NobleMouse
We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
- Sep 19, 2017
- 662
- 230
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
Farewell until we chat again.You’re projecting here. Hope it goes well for you.
Fatuous assertions are unseemly in an adult discussion. Please don't spout humbug because you have run out of substance. No one will think less of you if you concede defeat. Quite the reverse.Like Hitchslap, you're running out of areas to hide.
Semantic content = zero.The boat of wishful thinking that God does not exist, and that information, intelligence, design, patterns, physical laws, etc... can all just be explained away with [ir]rational thought... is sinking. I'm just here, having been rescued myself, pointing out a few good reasons to grab the life preserver ring. It is of no loss to me if you aren't willing to believe.
You really don't get it, do you. (Rhetorical) I admire those aspects of Christianity represented by The Sermon on the Mount, or the parable of the Good Samaritan. I do this while having no doubt that Jesus was not Divine and that if there is a God, it is not the Christian God, or any other God of any religion I have yet heard of. Consequently I am in as much fear of the Christian God as I am of Santa Claus, Sherlock Holmes or any other entity that I understand to be non-existent.Just curious, what awful thing do you think God will make you do if you were to believe in Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior? Do you think He wants to send you off to some terrible country to be a missionary where you'll be beheaded or run through with a spear the second you foot hits the ground or something?
I rarely relax in the face of patronising posts.Everybody... relax.
Religion is really just a set of rituals and traditions whereas to truly be a Christian is to have a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ. Some make it a religion, but that is not what truly being a Christian is about.
Good to hear. Nor do I, along with well over 2/3 of the Christians in the world.Approx. 2/3 of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science do not believe in the God of the Bible.
Whose definition is that? Certainly not Shannon's, which is the only one which applies.We'll try again. Let's talk a little about information theory. Information theorists have defined information as: "an encoded, symbolic message, with a language convention, and which contains an expected action upon the part of the recipient, and an intended purpose." So there are 4 components:
1) Encoded symbols
2) A language convention
3) An expected action
4) An intended purpose
I doubt it. Most of that growth is occurring in denominations which do not preach the objective historical accuracy of Genesis as the basis of belief.Christianity is also growing the fastest in Asia and Africa so if I lived there then my beliefs might still be in alignment with the culture
Amen. But you have no faith. By your own admission, your belief in your salvation in Christ rests on the demonstrable objective historical accuracy of the Bible, not faith.Why Answer: Well, of course - wouldn't everyone... but that's not faith, we are called to live by faith and we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
You seem to just be making up what you want to believe is true, not true, what is good, what Jesus was not (even though He claimed and demonstrated otherwise). With that, I'll let you be lest I bring Proverbs 26:4 to fruition.You really don't get it, do you. (Rhetorical) I admire those aspects of Christianity represented by The Sermon on the Mount, or the parable of the Good Samaritan. I do this while having no doubt that Jesus was not Divine and that if there is a God, it is not the Christian God, or any other God of any religion I have yet heard of. Consequently I am in as much fear of the Christian God as I am of Santa Claus, Sherlock Holmes or any other entity that I understand to be non-existent.
If the latter statement may appear sacriligeous keep in mind that I find the attitude of some Christians to the actual God that may exist to be deeply so. I overlook that and ask for the same consideration.
Thank you.@ NobleMouse I’m a Christian but I also have a biology degree and a fascination with geology that goes back to childhood. I don’t look in the Bible to confirm or disconfirm natural phenomena. And I remember being completely floored by the fact that YECs even existed ( and that was 30 years ago) . That level of scientific illiteracy is still mind boggling to me.
This may be why you are agnostic - you seem to have no clue what it is to really be a Christian.I'm well familiar with the attempts to redefine the word "religion" to exclude Christianity. But the common definition and usage of the word as it relates to spirituality and faith does include Christianity.
Fine. If you have some integrity you will now report yourself for attacking the member and not their argument. I'm not holding my breath.You seem to just be making up what you want to believe is true, not true, what is good, what Jesus was not (even though He claimed and demonstrated otherwise). With that, I'll let you be lest I bring Proverbs 26:4 to fruition.
Well, to be fair, with over 34,000 denominations, Christians have no clue what it is to really be a True Christian.This may be why you are agnostic - you seem to have no clue what it is to really be a Christian.
