Locutus sends in a link to an article about a Christian Scientist who believes Evolution and the Christian Faith can co-exist. The scientist offers this difference between faith and science.
As a scientist you are trained to accept only that which can be proven as a fact. But as a religious person, you are necessarily operating on faith. How do you resolve this dichotomy?
Well, that is very much the argument I had with myself when I was an atheist as a graduate student. And the problem, of course, is that science, with all of its appropriate demands to rigor, really only applies to investigating the natural world. If one decides that the natural world is the only interesting place to study, well, then science will do. But as you get a little bit more thoughtful about it, there are a lot of really important questions that science can't help you with, like, What's the purpose of my life? Is there a God? What happens after I die? Science is powerless to come anywhere near answering those questions. And yet, for most of us, we probably would be well served to think about those things.
I've linked to this guy before but he offers a compelling argument for why Christians shouldn't be afraid of Science. And I think it is worth mentioning again.
That said, I still don't really believe in Evolution. Maybe it's because I was home-schooled and went to a Christian High School, but it just seems like the best theory for people without answers.
I remember when I took my first Biology class in College. The professor was a staunch advocate for evolution, and I was genuinely excited to hear a non-biased argument. Being homeschooled and going to a Christian School, I never really learned about evolution. It was just something you weren't supposed to believe. And I always felt that had left a serious whole in my education. Because while maybe I didn't believe in evolution, I figured I should at least have a limited understanding of the subject.
So I get to class the day the professor decides to start his series on evolution. And before he starts lecturing, he puts in a video tape to explain the foundation of evolution. The video tape was a cartoon of a bunch of different animals turning into other different animals, except it went on for hours. It was as though he thought if I keep showing you all these animals turning into other animals, you'll just believe. It was quite possibly the stupidest thing I'd ever seen. And I walked out of the class absolutely livid thinking, "Are you kidding me? The best argument for evolution is a freaking cartoon." And I have never taken the subject serious again.
I should probably also mention that I hate science and I got a D in the class. Which was due in large part to the fact that my study partner partied the night before the final and showed up the next morning completely hung over chanting… "D is for Degree… D is for Degree…"
Screw evolution. I don’t even believe in science.
I wrestled with this issue a lot while transitioning from home schooling to a public university. The funny thing is if we can all agree that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth”, isn’t the way He went about it kind of irrelevant? I guess I just don’t understand why some people make this into such a divisive issue.
divisive issues allow institutions to seperate themselves from the others…
the more a belief system can dispute other belief systems, the more seemingly valid it becomes?
I dare say though, that if the Catholic church came out and said, “Yes, we believe the Theory of Evolution to be the closest map for how we all got here”, it would probably not ruffle many feathers accept some of the fanatics…
I have a hard time believing that many christians, people of faith, ect. truly wholeheartedly BELIEVE that the world actually appeared in a 6 day period… I’ve seen how, in christianity, this topic is almost avoided like the plague… especially in the “modern” evangelical churches….
Catalyst,
Did you post this because you really want a serious discussion about the topic? Well, if so, here are my sound-bite responses:
** Both creationism and evolution require agreement with a belief system.
** The belief systems are mutually exclusive.
The vigor with which each side argues its case and refuses to compromise provides evidence that these statements are probably true.
Anna:
I usually just post what I’m thinking about.
But thank you for your thoughts.
I think the question comes down to whether the “belief systems” are mutually exclusive. I’m not so sure they are.
One word of caution: there is a difference between “micro” evolution vs. “macro” evolution in these debates. In the case of micro evolution, there is plenty of observable, falsifiable evidence to support it. Some parts of “macro evolution” take quite a bit a faith to accept, in my opinion.
I’ve seen many a debate between “Christians” and “Scientists” (in quotes because of the gratuitous generalization) turn personal because neither could understand that the other was talking about different types of evolution.
