddai ring a bell?

[Ouroboros]

I'll tell you right away that creationists have fairly weak arguments for these.

 

I'll give you an example for the appendix. Creationists, particularly those who listen to AiG, Kent Hovind, or other lazy forms of pseudo-scholarship, will tell you that the appendix is part of the immune system and is therefore not a vestigial structure.

 

Really? Wow. They really make up answers to fit their needs.

I guess they have some kind of Biblical proof for this?

Because I'm sure there is no biological or medical proofs.

[Ouroboros]

If you mean the Christian God, he is on record for having breasts. Now, what good are breasts without nipples? Does the name El Shaddai ring a bell?

 

Maybe it is the evidence that God is actually female?

[Mr. Neil]

Really? Wow. They really make up answers to fit their needs.

I guess they have some kind of Biblical proof for this?

Because I'm sure there is no biological or medical proofs.

It's not a matter of creationists saying something that is completely without base. It's a matter of creationists referencing something out of context. Obzoive...

 

 

Throughout medical history many possible functions for the appendix have been offered, examined, and refuted, including exocrine, endocrine, and neuromuscular functions (Williams and Myers 1994, pp. 28-29). Today, a growing consensus of medical specialists holds that the most likely candidate for the function of the human appendix is as a part of the gastrointestinal immune system. Several reasonable arguments exist for suspecting that the appendix may have a function in immunity. Like the rest of the caecum in humans and other primates, the appendix is highly vascular, is lymphoid-rich, and produces immune system cells normally involved with the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) (Fisher 2000; Nagler-Anderson 2001; Neiburger et al. 1976; Somekh et al. 2000; Spencer et al. 1985). Animal models, such as the rabbit and mouse, indicate that the appendix is involved in mammalian mucosal immune function, particularly the B and T lymphocyte immune response (Craig and Cebra 1975). Animal studies provide limited evidence that the appendix may function in proper development of the immune system in young juveniles (Dasso and Howell 1997; Dasso et al. 2000; Pospisil and Mage 1998).

 

However, contrary to what one is apt to read in anti-evolutionary literature, there is currently no evidence demonstrating that the appendix, as a separate organ, has a specific immune function in humans (Judge and Lichtenstein 2001; Dasso et al. 2000; Williams and Myers 1994, pp. 5, 26-29). To date, all experimental studies of the function of an appendix (other than routine human appendectomies) have been exclusively in rabbits and, to a lesser extent, rodents. Currently it is unclear whether the lymphoid tissue in the human appendix performs any specialized function apart from the much larger amount of lymphatic tissue already distributed throughout the gut. Most importantly with regard to vestigiality, there is no evidence from any mammal suggesting that the hominoid vermiform appendix performs functions above and beyond those of the lymphoid-rich caeca of other primates and mammals that lack distinct appendixes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

 

So, basically, they're taking discoveries made in rodents and applying it everywhere. And they think that a functioning appendix means that it's a biological necessity, which clearly it is not.

[Guest Gypsy]

isaiah 66:13 - as a mother comforts her child, so will i comfort you...

 

and earlier 66:11 - for you will nurse and be satisfied at her ˆcomforting breasts

 

so...

from this we learn that

 

mothers comfort, breasts are comforting, nursing comforts

 

god says he will comfort like a mother

 

therefore god has breasts with nipples, or at least one nipple, or maybe just breast and nipple envy

 

or maybe he's just getting hickies from no nipples

[Ouroboros]

Thanks MrNeil, I’ll accept that as the Christian explanation for the appendix.

 

Oh, I realized there is another point to be added to the list, relating back to another thread we have.

 

4. The foreskin – why do male have it?

 

Did God create the foreskin just for the purpose of the circumcision?

[Reach]

Did God create the foreskin just for the purpose of the circumcision?

I think you meant to say, "Did God create the foreskin just for the purpose of genital mutilation?"

 

Sorry to be so particular but I am an editor.

[Mr. Neil]

Does God have a foreskin?

[Reach]

Does God have a foreskin?

The Bible does not address that one.

[Ouroboros]

If so, then God has a foreskin, nipples and breast, what a combo!?

[Reach]

My guess is, if he does, he chopped it off.  I mean, a good parent wouldn't expect his children to do something that he himself is not willing to do.  

Jesus had it done for him.

[Ouroboros]

I'm not very scientific, so the science whizzes here are probably going to slap me upside the head for my poor scienctific theory.

I didn’t expect this thread to be too scientific, since the argument is how the Bible can explain these phenomena. So don’t worry, just give your opinions.

