Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Bible Research Tools]

I think the US would need a sustained economic implosion before anything like would ever happen. Given they already weathered the 2008 financial crisis without descending into civil war, I wouldn't be too worried.

We also weathered decades of one-sided trade, along with Obama's impossible regulations and the resulting downhill slide of the economy.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Anointed one? oh you mean the orange menace

Do you mean the brilliant businessman who has turned our failing economy around? No, he wasn't anointed. He was elected by the will of the people.

Dan

 

[tas8831]

TalkOrigins? You gotta be kidding. Only a fool would claim evolution is a fact. The truth is, microevolution is a fact, which even a child can observe; and macroevolution is a fairy tale.

Project much?

Tell us, oh creationist retired engineer - what do YOU know that this doctorate-holding biochemist, baraminologist, apologist, and creationist does not? (I bolded a key part)

The truth about evolution

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

I will wait for you to provide a rationale for one to accept your condescending proclamations (and no, hubris, egomania, and overconfidence do not count).

But seeing as how I am still waiting for you to address the topic of the thread...

 

[Bible Research Tools]

But why though?

What would be the possible value in faking the age of rocks on this planet? That just seems dumb.

Of course it is dumb, but that was Lyell's motive -- to remove Moses from science. Science got along just fine with Moses hanging around, but Lyell's agenda usurped his common sense.

Dan

 

[Speedwell]

Do you mean the brilliant businessman who has turned our failing economy around? No, he wasn't anointed. He was elected by the will of the people.

Dan

He promised you a Conservative SCOTUS. He took you to the top of a high mountain and showed you the overthrow of Obergefell v. Hodges, Roe v. Wade, Engle v. Vitale and Brown v. Board. Now your souls belong to him.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Am I supposed to take creationism seriously?

Why not? Why believe in a faith-based religion based on 200 year-old documents, when you can believe in the faith-based religion based on 3,500 year old documents?

Dan

 

[tas8831]

Do you mean the brilliant businessman who has turned our failing economy around? No, he wasn't anointed. He was elected by the will of the people.

Dan

Trump Steaks
Trump University
GoTrump.com
Trump Airlines
Trump Vodka
Trump Mortgage
Trump: The Game
Trump Magazine
The Trump Network
etc. etc. etc.

If it were not for daddy's millions, the Orange fool would be mowing lawns somewhere.
But it is so cool how 'Christians' are totally cool with his serial philandering, divorces, prideful nature, dishonesty, etc. Christians, it seems, will drop their supposed morals and family values at the drop of a hat so long as their prejudices are being validated.

And will of the people? 3 million votes more for the other person sort of takes the wind out of that nonsense...


"...exploding their cannons..."

 

[Bible Research Tools]

And if we were all right-wing Fundamentalist Protestants all our problems would be solved.

Our problems could be solved if we reject the divisiveness of socialism and anti-Christian bigotry, and return to a constitutional form of government.

But if you want to blame our decline into secularism on a scientific theory, there are much better candidates than the theory of evolution.

Such as?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

If you're upset about secular humanism then just say so instead of making up silly words like "evolutionism".

There is no difference. Evolutionism is a form of secular humanism.

Conflating secular humanism with science just confuses the discussion and muddles any points you might be trying to make.

Evolutionism is not science, but a faith-based religion.

Dan

 

[tas8831]

This nation was founded on Christianity by Christians, and was officially a Christian nation

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211). Original in Arabic. Submitted to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. As to the ratification generally, see the notes. Proclaimed Jane 10, 1797.


ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Any questions?

Yes - how does it feel to be wrong so often on so many topics?

 

[Brightmoon]

Our problems could be solved if we reject the divisiveness of socialism and anti-Christian bigotry, and return to a constitutional form of government.



Such as?