Those Christians that say “I don’t belive in evolution” might as well be saying “I belive the world is flat”, because there is NO question that the change of allele frequencies (i.e. genetic variation due to selection, mutation, genetic drift, migration, etc.) within a population really do happen constantly.
It would be more accurate to say that you don’t belive in long-term, non-observable changes, such as a species changing from one ‘kind’ to another”. You’ll sound more inteligent anways.
However, even though I have the same background as the Mortons (anyone else go to the Creation Science conferences?) I have to say the way DNA mapping’s going I suspect that religion is about to be proven wrong again. A decade from now the preachers will probably agree with Fezzik.
But then, I’m just an un-educated, backslidden, masturbating, tithe-opposing homeschooler.
… who has a hard time spelling.
True. A’s in Science, D’s in spelling. “D” is for “Don’t have a Degree yet”…
Remember, evolution is different from creation of life. Macroevolution is Microevolution extrapollated to really long time periods. The number of years required to have macroevolution is mind-boggling which is why it seems so unbelievable. A person just cannot imagine the time scale.
To get some feel for the size of the numbers, take a piece of paper and write the numbers 1 to 1000 on it and see how long it takes. Imagine every time you write one of the numbers a year has elapsed. Now do the same thing on 150 pieces of paper to get back to the earliest homosapiens. Continue doing this for 6,000 pieces of paper to get to the point where the branch splits into those that would eventually become chimpanzees and humans. Very quickly becomes mind boggling.
Personally, I can’t believe the numbers but I can accept them (think about it).
Its too bad the blogger gave up on learning evolution and hates science because it turns out to be such an interesting field. My advice would be to give up the debate of evolution vs. creationism and just spend time learning the biology. Its the coolest. All quadrapeds have forarms with the two bones radius and ulna and hind legs where the tibia and fibula are.
I’ll leave you with this. Special creationism would be a lot easier to believe if we weren’t so similar to other species and didn’t all share a common DNA. If everything else used DNA and we were the only ones using (you pick a chemical), it would be easier to think we’re special.
Cheers.
Herrick, nicely said.
Those who would like to compromise the two belief system of evolution and special creation have forgotten the basic premises of both systems:
** Adherence to biblical creation will maintain that God created the earth and the lifeforms upon it perfectly. In addition, death was not a reality of creation until Adam sinned. Creation has gone downhill since then.
** Adherence to evolution (in any form) will maintain the principle of survival of the fittest — it is a system of death. But nevertheless, species are adapting, and are evolving “uphill” steadily.
It’s like the old conundrum: in a universe where there is an irresistible force, can there exist an immovable object? No. The two are mutually exclusive.
It is just not possible to reconcile a system based on life with a system based on death. Nor can one believe simultaneously that things are getting worse and things are getting better.
I know this sounds horribly black and white. But basic premises usually are. It’s the nuances of further conjecture that grey things up.
Sorry Anna, but Microevolution is an observable fact. Bacteria become resistant to chemicals that once killed them. Light skinned people that live in sunny environments develop darker pigmentation. The list goes on and on. In that sense, living things do “get better” over time or they don’t and go extinct. Choosing to discount or ignore that because it doesn’t fall in line some of the things taught by most Creationists isn’t doing you any favors.
It’s tough to take a black and white scientific stance based solely on the Genesis account because it’s sorely lacking for details regarding some things. That’s why I choose to go with Genesis 1:1 and work from there as best I can with an open mind.
That’s called a ‘suntan’, I think.
Do those people give birth to darker-pigmented babies as a result of the mother being in the sun? (Just curious) …
…
A question occurs to me about creation – who is to say that God’s 7 days of creation were consecutive? Could creation actually have spanned billions of years, and the days of God’s creation were actually just – um – God’s intervention in the development of earth/life? Remember – even the Bible says there was a mass in existence before day 1 of creation – it says the earth was without form and void (of life) and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters …
Maybe the problem most believers have with some of the evolutionary ideas, is the errant idea that this incarnation of earth started from nothing. It was started from something – a previous earth that became without form and life … like the world might be after a cataclysm.
