Circular Reasoning

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . If time were not there, or were different, and if there were some spiritual element we know nothing about in space, then forget that business of a physical body in 3D space!!

Face it, you have a belief system run wild. . . .

And if you are a brain in a vat with sensory inputs delivered by a computer, why the real universe could be anything!

You can't prove that is not the case, so it must be true, right?

Oh wait, logic like that isn't valid when I do it or when you do it. So your ideas can continue to be ignored.

 

[dad]

And if you are a brain in a vat with sensory inputs delivered by a computer, why the real universe could be anything!

You can't prove that is not the case, so it must be true, right?

Oh wait, logic like that isn't valid when I do it or when you do it. So your ideas can continue to be ignored.

Having a hard time admitting that time in deep space is not really known, eh.

 

[Kylie]

Having a hard time admitting that time in deep space is not really known, eh.

No, just ignoring your logical fallacies.

 

[JacksBratt]

Oooo, the coccyx is so useful, it must be designed! Makes one wonder how all those monkeys that actually have tails get along without one. Please explain that for me.

Paul, you may be interested in what the Laser Spine Institute has to say (shown below).

It's a little different than the other websites which are determined to keep the TOE from suffering any embarrassment.

Of special interest, you may note that the Sphincter ani externus is dependent on this "vestigial" body part.

In other words, without it, you wouldn't be able to control your bowels.

Enjoy this:

The tailbone, more properly known as the coccyx, is situated at the very end of the spinal column. The tailbone is made up of three to five fused vertebral bones, though four is most common. The tailbone derived its name because some people believe it is a “leftover” part from human evolution, though the notion that the tailbone serves no purpose is wrong. The coccyx is an extremely important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments and muscles, though it is structured quite differently than other parts of the spine.
The tailbone, or coccyx, is the last of five regions of the spine – below the cervical spine (neck), thoracic spine (middle back), lumbar spine (lower back) and sacrum (lower back). The tailbone connects to the sacrum via a cartilaginous joint called the sacrococcygeal symphysis. Interestingly, this joint is similar in composition to the spine’s intervertebral discs.
Muscles that attach to the tailbone and contribute to sitting, standing and bowel control include:

• Gluteus maximus – large gluteal muscle; helps keep body erect
• Levator ani – thin muscle; helps support organs of the pelvis
• Sphincter ani externus – flat muscle; assists in bowel function
• Coccygeus – triangular muscle; supports the pelvic floor

The tailbone is referred to as the coccygeal region and the bones diminish in size as they go down. Unlike the vertebral bones in most other spinal regions, the tailbone has no spinous processes, pedicles or laminae. Any pain that is felt in the coccyx is referred to as “coccydynia.” Sometimes, pain that is felt in the region of the tailbone is due to damage or injury in other parts of the spine. For instance, radicular, or radiating pain, that is felt shooting down the legs could be from foraminal stenosis in the lumbar spine, a condition that involves the narrowing of the foramen, or open spaces between the vertebrae through which nerve roots travel. If these spaces become narrow, increased stress is put on the nerves, which could contribute to symptoms of traveling pain, numbness and tingling. Other consequences could include a loss of ability to move properly. Needless to say, because the tailbone does support so much weight, injuries in this area transfer large amounts of increased stress to other areas of the spine, thereby making them more prone to damage

 

[Herman Hedning]

Paul, you may be interested in what the Laser Spine Institute has to say (shown below).

It's a little different than the other websites which are determined to keep the TOE from suffering any embarrassment.

How is it different? Anywhere I look, the coccyx is clearly described as an important attachment point for tendons and ligaments. No one is disputing that (I hope). It is in itself a vestigal part of a bony tail that humans and their fellow apes no longer have.

 

[lasthero]

Paul, you may be interested in what the Laser Spine Institute has to say (shown below).

It's a little different than the other websites which are determined to keep the TOE from suffering any embarrassment.

Again with the conspiracy silliness.

The Laser Spine Institute does laser surgery. They're not a research facility, and the thing you quote is a completely unsourced blurb from their website. They make the same mistake you do - not understanding what 'vestigial' means.