Don't forget to throw Psalm 14:1 in there too, while you're at it.You seem to just be making up what you want to believe is true, not true, what is good, what Jesus was not (even though He claimed and demonstrated otherwise). With that, I'll let you be lest I bring Proverbs 26:4 to fruition.
This reads confusing, are you saying that 2/3 of the Christians of the world do no believe in the God of the Bible? If this is what you are saying, I guess we'll assume you are God and therefore are able to speak authoritatively on this...Good to hear. Nor do I, along with well over 2/3 of the Christians in the world.
Do you find something incorrect with this definition? If you'd like to move the goalposts to redefine definition to mean something else, I'll pretend I didn't notice.Whose definition is that? Certainly not Shannon's, which is the only one which applies.
I cited from the following article:I doubt it. Most of that growth is occurring in denominations which do not preach the objective historical accuracy of Genesis as the basis of belief.
[Sarcasm] And again, the voice of God speaks through Speedwell.[/Sarcasm]Amen. But you have no faith. By your own admission, your belief in your salvation in Christ rests on the demonstrable objective historical accuracy of the Bible, not faith.
This may be why you are agnostic - you seem to have no clue what it is to really be a Christian.
No, I was utilizing academic logic, not what people refer to colloquially. I took philosophy as an elective. Regardless, my contention with using logic alone to suggest something exists remains. You'd never suggest that logically anything must absolutely exist; even if one of your proposals (that intelligence only comes from intelligence) was true, that wouldn't mean that the intelligence we came from was that of anything we'd consider to be a deity.That is an example of non sequitur in the form of an illogical syllogism, not logic and reason.
Nah, I was just mentioning that since we honestly have no idea how the universe came to be, from a scientific standpoint, then any hypothetical proposal that isn't demonstrably impossible IS a possible way that the universe could have formed. As a result, it is kinda a waste of time to speculate about it.First you indicate it doesn't have to be a deity, then present fictitious scenario where a human created the universe. This feels more like ABC reasoning (Anything But Christ).
Pfft, and claims have been positively made that Brahma created the universe. Making a claim that the universe formed such and such way in and of itself lends no validity to the claim, no matter how many people come to believe it. Although, I would say that given the number of times I have seen the paradoxical creation of the universe in media, I wouldn't be shocked if at least one person claimed that to be how the universe was made.The idea of a paradoxical origin is unsubstantiated, whereas the claim has been positively made that God created everything,
Evidence you continue to choose not to post, apparently. Stop alluding to it if you won't post it, it's a huge tease to a seeker like me.and given what has been revealed of the nature of God, the evidence fits this claim.
XD trying hard not to quote Genesis for that? Also, I don't know the universe came to be that way, just like I don't know Brahma created the universe. I have no idea how the universe formed, was created, or even if it's a valid question to ask. Asserting that I somehow know stuff that I honestly don't just makes you seem... unsympathetic? As if you cannot even fathom that I can be in a state of not knowing? Hey, I never considered it even possible that people wiped their butts standing up after taking a poo, but I got over that weird revelation pretty quickly despite my incredulity.You DO know how the universe came to be (John 1:1-3), you just don't accept it.
You say that, and yet, previously suggested that I KNOW how the universe came to be and present a bible verse. How can you possibly suggest I can know the universe was created, and yet state that there is no evidence for a universe being created?Zero evidence has been produced of a universe being created, especially by humans.
Sure, it was just an example of how a universe could have formed from off the top of my head. I could imagine more creative possibilities if you want, but the whole point was that we have no idea how the universe formed. So much so that even a paradox like the one in my example is a legitimate possibility. When we have so little to go on to make any conclusions, making a conclusion in and of itself is a bit of a waste of time.Even if humans could create a universe, it would only evidence creation by an "intelligent creator".
You could call it that. We know basically nothing about how the universe began, so in the end, all proposals on the matter just amount to blind speculation.Your argument against this is based on?? Answer: Nothing.
-_- of the Christian god specifically, and only if the texts are an accurate depiction of a real deity. There is no evidence that deities exist whatsoever, and by virtue of that, no way to directly study any. For all you know, the bible describes a being that doesn't even exist anymore, never did, or describes it so poorly that even if you were to come face to face with it, you wouldn't recognize it.If God is all-knowing and all-powerful and has always existed without beginning (which is what Christians believe, because this is what is revealed of God in scripture)
-_- the lack of evidence for the deity itself is considered support for the null hypothesis. Evidence to the contrary would almost certainly require an alternative explanation to become well-evidenced, and as I have mentioned before, we have very little to go on, if anything, when it comes to the origin of the universe. I've never stated that it is impossible that a deity created the universe, only that there isn't any evidence for it., then He has the wherewithal, power, resources, and time to accomplish that which is evidenced. To date, there is no evidence to the contrary.