Hi Fezzik,
Adaptation is scientifically observable. I apologize. I used the wrong word before. What I meant was that evolution postulates that organisms change from one thing into another. Fish turn into birds, etc. I was kind of thinking of that famous chart of the evolution of man, and how it is portrayed that humans have evolved from lower life forms to higher. That is what I meant by “uphill.”
Adaptation is within the parameters of the belief system of creation. It just shows that God is smart.
anna has the argument down solid. No one has an open mind. Everyone is in their camp and finds it too warm and comfy to venture out. Going back and forth with DNA, missing-link, fossil records, etc etc… you’re either a Christian that still believes the Earth is the center of the universe, or an atheist that thinks rejecting evolution is like rejecting gravity.
anna also wins on the social argument. If Darwin was right, Nazis are the pinnacle of the evolution of mankind. Kill off the weaker species and promote the strong. Anything less would lead to self-destruction. Darwin himself believed this, he didn’t think the Irish should swim in the gene pool.
So now a evolutionist would refute anna by saying the ape to man chart has been misunderstood. Man did not evolve from apes or chimps. Instead, since man shares 96% of DNA as chimps, there was a common ancestor that both man and chimps evolved from. Which is why there are still chimps and apes around and they aren’t all men, since they would have all evolved.
Plus there was an boring experiment done in 1960′s with polychaetes which showed speciation could be performed in a lab.
Anna may be right in that evolution and creationism are both belief systems but its important to remember there are two types of beliefs. Those based on evidence (evolution) and those beliefs despite or contrary to the evidence (creationism).
For example, I’m not at home so I cannot say for sure there is not an elephant in my bathtub at this moment but based on past experience, my knowledge about where elephants live, the relative sizes of the elephants and my bathtub, etc., I’m pretty sure I’m right about this.
Microevolution points to macroevolution. We know how genes are changed, preserved and passed on, etc.
I can find good reasons for not believing the biblical accounts of creation; fossil evidence for example.
Forgetting creation of the different species arguments for a minute, to be perfectly honest, when it comes to the actual creation event, none of us will ever know exactly how it happened. None of us were there. I cannot prove there is no god (that whole can’t prove a negative thing) but the problem is, none of the god believers can prove he exists either.
If you haven’t been able to prove he exists and I can’t prove he doesn’t exist, if you were FORCED to choose, which belief makes more sense?
Cheers
You guys did not get my point (or chose to avoid it) — which was that you cannot simultaneously believe both because their basic paradigms are mutually exclusive. I am not interested in debating the claims of either side.
My purpose for bringing up the chart thing was not to agree with or refute it, but simply to refer to it as evidence of evolution’s underlying premise that nature is evolving for the better.
I have tried very hard to stay out of the argument about which side is reality, and have attempted to say that they cannot both be. But since you have determined that I am a closed-minded idiot, that gives you permission to not consider what I said.
Anna,
I apologize. I apparently did the miss the point. I agree with you that they are mutually exclusive if one is absolutely honest with one’s self.
I did not mean to imply you are a closed-minded idiot or anything else as I don’t know you so cannot make this judgement. Even if I did know you, I’d try to avoid making these judgements none-the-less.
I realize you’re trying to stay out of the fight but may I bring up one nit-picky point? I don’t think evolutions makes the claim that nature is evolving for the better. Better or worse is a value judgement imposed on what is, by us humans. Evolution says the process is directed through natural selection but that there is no “mind” directing the entire process.
Again, I apologize for having offended.
Cheers.
If I were all powerful and had been around for say…an eternity, what would be more interesting? Creating a bunch of stuff just by saying “let there be…” or by starting the ball rolling and having something to watch?
Thank you Robert. I realized after I hit the submit button that I sounded really snappish (a kind word for it). I apologize also. My offense was short-lived, but not short enough to stop me from sending the comment.