 

But this was one of the first arguments I used against the Bible.  The bible records men as being first and women as coming from men.  Another illogical feat, as nobody has ever seen a human being come out of a male human.  If this is so, then why do men retain nipples?  At fertilizatin, a female is XX.  All eggs are X.  The male is divergent in that it is XY.  I believe also that all fetuses look female until later in development Fertility technology also believes it will be possible for two females to mate- combining two eggs.  But it is still impossible for two males to mate.  If the human organism started out unisex, and then diverged into two sexes, it seems that males would be the more divergant gender. 

I agree. That’s why evolution has a least a rational argument to explain this. Most likely one of our predecessors was androgynous, having both organs (like frogs).

 

It doesn't really matter who came first gender wise.  But for some reason it is of uber-importance to fundamentalists in patriarchal societies. They continually use this "male came first from Adam" myth to subjugate women. I don't know how many times in my life I have been left feeling worthless, wicked or less than becasue of that stupid Eve in the garden story.

You’re right. The Eden story is only made to be a support for the patriarchal society.

[Ouroboros]

I'll give you an example for the appendix. Creationists, particularly those who listen to AiG, Kent Hovind, or other lazy forms of pseudo-scholarship, will tell you that the appendix is part of the immune system and is therefore not a vestigial structure.

Another thought to add to this. What a fallacy they commit when they use biology and science to try to prove something that biology has a different explanation for. Like using logic to prove logic is wrong.

 

 

But this was one of the first arguments I used against the Bible.

I just remembered that this was also one of my first reasons to believe the evolution was right.

[Mr. Neil]

Like using logic to prove logic is wrong.

Ever meet Paul Manata?

[Mr. Neil]

Seriously though...

 

I don't know why it's not blatantly obvious to fundamentalists that this story in Genesis cannot be fact, especially in this world in which genetics is becoming an important science in both medical and forensic science. You simply can't believe in the Bible and accept genetics at the same time.

 

Unfortunately, this is just one of many, many instances where Christians contradict themselves. In order to reject evolution, they basically have to reject the scientific method. But in doing so, they contradict themselves if they use any resource that is a biproduct of the scientific age, which, ironically is pretty much everything.

 

We aught to compile a list of the many ways Christians contradict themselves by accepting science and faith at the same time. Every now and then I think of a couple. For example, Christianity is incompatible with quantum mechanics, so therefore Christians are contradicting themselves whenever they watch religious programming on television.

[Cerise]

Maybe God also has a useless layer of hair over his body. Do gods require underarm hair? Maybe it's made of gold...

[Ouroboros]

Seriously though...

 

I don't know why it's not blatantly obvious to fundamentalists that this story in Genesis cannot be fact, especially in this world in which genetics is becoming an important science in both medical and forensic science.  You simply can't believe in the Bible and accept genetics at the same time.

 

Unfortunately, this is just one of many, many instances where Christians contradict themselves.  In order to reject evolution, they basically have to reject the scientific method.  But in doing so, they contradict themselves if they use any resource that is a biproduct of the scientific age, which, ironically is pretty much everything.

 

We aught to compile a list of the many ways Christians contradict themselves by accepting science and faith at the same time.  Every now and then I think of a couple.  For example, Christianity is incompatible with quantum mechanics, so therefore Christians are contradicting themselves whenever they watch religious programming on television.

 

And to add to the mix, this is how the terrorists think too. It upset me so much when the first tapes of Bin Laden came out, and they spoke about how destructive western technology was, but they video recorded it with a Sony camcorder, and they had Motorola cellphones, and modern watches, and driving Mercedes. How stupid is that. They want to take down what they use for forward their cause.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe God also has a useless layer of hair over his body.  Do gods require underarm hair?  Maybe it's made of gold...

 

Does he use the Occam's Razor to shave himself?

[Zach]

Does God have a foreskin?

 

Jesus was born with one, apparently. But he was circumcised soon after.

[quicksand]

...

[Mr. Neil]

Does he use the Occam's Razor to shave himself?

Maybe it's what they used to circumcize baby Jesus.

[Ouroboros]

Y'all talking about Jebuz having a wiener, but how can that be, he didn't have a biological father?

 

The Y-chromozone is missing, so he must've had a Z or G chromo or something. So he either had nothing, or something else than the dongle.

 

Unless the HG have a Y-chromo too...

 

[Lokmer]

I think you meant to say, "Did God create the foreskin just for the purpose of genital mutilation?"

 

Sorry to be so particular but I am an editor.

 

I knew there was a reason I think you're cool!

-Lokmer