painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
You have admitted that you don't understand Biology... Perhaps you should try to learn the basics of the theory and the facts that support it before you continue?
wa:do
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For Creationists: What about DNA evidence?
- Thread starter MSizer
- Start date
wa:do
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
The definition I gave of vestigial organs came directly from Answers.com:
vestigial organ: Definition from Answers.com
Please give your definition of the term.
vestigial organ: Definition from Answers.com
Please give your definition of the term.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Here's another source - which supports my assertion that the definition has CHANGED in recent years:
Vestigial organ - New World Encyclopedia
See paragraph 2 which clearly states this by using the term "modern conceptions of the term..."
Vestigial organ - New World Encyclopedia
See paragraph 2 which clearly states this by using the term "modern conceptions of the term..."
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
I think you've inadvertedly called your god magical and then criticized science for using "magical" theories. Which side you on anyway?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
By the way, I am not opposed to the theory of evolution. It may very well have a lot of truth to it and this does not contradict my Christian faith.
What I AM opposed to is revisionist history and science - and I will call ******** on anyone who asserts that most scientists do not bring their own agendas and beliefs to the research center.
What I AM opposed to is revisionist history and science - and I will call ******** on anyone who asserts that most scientists do not bring their own agendas and beliefs to the research center.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Revision in science is necessary or else it wouldn't function.
Danarch
Robot!
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Answers doesn't restrict it to humans, so I'm confused since the definition you gave did just that and you claim to have gotten it from answers.
I prefer this one:
An organ or part which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or only partially functional from that ancestral form.
Fascinating. Im repulsed by bare-faced liars myself. Such as when people make the claim that science no longer has a list of human vestigial I feel compelled to call them a bare faced liar for it. Im also repulsed by folks who deliberately ignore relevant evidence so they can launch an ideological based tirade. Such as when someone makes the accusation of agendas when it has nothing whatsoever to contribute to the discussion at hand and in no way alters the evidence and facts at our disposal. Im also repulsed when someone makes accusations of revisionism when they are not true. Such as when someone makes inaccurate claims regarding the word of vestigial when even Darwin covered this way back when.
The bit I dont get is that you clearly cited your numbers from somewhere but never divulge your sources. Wonder why that is?
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
??? I respect science and I don't think that science disagrees with my opinion, and I will support science yet I will poke holes in science and weaken its structure. however my opinion's structure is in no way weakend by this???
??? 2+y=4 but only if y≈0 ???
??? 2+y=4 but only if y≈0 ???
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
The key words there being "As far as I can see". Again, has it ever occurred to you that the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it?
If anyone here were actually making the argument "You should agree with evolution because scientists do", your statement would be relevant. However, since no one has made that argument, your statement is irrelevant.
So the fact that you can believe otherwise is sufficient reason to deny something?
There are professionals who have reservations about a spherical earth that orbits the sun. Do you think the existence of a handful of "professionals" is sufficient reason to deny something?
Especially if you go out of your way to avoid learning anything about it.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I wonder why people don't understand this...
In my earlier post, I made it clear that science continues to evolve and theories change as new information is gathered. Of course scientific theories are revised as knowledge increases.
This is not REVISING the HISTORY of a theory. THAT is what I am opposed to.
Otherwise known as conveniently forgetting that some incredibly stupid theories have been paraded as factual or almost certainly factual by scientists.
You know - it's ok for a theory to be explored and then debunked - just don't act like the theory itself didn't exist to begin with.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
But kathryn, science openly admits that it has done revision to the history of their theories. Obviously if a new peice of data and evidence presents itself that disturbs the theory's function, the theory will be tweaked. This goes without saying, where is it that science denies that it has evolved over time?
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
Perhaps it would help if Kathryn understood what she was talking about.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
I've read through this four times now and, taking your previous comments on this thread into account, it still doesn't make sense. You made an accusation that, most likely due to the crapness of the source it was culled from, was false. Deal with it.
Amhairghine
Member
That is true. As a doctoral neuroscientist and doctoral medical neurologist I agree with you.
We must acknowledge that the nature of science is the development of hypothesis, search for evidence, and the formation of Theories. A theory in science is the very best explanation of an observed or calculated phenomenon based on the rational analysis of the evidence along with hard sceptical re-examination of the Theory. It takes a lot of hurdles for a Theory to jump to be accepted as most likely the correct explanation.
However, in science, if new information is found that sheds doubt on the old evidence, the Theory is discarded or radically changed.
Facts are beyond theories because they are obviously true. The following are FACTS:
Spherical Earth,
continental drift
Crustal plate tectonics,
Heliocentric Solar System
4.5 billion or more age of the Earth
13.7 billion year old (or older) Universe,
the existence of a million million galaxies,
Each galaxy with thousands of millions of stars
Evolution of all Earth life from natural selection
Evolution based on changes in nucleotide sequences of DNA
Evolution is adaptation catastrophic climate changes
Cognition: perception, emotion, rational analysis, scepticism, and speculative thinking are in brain circuits.