Dan

. Religious fundamentalism causing a problem with education in general, is one problem . If you look at social problems the more Christian based religiosity in a particular state the higher the STD rate , divorces, child abuse, teenage pregnancies. There are others

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Some basic concepts of radiometric dating for interested readers of this thread:

1. Elements can have multipile isotopes: atoms with the same number of protons, but different numbers of electrons.
2. Some of these isotopes are unstable and decay, this decay proceeding at a constant rate.
3. This rate is normally expressed in term of the half life of the isotope. Thus the half life of C14 is a little over 5,000 years. This means after 5,000 years half of the C14 present in a sample will have decayed. 5,000 years later half of the C14 that remained will have decayed and so on.
4. Some isotopes have much shorter half lifes than this and some have much longer ones. For example U238 has a half life of about 4.5 billion years.
5. In the simplest case we measure the amount of unstable isotope in a sample and the amount of its daughter product and a basic calcualtion yields the age of sample.
6. In the more complex cases a century of research by thousands of workers has provided appropriate precautions and corrections to avoid contamination, or address the issue where some of the daughter isotope could have been present from the outset, and similar complications.
7. If you tried to measure the age of something a billion years old using C14, for example, there would be practically no original C14 left. Equally, U238 would be inappropriate for determining the age of something only 50,000 years old. (Just do the maths!)
8. Some people believe this selection of an appropriate isotope for age determination based on the approximate expected age (within an order of magnitude) is somehow fraudulent. This belief is a mixture of ignorance and angst and is best ignored.

Radiometric dating is a nice theory, but it consistently fails in the real world.

Dan

 

[Aman777]

Not that I want creationists to drag this thread even farther off topic, but I really have to see chapter and verse for this one.

Sure. Adam's likeness was like that of Lord God/Jesus and here is His likeness from the O.T. Eze 1:27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of His loins even upward, and from the appearance of His loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.

Cool assertions. I'm betting that you will not even get 1 creationist to agree with you.

Doesn't matter when one can quote Scripture which refutes them.

Gen 6:4 There were (Intellectual) giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric man) came in unto the daughters of men, (Adam) and they bare children to them, the same (children) became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Humans (descendants of Adam) lost our image like Jesus, when Adam sinned. Gen 3:7

No.

Here is what Christians will look like at the Rapture:

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He (Jesus) shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.

Want more Scripture about Jesus blinding Saul on the road to Damascus? with His brightness which was greater than the noonday Sun? Or when Jesus was transfigured and His face shone like the Sun?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Sadly, such is the fruits of the cult of authoritarian personality we have with the Narcissist Child in Chief.

"... exploding their cannons..."

Are you kidding? You have been watching too much CNN. Obama was the ultimate narcissist and big government regulator (e.g., he is a fascist, by definition). Donald Trump, on the other hand, is a freedom loving, small government promoter, who just happens to love this country. He also knows how to fix things, including the economy, which is exactly what we need after 28 years of rule by Ivy league economic dunces.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Surely, a Constituitonal Scholar such as yourself understands the supremacy clause? Here we go...

Of course. Do you?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

So, you've completely given up on the coccyx in favor of dodging and burden shifting... Sigh..

You seem to be obsessed with proving the evolution icon of "vestigial organs" is not a myth.

The following is a nice progression fro testing of a methodology, to application of the tested methodology to evolutionary questions. Creationist replies to this have been lacking, to say the least.

More silly games . . .

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Pathetic and shallow.

Nothing to see here, folks.

That is for certain.

Dan

 

[tas8831]

What are you talking about? I addressed the myth of vestigial organs, didn't I?

Not that I can see - but if you addressed it the same way you've addressed anything else, then you offered nothing of value or substance.

How does that prove racist anything? He was merely quoting biblical history.

Really?

"Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters..."

Please show me where in the bible the "genetic character" of 'Negroes' is discussed.

My gosh, the lengths you people will go to...

Henry Morris is on record that we are all of one race, as are all creation scientists.

Really? ALL creation "scientists"?

Darwin is on record as writing:

“It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and
is constant.”

“This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species,
but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover
clear distinctive characters between them.”

“He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be
deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. …and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers.”

-Descent of Man, 1871

But you don't know since your creationist propaganda sources don't tell you about that.

