It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Sigismundus
And they say the clan god of the Jews (the post-Exilic YHWH of the post-Exilic 'bible') doesn't make mistakes !!! Well he certainly did with giving human terran males nipples - when they can't even use them to breast-feed !!
From conception until sexual differentiation, all mammalian fetuses within the same species look the same, regardless of sex. In humans, this lasts for around 6 weeks; after which genetically-male fetuses begin producing male hormones such as testosterone. Usually, males' nipples do not change much past this point; however, some males develop a condition known as gynecomastia, in which the fatty tissue around and under the nipple develops into something similar to a female breast. This may happen whenever the testosterone level drops. Gynecomastia, although not as severe, may occur in pubescent boys undergoing physical changes due to the rapid and uncontrolled release of hormones, including estrogen. The heightened levels of oestrogen in pubescent male bodies leads to the swelling of the nipple and surrounding tissue - this can often look similar to a female human nipple - and may cause slight discomfort.
Thus, because the "female template" is the default for humans, the question is not why evolution has not selected against male nipples, but why it would be advantageous to select against male nipples in the first place:
"The uncoupling of male and female traits occurs if there is selection for it: if the trait is important to the reproductive success of both males and females but the best or "optimal" trait is different for a male and a female. We would not expect such an uncoupling if the attribute is important in both sexes and the "optimal" value is similar in both sexes, nor would we expect uncoupling to evolve if the attribute is important to one sex but unimportant in the other. The latter is the case for nipples. Their advantage in females, in terms of reproductive success, is clear. But because the genetic "default" is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them. Interestingly, though, it could be argued that the occurrence of problems associated with the male nipple, such as carcinoma, constitutes contemporary selection against them. In a sense, male nipples are analogous to vestigial structures such as the remnants of useless pelvic bones in whales: if they did much harm, they would have disappeared.
In a now-famous paper, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin emphasize that we should not immediately assume that every trait has an adaptive explanation. Just as the spandrels of St. Mark's domed cathedral in Venice are simply an architectural consequence of the meeting of a vaulted ceiling with its supporting pillars, the presence of nipples in male mammals is a genetic architectural by-product of nipples in females. So, why do men have nipples? Because females do."
Funny, but all milk producing species that nurture their young in this manner have ``nipples``. Expections being Horses and Rats.
Were you trying to say that Elijah lived in pre-Exilic Yisro'el, i.e. per 587 BCE? Then you'd be right...but I'm not not sure what you meant !
(the post-Exilic YHWH of the post-Exilic 'bible')
You might have misspoke:
"After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." Gen. 5:4
Originally posted by NoRegretsEver [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread821919/pg1#pid13731983reply to [/]post byAzadok url]
Might I point out according to scripture, there is no gender in heaven,so it imlpies in Jobe 38:7 ( when the morning stars sang together, and all the SONS of God shouted for joy) so to me it seems in the beginning (before this earth age) there obviously were no women, as it states let us make man in our image ,assuming that God is speaking to others (angels) and angels were also refured to as sreply to as stars, or morning stars.
Another place it implies just SONS is in Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry , nor are given in marrage, but are as the angels of God in heaven, also in Luke:20:35. To sum it up men were the first and only gender from before the foundations of this world, explaining why God made women out of man, not by a piece of Adams rib thats curved, but through the DNA that is the helix curve, and thats why, when a man and women are joined together in marrage, they become one flesh.
Nice topic I am new on here, and it's refreshing to have another one of pastor A.M. students to discern with, understanding things that the mainstream churches (religions) do not teach at all! Whops! I am assuming that you are a Shepherds Chappel student?.. If Im wrong you do have my apology, for assuming!
Man is a generic word for the species of people , if you read the next verse 1:27 it says created man in our own image male and female . If you go on to read the next verse Genesis 1:28 God tells them to be fruitful and REPLENISH the earth . In other words the verse of Genesis 1:26 let us make man in OUR IMAGE AND OUR LIKENESS coupled with the verse to replenish shows that we as people were on the earth before and it was destroyed so we were REPLENISHING the earth.
In Genesis 1:2 the verse say and the earth WAS void and without form . The word was is the Hebrew word Hayah Strongs number 1961 and the word means TO BECOME . ...........so Genesis 1:2 actually should read ........and the earth bacame void and without form .
God destroyed the first earth age because of what Satan did . These old structures you see across the world that they have no explanation for are from the first earth age , we built them and when God destroyed the world that was not everything became destroyed by the flood and great earth shaking . This is not the flood of Noah but a totally different flood.
The people created on the sixth day were all the races and to understand you must remember that a day to God is a thousand years to man so the sixth day was the sixth thousand year after the start of recreation of the earth. The seventh day was another thousand years and on the eighth day God created Adam and eve who Jesus Christ bloodline would come from , this is why Eve is called the mother of all living because only thru Christ can you live into the third earth age after this second earth age ends .edit on 21-3-2012 by Azadok because: Spelling
Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
First let me say that I am agnostic, and my beliefs as well as your own... are your own, and my own. I have decided to try to make sense of this, and as far as I'm concerned those that are religious and those that are not should be able to cover this without being hostile, or filling the thread with a bunch of scriptures.
I have heard all my life that in the bible it is written in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness".
There has been a stigma against women for thousands of years, and what I have come up with is a few more or less statements then questions.
One, if the above is literal, then where did the likeness of women come from?
Two, if women were so unimportant, then why the need for Jesus to be born to Mary? And because of this holy birth, how come the perception towards women did not change?
Now the next few statements, I must say require a thick skin for those that get offended easily, but this is the reason for discussion.
If women were considered to only be "2nd" made, then why are women more efficiently made for the continuation of life, as men are simply needed to provided needed "help" with the beginning, but afterward are no longer medically, nutritionally, or need to gestate?
Is it so hard to try to understand the need of women, or the understanding that the church has decided that there had to be a hidden agenda about women in general?
Third, if procreation was supposed to be a #1 goal, why would women who are far more complicated biologically be made second?
With the above stated I will say my own thoughts.
I think that maybe women were in fact created first, its like thinking that a dish was made first, and then the dishwasher to accommodate right after, and yet tell others that the dish is far more important then the washer, as it provides, soap, drying, cleaning.
I am in NO WAY trying to be condescending, but honest in my confusion that many still believe that women are under men, and just above the animals.
Please I would like to keep this clean, and free of hate, and maybe there is something that I missed.
BTW, I almost forgot, just food for thought. Would it not be easier to remove then to add. Men and women are almost identical , but if you ask a man why he has nipples he considers them unnecessary.
edit on 21-3-2012 by NoRegretsEver because: just thinking
Originally posted by mezedok7
God destroyed the first earth age because of what Satan did .
The people created on the sixth day were all the races and to understand you must remember that a day to God is a thousand years to man so the sixth day was the sixth thousand year after the start of recreation of the earth.