True. However, hare brained scientific theories are always open to re-examination and either confirmation or deletion. Hare brained religious beliefs cannot be challenged. Challenges of dogma bring charges of heresy or apostacy often with death.
You confirm my suspicion. I have discarded three of my own neurocognition theories in my long career. I have confirmed many times more. I have examined theories by others finding most to be rational and corrrect and a few incorrect (and thrown out.)
You say that your faith is timeless and unshakeable. That is not rational and sad because it means you refuse to rationally analyse your faith. That is the major failure of all religion and why no religion is reliable. If you are a Christian, did you ever challenge the myth of Adam and Eve? How could Eve, a clone from Adam's rib be a female if she would have a Y chromosome and thus be a man? Jerry Falwell would have to admit it was Adam and Steve after all.
Have you ever challenged the very idea that some kind of cosmic being (God or Holy Spirit) could impregnate a human female to produce an offspring that was male. If Mary did not get a Y chromosome in God's semen then Jesus would be a woman. Do Gods have DNA and does it happen to be 46 Somatic chromosomes and two sex chromosomes (XX or XY). Do you believe the Holy Spirit has sperm, half of whom have a Y chromosome? This is not a silly argument. It is a serious question.
If Jesus died on the cross, how do we know he really died? The Gospels give no information about Jesus having a pulse (heart beat), unreactive dilated pupils, loss of motion induced ocular movements (Doll's eye sign), a ciliary reflex, blink reflex, loss of patterned motor reflexes (flaccid tone), and we do not know from the Gospel if respirations ceased or merely were too shallow to recognise. He might have lost consciousness because of blood loss, hypovolemic shock with cardiopulmonary oedema (pooling of fluid in the abdomen (ascites).
A Roman stuck a spear in Jesus' abdomen and fluid (sero-sanguinous or blood and water) came out. That fits with cardiovascular shock that may or may not be terminal. When he was laid in supine position and supine in the tomb, he could have recovered from cardiac shock and regained consciousness. We cannot know because we do not know if he died or not.
If Jesus really died, his brain received no blood flow, Oxygen or removal of CO2 and a dozen cellular metabolites quickly followed by neuronal cell death (apoptosos with swelling, bursting, and turning to mush in minutes to hours. If he was dead for 36 hours until Sunday morning, then resurrected, he would have required a totally new brain (and some other organs.)
If God magically gave him a new brain with trillions of axonal circuits, billions of neurons, tens of billions of glial cells, restructured arteries, arterioles, capillaries, veins, and fascicular membranes. And all of this would have to be exactly identical to the brain of the pre-dead Jesus. And if God magically conjured up an exact brain copy of Jesus, it still would not be the same Jesus. He would just be a very good copy.
Did Jesus die and end of story but evangelists made up a semi-divine god-man not seen in the earlier New Testament? Or did God let Jesus die and make an exact copy perhaps with the same necrotic tissue of the dead Jesus' body. Do you never challenge this?
I found in Christianity, too many paradoxes, too many logical errors, too many contradictions, too many similarities of the Christian Mythology to that of older pre-Christian Myths of Virgin Born God-Men (Mithra, Osiris, Horus, Krishna, Lugh/Lieu, Baldur, Apollonius of Tyana, Hesu, and others whose names escape me at this moment. There were 16 pre-Christian virgin born god men who were slain and resurrected. It was a popular theme from 1000 BCE to 400 CE. Did you ever think that if there are 16 similar myths that the most likely one to be true would be the oldest not the newest.
If I write a song, "You ain't nuttin but a Hound Dog" and claim it to be mine. Would you not recall a man named Elvis Presley and he did it when I was in grade 5 at a school in Caithness? Who has the greater claim to be the song writer?''
This is the major reason why I am a scientist but have no faith in belief systems founded only on hearsay.
Amhairghine
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
You don't know what "vestigial" means.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, it cannot.
But you've already told us that you can't see very far.
In actuality, it's one of the most solid, robust and well-supported theories in the history of science. Being ignorant of Biology, you don't know that. That does not tell us that it's wrong, only that you're ignorant, as you've told us.
Because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it.
So do you reject all science, or only that which conflicts with your "belief system?"
Name ten biologists who reject ToE. It's accepted by over 99% of them. Is it your practice to reject scientific theories that you yourself know nothing about, and that 99% of the working scientists in that field accept?
Not if you accept science as a way of learning about the world.
I would if it did but it doesn't so I don't.
Or God did something else (or many somethings else), and we are misinterpreting it/them as evolution.[/quote]