RE: The Male Nipples : Genesis Debunked
June 17, 2012 at 3:12 am
(This post was last modified: June 17, 2012 at 3:19 am by FallentoReason.)
Drich Wrote:Maybe I missed something but what does this have to do with Adam? Do you think Adam or eve had belly buttons?
Since they were not 'born' in the traditional sense I'll assume you will say no.
So that means it is possiable for Adam and Eve to be slightly different than their offspring.
Belly buttons and passing down of genes aren't two things that are comparable. It's true that e.g. if you clone an animal it won't have a belly button but this says nothing about passing down genes.
(June 16, 2012 at 10:36 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Even if you're an evolutionist, the "female first" in womb theory is what you should believe. This is because evolution holds that the sexes split by mutation in the womb (or wherever reproduction was accomplished). Before gender, all organisms were allegedly ancestors of the female. I.E. we both agree that babies are originally female, so this is an outdated argument.
Ah, but is it really an outdated argument? This would only be so if both of you were correct about the claim that all babies are originally female. Well, the creationist scientist suggests otherwise:
Human embryos are sexually dimorphic at first (i.e. contain characteristics of both sexes), because they all have basically the same genetic information, and this information is expressed as efficiently as possible as the embryo develops. This is design economy. For example, in all human embryos, at first both the müllerian duct system (female) and the wolffian duct system (male) develop, because both sexes have the genetic information for these structures. Incidentally, this refutes the urban myth that human embryos ‘start off female’.
http://creation.com/male-nipples-prove-evolution
So maybe your stance needs to change accordingly.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
