- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,537
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
Surely if you plant a fossil it grows into a dino?
What would these people's answer be if the little green men do turn up? What would be the argument to the statement in the bible that man is made in god's image?
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.another workmate asked why this "intelligent design" included the appendix which is a redundant organ like he didn't have an answer.
Do you mind linking from a less biased source please?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
I thought it was understood these days that "vestigal organs" are no longer seen as "evoluionary remnants"?, what, with modern science and all thatDo 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.
Hi Castiel.Here we go boys.....I am surprised that it took so long.
Hi Kedge.![]()
How such people genuinely believe that Mary gave birth as a virgin is beyond me.
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.They just have a lot of faith in their beliefs. How such people genuinely believe that Mary gave birth as a virgin is beyond me.
My what?
I thought it was understood these days that "vestigal organs" are no longer seen as "evoluionary remnants"?, what, with modern science and all that![]()
Just been chatting to this american guy at work from Denevr who is very very relgious.
We got chatting and i asked him how old the earth is according to the bible ( i think he said 6k years old or something)
anyway i asked why we have fossils of dinousaurs that have been carbondated over 30 million years old and he told me that God planted the fossils on the earth as a test to see who keeps the faith.
I asked him why god was so mischievous and he declined to comment. Tried talking about the Universe (planets, galaxies etc...) and he just refused to comment on anything.
Is there anybody on here that bielives that fossils were planted by god? would genuinely like to hear from you
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.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).
Most scientists of this era are of no faith, you should not ignore that.
Done a survey have we?
Most scientists of this era are of no faith, you should not ignore that.
How such people genuinely believe that Mary gave birth as a virgin is beyond me.
Parthenogenesis occurs naturally in some invertebrate animal species (e.g., water fleas, aphids, nematodes, some bees, some Phasmida, some scorpion species, and parasitic wasps) and some vertebrates (e.g., some reptiles,[2][3] fish, and very rarely birds[4] and sharks[5]). This type of reproduction has been induced artificially in fish and amphibians.[6]
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.
while about 42 percent in 1916 and about 45 percent today said they did not believe in a God as specified in the questionnaire, although whether they believed in some other definition of a deity or an almighty being was not addressed.
When asked their beliefs about God, nearly 34 percent of academic scientists answer “I do not believe in God” and about 30 percent answer “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,”
When asked “to what extent do you consider yourself a spiritual person?” about 66 percent of the natural scientists and about 69 percent of the social scientists describe themselves as spiritual. This means there is a population of scientists who say they have no religious affiliation but who do see spirituality as important. Indeed, about 39 percent of those without a current religious affiliation still consider themselves spiritual.
There is some truth to the perception that scientists and the academy are “godless.” Yet, to see the academy only from this monolithic view would overlook the significant numbers of scientists who do identify with some form of faith tradition (48 percent) as well as those who are interested in spirituality (about 68 percent)
When one considers that many more scientists come from non-religious homes or homes that were nominally religious, the distinctions between the general population and the scientific community make more sense. A large part of the difference between scientists and the general population may be due more to religious upbringing, rather than scientific training or university pressure to be irreligious, although these other possibilities should be further explored.