This article by a geneticist may help you understand:

One Race​

Quote from the article:

"We are all one race (“one blood” in Acts 17:26), the human race, descended from two ancestors, Adam and Eve." [Georgia Purdom, "One Race", Answers in Genesis, 2010]​

LOL!
Purdom is kind of... funny.So where is the genetic evidence for Adam and Eve?.

In other words, creationists and creation scientists believe we are all cousins: descendants of Adam and Eve, and of Noah and his wife. Evolutionists, on the other hand, believe we are cousins to the apes, and descendants of God-knows-what -- maybe a hamster, or an Indian Fruit Bat! LOL!

Wow! Hilarious!
Sure, cousins - some are meant to be servants, others are special in Yahweh's eyes...

Your tunnel vision is hysterical - if we say that we are cousins with chimps, did you not bother to think what that means we think about all humans?

Thanks for another great example of the simple-mindedness of creationist argumentation.

You haven't established anything except you have been reading too many evolutionism comic books.

Dan

So, you've got nothing but dopey Trump-like insults to hide your ignorance. Got it.

The FACTS are:



1. The coccyx contains reduced vertebrae. Their articulation resembles that seen in tailed mammals.

2. The coccyx has a muscular attachment, the extensor coccygis (NOT the coccygeus as many creationists dishonestly try to counter with – that is a different muscle), whose origin is on the distal, dorsal sacrum and which inserts on the coccyx, crossing the sacrococcygeal joint. As such, this muscle’s ONLY possible function is to extend the coccyx. That is, to make it stick out posteriorly. And yet we cannot do this. The same muscle exists in tailed primates. And they Can extend their tails (their EC is more extensive than ours – say, that is totally like a rudiment! Just like in the definition of vestigial!). Why Design a muscle for humans that they cannot use?

3. People born without a coccyx generally do not exhibit detrimental symptoms – their ‘autonomic reproductive functions’ and bladder control etc. work fine. So much for this ‘supported by the coccyx’ gibberish.

4. I have seen no documentation indicating that humans born with tails are used as evidence that THE COCCYX is vestigial.

5. There is no creationist explanation for the extensor coccygis, for why we would have been ‘designed’ with a muscle that we cannot actually use, whose only possible function is to extend the coccyx.

6. Creationists never offer evidence FOR creation, just these sad, pathetic, desperate attacks on evolution and evolutionists to try to generate a fallacious false dichotomy argument.



Let me know when you can do more than quote creationist frauds and hacks.

 

[tas8831]

Of course. Do you?

Dan

Yes - that is why it seems you do not.

The FACTS are:



1. The coccyx contains reduced vertebrae. Their articulation resembles that seen in tailed mammals.

2. The coccyx has a muscular attachment, the extensor coccygis (NOT the coccygeus as many creationists dishonestly try to counter with – that is a different muscle), whose origin is on the distal, dorsal sacrum and which inserts on the coccyx, crossing the sacrococcygeal joint. As such, this muscle’s ONLY possible function is to extend the coccyx. That is, to make it stick out posteriorly. And yet we cannot do this. The same muscle exists in tailed primates. And they Can extend their tails (their EC is more extensive than ours – say, that is totally like a rudiment! Just like in the definition of vestigial!). Why Design a muscle for humans that they cannot use?

3. People born without a coccyx generally do not exhibit detrimental symptoms – their ‘autonomic reproductive functions’ and bladder control etc. work fine. So much for this ‘supported by the coccyx’ gibberish.

4. I have seen no documentation indicating that humans born with tails are used as evidence that THE COCCYX is vestigial.

5. There is no creationist explanation for the extensor coccygis, for why we would have been ‘designed’ with a muscle that we cannot actually use, whose only possible function is to extend the coccyx.

6. Creationists never offer evidence FOR creation, just these sad, pathetic, desperate attacks on evolution and evolutionists to try to generate a fallacious false dichotomy argument.

 

[tas8831]

Here is another hint: pseudogenes have nothing to do with common descent, and phylogeny is helpful only in determining the classification of the various kinds.

Dan

So no, you do NOT understand the issue, as I suspected.