From: "Ken Smith" Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian Subject: Re: Feigning evolution (Gladys Swager) writes: > > >Sorry, Chris, it is NOT my gospel, in the sense that I wrote it. It is > >the gospel of John, one of Jesus's twelve disciples, in which he > >wrote, "In the beginning was the Word - meaning Jesus, the son of God > >- and the Word was with God and the Word was God.... All things were > >made by Him (Jesus and without Him was not anything made that was > >made." > > >Granted, there are Christians who believe the above and (1) accept > >evolution as part of the creation and (2) others accept that a > >fully-functioning universe and organisms were made. > > >I am not saying that God deceived and created an appearance of long > >ages of millions of years. I do not believe that God created Adam with > >a belly button. > >However, Adam had the genetic information that meant that in > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >procreation of the his children the umbilical cord was present and > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >from that the belly button was formed. It would have been the absence > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >of a belly button that would have convinced the successive generations > >to Noah's father and Noah that there had been a special creation. ie. > >Adam was different from them. Ken Smith's response: > Gladys, your words reminded me of something I posted to a.r.c some time > ago, before you were a participant. Since some other people may not > have been around then, here they are again. > Anyone who might be offended by a quotation about nipples should stop > reading now. I'll leave a bit of extra space before inserting the old > response. > > > [start of old posting] > > > In response to the discussion on a.r.c about nipples on males, here is > one creationist explanation. > > On page 52 (there is no number on the page, but it is on the back of > page 51) of"Creation Ex Nihilo", vol. 9, no. 3 (June 1987) is a boxed > section headed "Question Box". At the bottom of the item we read: > "KEYWORDS: Question box, Nipples." No authors are given for either the > question or the answer: at this time "Creation Ex Nihilo" was edited by > Robert Doolan, who had no scientific qualifications. > > The first sentence in the box reads: > > What is the creation science explanation for the existence of > nipples on many male species? > > Let us assume that by "many male species" the writer really meant "the > males of many species". This is followed by the answer, which reads, in > full: > > After God created the animals in separate kinds He > created man. When He finished creating man He created a woman > out of man. The Bible is emphatic that God created man and > woman to be one flesh. Genetically this means that God had to > create the man so that He could make the woman fully functional > out of the information contained in the man's genes. > God did not invent any new genes for making Eve. As > males have only one X chromosome and one Y chromosome, all God > had to do was simply take an X chromosome from Adam and > duplicate it to make Eve's XX. Therefore man and woman are > truly one flesh. In order for this to be so both man and woman > must possess common factors. > Why then do men have nipples? So that women can have > them as functional aspects for breast feeding, etc. If God > hadn't created Adam with nipples, then Eve and all their > descendants would have no nipples. > > Well, there you have it. > But the answer raised lots of questions in my mind when I first read it, > and reading it again raises more questions. Some of these are: > > (a) The explanation refers only to homo sapiens: the question asked > about "many male species", and we are still in the dark about "the > creation science explanation" for nipples on the males of other > species. > > (b) The biblical exegesis of creationists seems to be as off-beat as > their understanding of science. In Genesis 2:24 "one flesh" clearly > refers to sexual relations within marriage. It seems that the > writer takes "one flesh" to refer to genetics, and not to sexual > intercourse. This could explain the hang-ups some creationists have > about sexual matters. > > (c) It is possible that the writer has simplified matters, but if he > indeed believes that *all* males have one X and one Y chromosome, or > that *all* women have two X chromosomes, he should do a bit of > reading about sex chromosome abnormalities. > > (d) I would like the writer to be a bit more explicit about the "etc." > part of the "functional aspect" of women's nipples. Or would this > fall foul of the proposed banning of pornography from the Internet? > > (e) But the really fascinating part is the final sentence. If I can > paraphrase it "If God hadn't created Adam with favourite portion of female anatomy here>, then Eve and all their > descendants would have no ." > The mind rather boggles at what an anatomist would make of Adam with > all the bits and pieces which go to make up a woman, as well as his > own. > > Perhaps evolution is a better explanation after all. The essay by > Stephen Jay Gould which someone referred to is entitled "Male Nipples > and Clitoral Ripples". It can be found as chapter 8 in his "Bully for > Brontosaurus". There is a footnote to the title, which reads: > > The proper and most accurate title of this piece should be > "Tits and Clits" -- but such a label would be misread as sexist > because people would not recognize the reference point as _male_ > tits. My wife, a master at titles, suggested this alternative. > > > [end of old posting] > > I still haven't managed to get a response from any creationist about > the "etc." part of nipples being useful for "breast feeding, etc." > Gladys: What I am implying is that if there was a fully functioning universe > >and fully functioning living organisms on the earth that there would > >have been minerals, vitamins, proteins, carbohydrates etc. needed to > >sustain life. The amounts of all those substances would not be known > >now, but their presence, still in the earth in some form will affect > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >calculations of the age of the earth. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Ken: I don't follow you, Gladys. > Why should the amounts of organbic substances now present on the earth > affect any calculations about the age of the earth? > Minerals, yes. > But all that these can possibly do is place a lower limit on the age > of the earth. > > There are floating around in various places in creationist literature > attempts by people to base calculations of the age of the earth on the > amount of various substances in sea-water. > These quote scientific work, and claim that the times quoted were > those required for the substances to reach their present level. > But if the original is consulted the times are stated to the > "residence time", which is the average time a molecule of teh > substance spends in sea-water until it is precipitated out or > abbsorbed by some other process. > This says absolutely nothing about how long it took to reach the > present level. > Salaam > Ken Smith > > -- > Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ... > "The only hope for any of us, regardless of our particular sins, lies in a > ruthless trust in a God who inexplicably loves sinners, including those who > sin differently than we do." Philip Yancey in "Soul Survivor"