Nipple Challenge: Evolution v. Creationism

Originally posted by Halitose
Define: "seemingly paradoxical".

Appearing to entail a logically inconsistent state of affairs.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Explain the seemingly paradoxical fact that men have nipples. Base your analysis on the principles of either evolution or creationism.

Is it possible that, before eve was created, adam was the invisaged child bearer??? Just a thought.

Originally posted by Halitose
Define: "seemingly paradoxical".

Indeed, "seemingly paradoxical" is arguably a pleonasm. All paradoxes are "seeming" in the sense that they seem to be contradictions (although they need not necessarily be).

Originally posted by Halitose
Define: "seemingly paradoxical".

Gaylord Focker can milk anything with nipples?

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
Is it possible that, before eve was created, adam was the invisaged child bearer??? Just a thought.

To suspect that God could change his mind on this issue would be to doubt God's perfection.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
To suspect that God could change his mind on this issue would be to doubt God's perfection.

if god made man in his image, then maybe god has nipples,and like man is prone to change of heart.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
if god made man in his image, then maybe god has nipples,and like man is prone to change of heart.

additional. I am not suggesting that god is perfect. . .no offence christians

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
if god made man in his image, then maybe god has nipples,and like man is prone to change of heart.

I'll remember to ask the Pope about that.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
additional. I am not suggesting that god is perfect. . .no offence christians

None taken. It's good to get these theological issues out in the open.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
if god made man in his image, then maybe god has nipples,and like man is prone to change of heart.

You're a Mormon.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Explain the seemingly paradoxical fact that men have nipples. Base your analysis on the principles of either evolution or creationism.

You need to specify what form of creationism. Not all forms of creationism are incompatible with evolution. Thus, the fact that men have nipples need not be a paradox to all creationists.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You need to specify what form of creationism. Not all forms of creationism are incompatible with evolution. Thus, the fact that men have nipples need not be a paradox to all creationists.

Does it have to be a paradox for *any* creationist?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Does it have to be a paradox for *any* creationist?

I don't think so.

For instance, if I were a six-day creationist, I could argue that men have nipples for enhancing sexual pleasure. Or maybe it serves some protective purpose. Or maybe it's there for aesthetic reasons. Or maybe it's there for some reason that God only knows.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't think so.

For instance, if I were a six-day creationist, I could argue that men have nipples for enhancing sexual pleasure. Or maybe it serves some protective purpose. Or maybe it's there for aesthetic reasons. Or maybe it's there for some reason that God only knows.

So, even if one's favoured brand of creationism *is* incompatible with evolution, male nipples still need not pose a paradox, as long as one makes a few auxiliary arbitrary assumptions about God's intent.

So what is Dr. Scribbles referring to when he refers, with pleonastic emphasis, to the "seeming paradox" posed by male nipples? Do male nipples pose any paradox at all? Are they necessarily nonsensical knobs?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Appearing to entail a logically inconsistent state of affairs.

Why? What would be the evolutionist's claim?

Did males evolve (devolve) from females? Did ancestral males suckle the young? Ludicrous.

According to the TEO, male/female differentiation happened (evolved) much earlier than when mammals evolved from reptiles. There were already males and females long before females evolved breast-feeding.

This would also not be logically inconsistent with (non-evolution) creation theory. Even if creationists couldn't offer any reasons (thanks to LH, this is not the case), it proves nothing more than that a creationist doesn’t possess all knowledge of the Creator’s intentions, which has never been a claim of creation theory.