Though I'm curious how long you had to look for something to agree with you before you started resorting to something this randoom.

 

[JacksBratt]

How is it different? Anywhere I look, the coccyx is clearly described as an important attachment point for tendons and ligaments. No one is disputing that (I hope). It is in itself a vestigal part of a bony tail that humans and their fellow apes no longer have.

I guess that depends on what you define as vestigial, wouldn't it.

From one definition, the part is no longer useful or functioning.

In that case, the tailbone is useful, not vestigial.

Or you can go by other definitions which would make numerous things "vestigial"

Def #1

vestigial organ

An organ retained during evolution but no longer useful, e.g. the human appendix.

Def #2

vestigial organ n.
A rudimentary structure in humans corresponding to a functional structure or organ in ancestral animals.

Def #3

Oxford English Dictionary

According to the Oxford English Dictionary vestigial organs are, “degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.”

 

[lasthero]

Since we're talking about biology, it would make more sense to use a definition from an actual biology dictionary, to get a sense of how, you know, biologists use it.

vestigial
refers to an organ or part (for example, the human appendix) which is greatly reduced from the original ancestral form and is no longer functional or is of reduced or altered function.
Vestigial structures provide a clue to the evolutionary history of a species because they are remnants of structures found in the ancestral species.

 

[dad]

No, just ignoring your logical fallacies.

It is useless to pretend that the demonstrable limits of what science knows is any sort of logical fallacy. That is illogical.

 

[dad]

Since we're talking about biology, it would make more sense to use a definition from an actual biology dictionary, to get a sense of how, you know, biologists use it.

I would like to offer what I believe to be an actual definition of vestigial.


'Leftovers from the former nature no longer needed in the present one'


That has nothing to do with having worms and chimps sharing some ancestor.

 

[dad]

Again with the conspiracy silliness...

To some, the unseen spirit that godless evolutiondunnit believers share would seem like some sort of conspiracy.

Those who give themselves over to that spirit do so for different reasons, and most are not aware of the cabal of evil they ended up immersed in.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess that depends on what you define as vestigial, wouldn't it.

No definition used by biologists requires the vestigial organ to be completely without function. Like I mentioned in another post, you can nearly destroy a tv till it no longer is able to receive a signal or produce a picture. Would it be fair to say that the tv is still perfectly functional because it can be used as a paperweight, or as an ad hoc end table? Of course not, right?

Vestigial organs are those that have lost their major function, as seen in other species. Whatever function they still have is rudimentary, like a burned out tv being used as an end table.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would like to offer what I believe to be an actual definition of vestigial.


'Leftovers from the former nature no longer needed in the present one'


That has nothing to do with having worms and chimps sharing some ancestor.

What you need to explain is why vestigial organs line up with the proposed evolutionary histories of these species. Why don't we see a species with three middle ear bones and vestigial feathers?

 

[Loudmouth]

Paul, you may be interested in what the Laser Spine Institute has to say (shown below).

It's a little different than the other websites which are determined to keep the TOE from suffering any embarrassment.

Of special interest, you may note that the Sphincter ani externus is dependent on this "vestigial" body part.

That is a rudimentary function. The major function of the coccyx is to support a tail. In fact, humans still have the extensor coccygis muscle that spans a fused joint. In other species that muscle raises the tail. In humans it does not, so it is vestigial.

 

[dad]

What you need to explain is why vestigial organs line up with the proposed evolutionary histories of these species.

No. If it lined up with Tinkerbell's claims, we would not really need to prove why it didn't have to be that way. The godless web science wove that made a new picture of creation is not something we need to hold up as the measure of importance.

Why don't we see a species with three middle ear bones and vestigial feathers?

Jesus didn't create them. Neither did He create animals with ear bones that man came from as evolution espouse so wickedly and baselessly.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. If it lined up with Tinkerbell's claims, we would not really need to prove why it didn't have to be that way.

You have no explanation as to why the evidence supports evolution. Thanks for playing.

The godless web science wove that made a new picture of creation is not something we need to hold up as the measure of importance.

And now you are saying that you won't even consider the evidence. Again, thanks for playing.