And to take my own medicine, I’ve been thinking about what you said about “better.” You are right — that is a value judgment word. Perhaps a more accurate word choice would be “complex.”
To chinook: It would depend on why you created the “stuff.” If you created it for entertainment, perhaps your scenario would work. If you created it because you wanted people to have a relationship with, 6 days may have been a long time.
I expanded anna’s arguments into my own so now I’ll backtrack. To her there is no compromise and no middle ground. You are either for one or the other but not both at the same time. I will apologize as well since she seems quite offended by the mistake.
My point is that with that line of thinking, there are numerous alternative theories on evolution that you discount with a wave of a hand, simply because the do not fit either side. The only ones you hear about are Intelligent Design or others by the Discovery Institute, but they are just a few of many others you will never hear about. The study of evolution does not have to be an attack on biology or religion.
Sorry, MEMLC. I was really not offended by the ideas, only by the hyperbole, but I’m over it.
Such as …. ? I’m really not being sarcastic. I am not a student of evolution, or of creationism either. So I have not heard any theories that successfully accommodate them both. If there are some, I’m interested.
Lest you wonder how I can be so adamant about the subject when it sounds like I know so little, can I explain? I am a student of the Bible and actively pursue knowing God. Every evolution theory I have heard, even the ones that try to compromise to reconcile the two basic origins theories are just not Bible and don’t sound like the way God does things.
And after looking at what I do know about origins theories, it seems impossible to bring them together because their bases are too dissimilar.
Seems like we’ve already discussed this here, and Anna makes a good point in that many people have such polarized opinions about this subject that the ideas become mutually exclusive. Poor Joe Liebermann is a victim of this mentality – the Dems cannot fathom someone who supports the war in Iraq! haha But I digress. Galileo was condemned as a heretic because Science and the Church were polarized on the subject of where the Earth fit in the Solar System. The two couldn’t coexist together until people were willing to find a way for both to be true. There are many other examples of Science and Religion in conflict but many times the two have later been reconciled without compromising the truth in either one. There are even many examples where Science seems to contradict itself and it takes someone to go against established thinking to ferret out the deeper truth. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing and to assume that we understand a subject completely is terribly arrogant, especially something like evolution where we have to imply most of what we know about it.
On the flip side, I think it’s also narrow-minded (and perhaps silly) to try and impose a world view based on a WORD FOR WORD interpretation of the Bible. The Bible itself is a rather loose collection of books that were written by people who didn’t have “Science” as we know it, and the author of Genesis is trying to give us a slide-show of the beginning of the cosmos using words and language from a primitive understanding of the world. Accepting the Creation story from a strict literal view seems like a rather risky endeavor! To completely ignore scientific evidence that seems to point to a reasonable alternative smacks of the same persecution that people like Galileo faced.
My point is that, in my mind, it may be possible someday to conclude that both Creationism and Evolution are not necessarily contradictory ideas. Our limited understanding of both topics shouldn’t polarize us to deny one to embrace the other. Rather, we must be willing to explore the truth in both until we can understand them ENOUGH that they are no longer in conflict.
Holy crap, I sound like Jiminy.
Personally, I think that the Genesis record leaves significant gaps, both in content and language, for enough room to allow for alternative explanations on things like the true age of the Universe, where did the dinosaurs go, etc. But it doesn’t shake my faith in a real God who created us and loves us still.
FICM said:
But my friend, what you just said IS a world view — let’s call it (A).
And there is another world view that does not agree with it — let’s call it (B).
(A) says:
1 — The Bible is a loose collection of books
2 — The Bible was written out of people’s experiences and thoughts
3 — The author is trying to explain something (s)he doesn’t understand
4 — The author has “primitive” language compared to us
5 — The author doesn’t understand “science”
(B) says:
1 — The Bible is a complex, organized and related group of books
2 — God gave the words through “inspiration”
3 — The author is only a few generations from Adam (perfect)
4 — The author is probably smarter than both of us put together
5 — The author’s understanding of “science” is not known
That is the problem with these conversations. People say things as if they are true fact, when in reality they are conjectures of their world-views … both (A) and (B), and they may or may not be true.
