- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,537
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
Surely if you plant a fossil it grows into a dino?
Dinosaurs are not real :(
- Thread starter stoke1863
- Start date
Don't think colour or height has any bearing on being created in Gods image, they are men after all. Pfft, racist!
The list of vestigial organs that was made by the German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1895 included approximately 100 organs, including the appendix and coccyx. As science progressed, it was discovered that all of the organs in Wiedersheim's list in fact had very important functions. For instance, it was discovered that the appendix, which was supposed to be a "vestigial organ," was in fact a lymphoid organ that fought infections in the body. This fact was made clear in 1997.
The appendix which evolutionists thought to be a vestigial organ, has now been understood to play an important part in the body's immune system. The coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column is also not a vestigial organ but provides an attachment for our pelvic organs so that they will not collapse.
Darwinism Refuted.com
Do you mind linking from a less biased source please?
Thanks, I can't even be bothered to look at the citation here all I did was look at the banner.
To be fair, if you believe in the "old" Western view of God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity, surely you can attribute anything that happens anywhere, ever, to him?
"Dinosaur fossils are millions of years old."
"God made them look like that."
"Here's a sandwich I just made."
"No, God did that. He made it and gave it to you."
"You're not wearing any pants."
"God did it."
"Dinosaur fossils are millions of years old."
"God made them look like that."
"Here's a sandwich I just made."
"No, God did that. He made it and gave it to you."
"You're not wearing any pants."
"God did it."
I thought it was understood these days that "vestigal organs" are no longer seen as "evoluionary remnants"?, what, with modern science and all that
Textbooks rarely inform students about the important functions of these allegedly vestigial organs and instead simply cite them as evidence for common ancestry.
The tonsils: At one time, they were routinely removed. Now it's known they serve a purpose in the lymph system to help fight infection.
The coccyx (tailbone): Rather than being vestigial, this is a vital bone required for the human bipedal body plan. It is used for the attachment of muscles, tendons, and ligaments which support the bones in our pelvis.
Male nipples: Even under an evolutionary paradigm, male nipples are not an evolutionary holdover. They are a simple consequence of the mammalian body plan and development, and are not considered 'vestigial'.
The coccyx (tailbone): Rather than being vestigial, this is a vital bone required for the human bipedal body plan. It is used for the attachment of muscles, tendons, and ligaments which support the bones in our pelvis.
Male nipples: Even under an evolutionary paradigm, male nipples are not an evolutionary holdover. They are a simple consequence of the mammalian body plan and development, and are not considered 'vestigial'.
Evolution News & Views
Hi Castiel.Here we go boys.....I am surprised that it took so long.
Hi Kedge.
what a hussy.....
I believe most have/use faith, be them religious or none religious. What i find interesting is that some of the most influential scientists of old or founders of modern science like Copernicus, Francis Bacon, kepler, Descartes,Pascal, Isaac Newton, Einstein etc contributed to science while believing in God. I believe Isaac Newton was devoutly religious.
If God can create such an awesome universe and place all it's glory in absolute mathematical precision and placement or precise order, and, create such an absolute amazing planet such as earth...and not forgetting the amazing intelligent design of the living world...i'm quite sure the placement of an embryo in the womb of a woman is not beyond His powers of science (aka knowledge, wisdom, power).
Interpretation.
I thought it was understood these days that "vestigal organs" are no longer seen as "evoluionary remnants"?, what, with modern science and all that
Vestigial doesn't mean that it's completely useless, merely that it has lost most of its original function through evolution. Vestigial organs often evolve (or already have) secondary uses when they're no longer required for their main role.
Also, I believe the studies on the use of the appendix that you're talking about have only been on rabbits and to a lesser extent rats.
People that hold these beliefs should be removed from the gene pool as they are simply attempting to hold back the human race
Your argument is basically a fish in the sea that says "This is a lovely sea, it must have been designed", the Universe is nothing near peace and tranquillity. The statistical likelihood of life existing elsewhere in the Universe approaches Certainty, All these natural phenomenas that you talk about can be explained by Science, there is no need for a deity anywhere.
It does not make a difference if all those Scientists were religious, the vast majority of people were Religious in those periods. Most scientists of this era are of no faith, you should not ignore that.
Done a survey have we?
A study has shown atheism in the West to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.
http://www.physorg.com/news102700045.html
Keep in mind this was done in the US, where currently only 1.6% identify with being Atheist and 2.4% Agnostic. I think it's fair to say a disproportionate percentage of scientists are either atheist or agnostic.
Whoa there, while I agree with everything you are saying....that statement needs qualification.....
Some scientists have no faith, some scientists have no religion, some have faith, some have religion....faith and religion are not necessarily the same thing and it is a far cry from stating most scientists are not religious (which in itself is arguable) to stating most scientists have no faith......
Generally Scientist are less likely to be religious than the general public, a PRC (America) study found that around 33% of scientists believed in God, a further 18% believed in some form of universal spirit....41% didn't believe in either and 7% did not know. Contrast that to the general public where 83% believed in God, 12% in a Universal Spirit and 4% in neither.
While this poll is not entirely applicable to Europe, where religious belief is less widespread than the US, it belies the statement that MOST scientists do not have faith......
I would say that a more accurate statement would be that Scientists are less likely to be religious, significantly so.
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
To be fair to them on that one, that isn't unheard of in nature. I'm not saying that its ever happened or ever could happen to a human but there are creatures that utilise Parthenogenesis as a means of procreation.
From Wiki
Aside from that they are all batcrap crazy but as long as they don't try to tell me to change my mind I'm happy for them to carry on as they wish.
The only message I have is that if Jesus died for your sins then you better sin big and sin bad since you already paid the price.
Last edited:
Relating to those surveys http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/03/us/survey-of-scientists-finds-a-stability-of-faith-in-god.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Or this 2007 survey:
http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf
So anyway, as a supporter of science I would still take issue at "most". It's borderline at best depending on the source.