Jesus didn't create them. Neither did He create animals with ear bones that man came from as evolution espouse so wickedly and baselessly.

Why do we only see the combination of features that the theory of evolution predicts we should see?

 

[dad]

You have no explanation as to why the evidence supports evolution. Thanks for playing.

Yes. Demonic delusion and denial. In reality there is no evidence of the sort you claim.

And now you are saying that you won't even consider the evidence. Again, thanks for playing.

Unless you post it, we can't do anything with 'it'.

Why do we only see the combination of features that the theory of evolution predicts we should see?

We don't. We see kinds and derivations of kinds and a history full of God. Not sure what it looks like in your head.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes. Demonic delusion and denial. In reality there is no evidence of the sort you claim.

Why isn't it evidence? Just because you can call it names? Do you really think that you can make the facts go away by calling them demonic delusions?

You are in full denial.

 

[Astrophile]

A star's luminosity can be determined from two stellar characteristics: size and effective temperature.

To know size we need distance. For that we need time.

When they determine temperature, size is important also I think. They use a black body to determine things about a star also. Even leaving time aside for a moment, a black body assumes a physical only universe.

Let me help you with some scientific facts.

Astronomers determine the distances of stars by their parallax. (The distance of a star in parsecs is the reciprocal of the parallax in seconds of arc.) The absolute magnitude of a star follows from the parallax and the apparent magnitude (a measure of brightness, not size). Knowing the absolute visual magnitude and the bolometric correction, which is related to the temperature, one can determine the stellar luminosity. Thanks to the HIPPARCOS satellite, we now have accurate parallax measurements of stars to greater distances than was formerly possible, and the GAIA satellite will make it possible to measure the distances of millions of stars.

Show a model of 'radiative transfer in stellar atmosphere'!

I googled on 'Stellar atmospheres and radiative transfer', and obtained about 152,000 results. The first one I looked at is a course by R.J. Rutten that was given to masters students at the University of Utrecht during 1994 to 2007. It runs to 365 pages - Radiative Transfer in Stellar Atmospheres Happy reading!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let me help you with some scientific facts.

Astronomers determine the distances of stars by their parallax. (The distance of a star in parsecs is the reciprocal of the parallax in seconds of arc.) The absolute magnitude of a star follows from the parallax and the apparent magnitude (a measure of brightness, not size). Knowing the absolute visual magnitude and the bolometric correction, which is related to the temperature, one can determine the stellar luminosity. Thanks to the HIPPARCOS satellite, we now have accurate parallax measurements of stars to greater distances than was formerly possible, and the GAIA satellite will make it possible to measure the distances of millions of stars.

Parallax is only good to about 100 parsecs or 326 light years. Which does not even begin to cover even most of the stars in our own galaxy - let alone other galaxies themselves.

Parallax and Distance Measurement | Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network

Beyond that the incorrect hypothesis of redshift is used to determine distances. That and standard candles that are turning out to be not so standard after all.

New Light on Our Accelerating Universe --"Not as Fast as We Thought"

Now suddenly we have two types, with their magnitudes actually determined by the amount of plasma between us and them - not their age, despite claims to the contrary. But the race to PR repair has already begun. Now suddenly we will hear all sorts of facts, even if those facts contradict every fact previously stated as fact. And all the while - the original assumptions will never be questioned.

Not to mention all the ones that don't fit any theory - so much for "standard" candles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcIHfzviGgA&index=75&list=PLwOAYhBuU3UeYFyfm2LilZldjJd48t6IY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppzggRl2S2U&index=81&list=PLwOAYhBuU3UeYFyfm2LilZldjJd48t6IY

I googled on 'Stellar atmospheres and radiative transfer', and obtained about 152,000 results. The first one I looked at is a course by R.J. Rutten that was given to masters students at the University of Utrecht during 1994 to 2007. It runs to 365 pages - Radiative Transfer in Stellar Atmospheres Happy reading!

Except we can discount all these past claims due to the fact that they were all based upon incorrect assumptions about convection already falsified.

Anomalously weak solar convection

Not just a little - but by orders of magnitude too small to support magnetic reconnection theory and heat transfer theories - of which radiative transfer theories from the core to the corona rely upon.