Anna,
What you’re pointing out is valid, that there are different world views. I was just pointing out one in particular that most Christians, especially Bible-thumping evangelicals, haven’t considered. Maybe I even believe it! hehe I guess that’s a “problem” to you. Fine. If you’re going to carry your point to the extreme, we could say there is a world view ( C); that is, Evolution is the answer and we’re all happy accidents of nature. We could also add (D) where the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle, or (E) we could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)
Within the context of this discussion, I was just pointing out that Christians can hope to find middle ground between Creationism and Evolution the same way that the Church has gradually accepted other scientific priniciples. (If you’re going to take me to task for 1-5, that’s a whole ‘nother debate. haha)
Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education and a former UK professor:
“This is actually, I think, key to understanding this whole controversy in this country: people think that because science restricts itself to a natural cause, it’s therefore saying that God had nothing to do with it,†Scott said.
Color me shocked. That’s the best quote in a newspaper article on creationism and evolution that I’ve ever read. It sums up exactly the entire problem and its solution: Teach Christians to integrate science into a consistent, coherent worldview that is both orthodox and modern.
[Comment ID #8039 Will Be Quoted Here]
I couldn’t have said it better.
The church and science did not come to a comprimise regarding planetary motion. The church was wrong and science was right. End of story. The earth, and the other planets orbit the sun. Not the other way around. The church was wrong yet killed those who spoke out in opposition.
To suggest that observations made in nature which suggest some type of evolutionary process exits, are invalid just because one believes in the bible, is to make the same mistake the church made on the subject of planetary motion.
I don’t believe the issue between evolution and creationism is black and white. It is a very gray issue, with no clear cut answers or absolute proof. And I do believe evolutionist make some pretty big jumps in their reasoning and conlcusions. But, how can we ignore what we observe? Especially if we do believe God created all things. Isn’t what we observe in nature, an observation of God’s creation and perhaps give some insight into God himself. Galileo himself wondered why God would give us the sense, reason and intellect to make observations of the world God created, and then be expected to ignore them.
I don’t have all the answers, but I don’t fear evolutionary theory. If it exists, at whatever level it exists, does not threaten my belief in creationism in any way. Keeping an open mind does not preclude absolute faith. I just don’t see where the two views have to be mutually exclusive.
Thanks for a great discussion. I’m done.
I will stay happily content in my faith that my God can and did create the earth in six real days. He planned it, He created it, and it belongs to Him. I see no reason why that cannot be so.
I really believe when we see Him, wrapped in garments of light, surrounded by a rainbow of colors we have never imagined, radiating light, love and holiness, that after we pick ourselves up off the sea of glass, we will agree — He is able and He is worthy to receive honor and glory.
grace
We are but a snow-globe on Orion’s belt …
You’ve got to see this! It is irreputable proof that God exists and designed everything specifically for us.
http://insanepictures.com/vid.shtml?0105.htm
[Comment ID #8068 Will Be Quoted Here]
One could equally argue that humans and bananas co-evolved! hahaha
Man, I’m all sorts of late to this conversation and I got tired of reading posts after about 15, so in case I restate something from another poster, I’m sorry.
I was in the evolution camp growing up in a public school and attending a Spirit-less Methodist Church, but Scripture has turned me away from molecules to man evolution.
Since we can’t observe the past, a major element of the scientific method is missing from these historical extrapolations. At that point scientists need to make logical assumptions and try to test them against the evident. Unfortunately, to make those assumptions requires presuppositions such as “there is a God” or “there isn’t a God.”
If you assume there is no God, then you run into all sorts of problems like where matter came from, or why humans and octupi have the same types of eyes even though we don’t have the same evolutional heritage, or why complex attributes would just evolve together (human eye, woodpecker beak/tongue/skull, etc.) or natural synergies (why crocodiles don’t eat the birds that clean their mouths or sharks the fish that clean theirs). But the biggest issue is that with all the evolution that we observe, it is always within “kind.” Enfluenza has not become TB or HIV, but just another strain of the flu.
