Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Feel free to do so.Let's call this YHWH's revenge.
That's right.
I'm not obligated to accept any science that contradicts the Bible; and even less if scientists themselves don't agree with each other.
Feel free to do so.
If I gave my honest opinion of [the word] "YHWH", I'd get a yellow card from upstairs.
Is a hiccup an atavism?
Hiccups reveal at least two layers of our history: one shared with fish, another with amphibians, according to one well-supported hypothesis. We inherited the major nerves we use in breathing from fish. One set of nerves, the phrenic, extends from the base of the skull and travels through the chest cavity and the diaphragm, among other places. This tortuous course creates problems; anything that interrupts the path of these nerves along their length can interfere with our ability to breathe. Irritation of these nerves can even be a cause of hiccups. A more rational design of the human body would have the nerves traveling not from the neck but from a spot nearer to the diaphragm. Unluckily, we became heir to this design from fishy ancestors with gills closer to a diaphragm well below it.
If the strange pathway of the nerves is a product of our fish origin, the hiccup itself may have arisen from the past we share with amphibians. It turns out that the characteristic pattern of muscle and nerve activity of hiccups occurs naturally in other creatures. And not just any creatures. More specifically, they turn up in tadpoles that use both lungs and gills to breathe. When tadpoles use their gills, they have a problem they need to pump water into their mouth and throat and then across the gills, but they need to keep this water from entering their lungs. So what do they do? They shut the glottis to close off the breathing tube, while sharply inspiring. In essence, they breathe with their gills using an extended form of hiccup.
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Special_Event_/Darwin_day/2009/english/SA_old_bodyShubin.pdf
I'm not a creationist but I don't see what genetic anamolies have to do with the idea of evolution. When conjoined twins are born are we supposed to deduce that all earlier lifeforms had two heads?
That's right.
I'm not obligated to accept any science that contradicts the Bible; and even less if scientists themselves don't agree with each other.
If one compares the two, it would also behoove one to take into consideration which came first.If you compere the two, science will always have more people who can agree on any given idea then creationists or fundamentalists.
If one compares the two, it would also behoove one to take into consideration which came first.
In addition, the fact that [Bible disrespecting] science is growing faster than [Bible respecting] science is what we call a "sign of the times".
If one compares the two, it would also behoove one to take into consideration which came first.
In addition, the fact that [Bible disrespecting] science is growing faster than [Bible respecting] science is what we call a "sign of the times".
Make up your mind.No Creationists willing to defend themselves against atavisms?
I only ever get silence when I bring it up. It's getting annoying.
Do you want broadband or narrowband?The post is addressed at the Creationists who dismiss evolution as being true in an attempt to express validity for ID.
Make up your mind.
Do you want broadband or narrowband?
So why ask them then, if they're in disguise?ID is Creationism disguised in an attempt to sound scientific.
So why ask them then, if they're in disguise?
Why don't you ask Creationists?
If ID is nothing more than creationism in disguise, it's not a very effective disguise, is it?
Answered what? your OP needs another ingredient:So far none have answered.
Reconcile atavisms with what? the creation week? theistic evolution?I'm just curious as to how Creationists reconcile atavisms (evolutionary throwbacks).
Eg, mutant whales being born with femurs/tibia/fibula/toes or people being burn with functional tails etc.
So what's the Creationists response?
Answered what? your OP needs another ingredient:
Reconcile atavisms with what? the creation week? theistic evolution?
Please be specific, or don't expect an answer.
What exactly?
If you answer "the creation week", then again, there would have been no atavisms present and, in point of fact, whales came before Adam & Eve.
I can't stress this enough, Raithie: atavisms have nothing to do with the creation week.
If you want me to stop responding with respect to my beliefs and just lurk, I'll be glad to accommodate you; but for the record, I think you're confused.Theistic evolution is not creationism, definitely not in the typical sense, which is what I am referring to since this is the evolution & creation subforum.
Correct:If ID is nothing more than creationism in disguise, it's not a very effective disguise, is it?
What I think of Intelligent Design is a little more colorful than that -- but for the record, Intelligent Design is an embarrassment to Christianity in general and owes Creationism an apology.Correct:
"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."
Taken from here: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And creationism owes science, humanity, and religious people the world over an apology and a refund.What I think of Intelligent Design is a little more colorful than that -- but for the record, Intelligent Design is an embarrassment to Christianity in general and owes Creationism an apology.
If you want me to stop responding with respect to my beliefs and just lurk, I'll be glad to accommodate you; but for the record, I think you're confused.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?