DDM
Member
Has creationism explained nipples yet? God created Adam, who...had nipples for some reason.
Of course, the obvious answer is that creationism is wrong, because we know what nipples are used for, and, if anything, they point to women coming before men.
Y'know, unless men are evolving to have breasts too.
Anyway, I'm curious to hear a creationist's explanation for them.
Well, we know Yahoowahoo (my preferred pronunciation of YHVH) has nostrils http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/15.html#8
and a backside
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/33.html#20
so why not nipples?
Revyloution
Member
Appropriate clip for the discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEenKy1S4S0
Skip to 2:20 if your'e in a hurry.
Revyloution
Member
If he didn't Ursa, then that causes a serious theological problem. Without the first navel, where did the first navel lint come from? Suggesting that navel lint just evolved from nothing just leads down the slippery slope to moral relativism. Obviously naval lint exists, just like a pocket watch. If you found a pocket watch on the beach, you wouldn't think it just spontaneously assembled itself, it must have had a maker. So too must navel lint have a creator. So if God created navel lint (as my logic has just proved He did), then the first man must have had a place to keep it, thus Adam must have had a navel.
UrsaMinor
Member
Actually, my point is that Yahweh clearly had the whole Fall From Grace thing planned ahead of time. He tipped his hand by creating navels to hold lint at a time when there was no clothing and no reason to suspect that any would be needed in the future. Ergo, navels are a dead giveaway that he had both a plan to introduce sin into the world so that people would need clothing, and a truly warped sense of humor when he created the outie.
Jeremy
Member
If he didn't Ursa, then that causes a serious theological problem. Without the first navel, where did the first navel lint come from? Suggesting that navel lint just evolved from nothing just leads down the slippery slope to moral relativism. Obviously naval lint exists, just like a pocket watch. If you found a pocket watch on the beach, you wouldn't think it just spontaneously assembled itself, it must have had a maker. So too must navel lint have a creator. So if God created navel lint (as my logic has just proved He did), then the first man must have had a place to keep it, thus Adam must have had a navel.
This is awesome. The thread title drew me in, the awesome made me stay.
Someone better versed in biology than me can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in emergency circumstances, human males can lactate. By "emergency" here, I mean, mom died and there aren't any milkable mammals around. A useful fall back, and you can see why it would be evolutionarily favored: the kids don't outright starve as soon as mom's dead, and they go on to reproduce more often.
But on the other hand, I only took evangelical fundamentalist home school biology in high school.
Edit: With regard to the OP, a staunch creationist will simply point out what I just said, and say something like "Wow, isn't that an amazing *design* feature?" Pretty hard to catch creationists in that kind of trap: an appeal to design is a very easy leap.
UrsaMinor
Member
Did someone call for a biologist?
AFAIK, human males lactate only under unusual conditions. Treatment with female hormones for medical reasons can certainly cause it. And, somewhat counterintuitively, it is sometimes triggered by extreme stress combined with demanding physical activity and a lack of proper nutrition, i.e., the sort of conditions you find in a slave labor camp. I know of no way that the "mere" death of a mate could trigger male lactation. I'm sure that the event could cause extreme stress, but to the best of my knowledge you'd have to have the other two components of hard labor and shortage of food too.
Don't take this as the final say on the subject, though. It has never been a formal topic of study of mine, and I'm no expert on it. There may well be other ways to trigger male lactation that I'm not aware of.
Kodie
Member
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/85/why-do-men-have-nipples
According to Cecil Adams, humans have nipples for the same reason we have ears or knees, they're not a sex-linked characteristic. Of course, this question and answer are from 1979, but it hasn't been updated. The answer satisfies even a creationist.
beej82
Member
Me and my husband actually had a conversation in bed last night as to the whole "in gods image" thing. Seeing how other than basic human form, arms, legs, head, torso etc. None of us, unless we're twins, look all that much alike. So this god person must be one hell of an interesting looking dude
You must log in to post.