Now, if we assume there is a God then we need to assimilate the information that we have on origins for religious texts. If there was no death before original sin, then the process of molecules to man evolution reaches an empass. Add in the use of the hebrew word for a literal day to describe the creation (and is used in a uniform fashion throughout the Old Testament) and you have another stumbling block.
The only advice I can give is to prayfully consider what God tells you while reading his Word and talking with him. I don’t see any scientific evidence that opposes the Bible only interpretations of that evidence which do.
Peter McClain
“The only advice I can give is to prayfully consider what God tells you while reading his Word and talking with him. I don’t see any scientific evidence that opposes the Bible only interpretations of that evidence which do. ”
Great advice Peter. What about um… reading some OTHER books for a change…. maybe expand those horizons a little???? Maybe your ADVICE on this matter is the biggest wash ever?
Ouch… Came off a bit hostile there Peter… This whole topic is stupid. Let’s try to get humans living togather without killing each other then maybe we’ll have the time and resources needed to discover our existance…
Thanks Tho.
“Great advice Peter. What about um… reading some OTHER books for a change…. maybe expand those horizons a little????”
-Michael Mendenhall
Here’s some books I suggest to broaden your mind:
-Everything I Ate (guy takes a picture of everything he eats for a year)
-Vice Dos and Don’ts (a book entirely devoted to making fun of random people who dress badly)
-Spanking the Donkey:On the Campaign Trail with the Democrats
-”Pregnancy for Dummies.” (I’m sorry, but if you’re dumb, please, please don’t have a baby!)
-Stuck on Stupid: A Guide for Today’s Single Woman Stuck in Yesterday’s Stupid Relationships
- Jesus’ Magical Underwater Adventure
-Fun With Milk & Cheese by Evan Dorkin
-Creepy Susie: And 13 Other Tragic Tales for Troubled Children by Angus Oblong
-The Melancholy Death of Oyster Boy: and Other Stories by Tim Burton
-The Cat with a Really Big Head, and One Other Story that Isn’t as Good by Roman Dirge
-Squee’s Wonderful Big Giant Book of Unspeakable Horrors by Jhonen Vasquez
Don’t believe men came from apes? You will shortly!
B.T. Beauty, I truly hope that all of those titles are not actual books. If they are, I would not see them as evidence that we evolved from apes, but as evidence of the total depravity of mankind. How low can we go? Pretty low, clearly.
[Comment ID #8195 Will Be Quoted Here]
I Googlered Jesus magical underwater adventure, and it’s fer real. See the cover pic. I kinda like the sub-title “A Stupid Book for Jerks”.
I think BT said the same thing as you FFTM, just tongue in cheek.
Men can be such animals!
[Comment ID #8195 Will Be Quoted Here]
They are all real! Google them!
I do believe in Creationism. I believe, though, that God made us humans and we made ourselves animals.
Michael,
Thanks for the response. I have read many books other than the Bible(and taken classes, watched educational programming, talked with professors and friends who disagree) on the evolution/creation debate, but I appreciate your interest in my scholastic endeavors. I too do not wish to get involved in a time consumming, circular argument however I do think that the Word of God does need to be articulately defended by his followers and to that end believers in Creation are not science-hating ignorants, but instead examine our world using God’s ideologies rather than society’s “accepted” ideologies. I will pray that God will grant you with the clarity of thought that only he can provide in matters such as these.
I think this great debate can be represented by one question, “Did Adam have a belly button?”
If you take a moment and step back from the traditional teachings of both creationism and evolution, I can possibly present you with a way that both could be true. Assuming (or believing) that God created the earth, in seven day, from nothing to perfection; He would have had to make everything as if it had a “history”. For example:
1. Adam and Eve were created as adults. There are no known cases of anyone being “born” since as adults. Adults don’t just appear, they grow from children.
