What I truly don't understand is why the creationists haven't latched on to this curious fact of the shape of the male beard. It's the ultimate God of the gaps argument: The male beard is so perfectly shaped and so obviously designed that the Darwinists will never find a way to explain it. For what could possible be the advantage of having beard where men do, but not in those other areas? It's clearly cleverly designed to make men look as stunning as they do.
If anyone ever seriously advances the beautiful beard argument, I want full credit and cash payments every time it's used.
 Al Gore.  Another reconstruction of Jesus. |  Forensic reconstruction of Jesus.  Me as Naveen Andrews on Halloween. |
Wow you really look a lot like Andrews.
ReplyDeleteI know. My best costume ever.
ReplyDeleteFor one, not every man's beard connects or look as perfect as the examples you give. Some are very splotchy and not always full. Second, we are so familiar with how a beard looks we consider it perfectly shaped. However, if all men's beard also included some of the areas like the nose, forehead, or temples and that is the only vision of a beard that we knew, wouldn't we also consider that perfect?
ReplyDeleteSurely those splotchy beards are the result of the fall, right?
ReplyDeleteAnd if God chose to give men beard on the nose, then because that is the will of God, then that would be perfect.
[At least, I think that's how it goes.]