2. Plant life. Trees and other plants are part of an ecological cycle. They require nutrients in the ground for food to grow. In time they become the nutrients for other life. If all plant life was created without having the nutrients in the soil, the whole project would not have lasted 2 weeks.
3. Geology. I assume there was sand at the beaches at the point of creation. Sand is not the initial stage of geologic life, it is nearer the end.
4. Astronomy. The stars were visible upon creation, they would have to have been created with light “on the way” here for us to see them even now.
You see where I am going with this? Everything could have been created in a snap, but actually it was created in a “snapshot” of time. For the cycle to work there would have to have been a created “history” at the same time of the initial creation. So scientifically, a rock or bone may date back 2 million years, but why could it not have been created as 1, 995,000 years old in the beginning. It would not be all that different from the light from the stars, and no one argues the speed of light.
Here is one that may throw a bunch of you, what if the dinosaurs never “walked” the earth. But there are footprints you say, and the oil that they turned into. But I reply, if there is a God who can design DNA, how hard would it be for him to plant a few footprints in the petrified rock to substantiate the history?
I think we limit the creativity of God by putting him in to the creation box sans evolution. The science is irrefutable, and the bible is infallible. What other answer could there be.
So Of course Adam had a belly button. (If he didn’t he would have thought there was something seriously wrong with Cain and Able.)
Interesting theory…I kind of like it! A practical joke on mankind…kind of a test. Only the ones who still believe after looking at all the “evidence” pass the test and go to Heaven. I could see that happening.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/lint/default.htm
Since we are on the topic of belly buttons, here are some interesting facts I’ve discovered:
-The famous film director Alfred Hitchcock did not have a belly button.
It was eliminated when he was sewn up after surgery.
-Some vegetables, like peas, have belly buttons, too. They receive nutrients from the pea pod through their stubby little nobbin, which works like an umbilical cord.
-All mammals have belly buttons. However, in some dogs and cats, they’re a little hard to see because they’ve healed well and are covered with hair.
-A Stick-on Belly Button Cleaner is a Japanese invention. It’s an adhesive pad which you apply “over and into the offending area, and then remove it after 10 minutes (making sure you dispose of the evidence discreetly)”. They’re available from the Lung Shing Dispensary Company in Hong Kong at a cost of HK$48 for six adhesive strips.
-The breakdown between “Innies†and “Outies†is about 90/10.
The breakdown is overwhelmingly skewed to one side: 90% innies, 10% outies.
-People actually have plastic surgery to fix the shape of their belly buttons.
-Blood actually travels through the umbilical cord at 3.5 miles per hour.
-Umbilical cord blood has the potential to treat over 75 diseases.
- Plastic surgeons are now able to insert breast implants via the belly button. The advantage of this is that it leaves no obvious scar.
-Most women enjoy belly button stimulation, while most men do not.
-You’re more likely to have Belly button Lint if you’re male, older, hairy, and have an innie.
***Check out the link. You can actually see pictures of the world’s largest “Belly Button Fluff” collection. It will really brighten your day.***
Well, that explains it.
Sorry to drag up an old thread, but I thought this news story was interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060830/ts_nm/pope_evolution_dc
Pope to “debate” evolution with his former theology students
Good topic. It is funny. The whole debate. Because I believe in science and God. What’s funny to me, is that evolution isn’t even scientific! If you study DNA, you find out that information can’t be added. But then you can say that the virgin birth, jonah, burning bush are not very scientific. Sure, but neither is no God. Something coming from nothing? Who’s crazy now. If I told you that I could start a universe by rubbing my hands together you would think I was nuts, but that’s more plausable than something coming from nothing. Rubbing my hands together has more of a chance than nothing of starting a universe. But the bottom line is. God/No God. Responsibility/No Responsibility. His ways/My Ways. So if you don’t want to give your life over, there isn’t enough evidence. Peace.