-_- not my fault you didn't recognize formal logic.No matter how many straw-man arguments you erect then tear down along the way, will not negate the truth of God's word.
-_- one of those bits of evidence being directly for the creator itself; we know humans make quilts because we observe humans making them. We know moles dig holes because we observe them doing it. But tell me, if I taught a chimpanzee to make quilts just like humans do, would you be able to look at a quilt made by a chimp and say "yup, this one was made by a chimp", even if it was a perfectly passable quilt? Likewise, even if it were demonstrably true that the only way our universe could exist is by the work of a deity, how would you be able to tell the difference between a universe made by YHWH and a universe made by Brahma?Okay... whether we're talking about a quilt, a computer, or a rocket - there is evidence of a pattern that was followed, a process, a purposeful design, and within a computer and rocket we'll also see information, routines and subroutines, logic, mathematical computations, programming language, etc... Of these 3 there is a stark difference between each; however, each reveals evidence of having been created by an intelligent creator.
Again, you act as if the universe would HAVE to be absolute chaos and inconsistency if it wasn't created, but there is no evidence to support that idea.Moving onto atoms, proteins, DNA/RNA, cells and cell structures, life, self-sustaining ecological systems, planets orbiting stars, atmospheres balanced just right to support life - even if you want to get into quantum physics there are demonstrated behaviors and purpose for particles and sub particles, all revealing evidence of having been created - no wiggling around it.
Again, you act as if the universe would HAVE to be absolute chaos and inconsistency if it wasn't created, but there is no evidence to support that idea.Moving onto atoms, proteins, DNA/RNA, cells and cell structures, life, self-sustaining ecological systems, planets orbiting stars, atmospheres balanced just right to support life - even if you want to get into quantum physics there are demonstrated behaviors and purpose for particles and sub particles, all revealing evidence of having been created - no wiggling around it.
This is a very strange question; are you asking if the number of generations of organisms on this planet has been a finite number? Undoubtedly, though an extremely high number. And intelligence would be inherited as long as that quality proved beneficial for survival and reproduction. There are contexts in which it is a detrimental trait. For example, it takes a lot of energy to support a large brain, so in cases of extreme food scarcity or even low oxygen content, it can prove deadly.Follow that through to conclusion - is intelligence perpetually inherited through endless generations?
No, it has been established that the Big Bang has a finite beginning. We have no idea how long the universe remained as a singularity prior to that point, and since the Big Bang marks the beginning of time itself existing as we understand it, the very statement of "before the Big Bang" may be entirely nonsensical. The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe, it is the start of the universe taking on qualities familiar to us.We've already established the universe had a finite beginning,
-_- are dolphins intelligent? Are dogs intelligent? Are mice intelligent? If you would say no to all three of those questions, then I would have to conclude that you assume human intelligence is some sort of special quality compared with any other animal, which simply is not the case. Our brains work by the same principles as any other brain. If you would say yes to any of those, but not all of them, at exactly what point do brain processes count as "intelligent"? If you would say yes to all of them, then I have no idea why you are acting as if intelligence is some special quality worthy of bringing up all the time. Regardless, neurons are just another specialized cell type for intercommunication between parts of the body in a multicellular organism. Better, larger neural networks is a trait that can be selected for just like better limbs or better eyes. It never comes from nothing, it comes from mutations on DNA that happen to make such networks better and as a result, improve survival and reproduction chances.so at some point intelligence (the ability to learn and apply learned knowledge) had to be imbued... or you run up against the fallacy of intelligence coming from nothing (no matter how long, drawn out, and gradualistic you try to make it - if you say it formed over 6.02 x 10^23 years then you're still saying something came from nothing).
-_- cells are not more advanced than super computers. They may be more complicated as a consequence of the fact that cells never do anything by the fastest route possible, resulting in many inefficient intermediate steps, some of which damage cells. But they are not more advanced. Created objects considered to be well designed perform their tasks as directly and as efficiently as possible. Natural objects, even ones which seem to perform the same task as ones we have created, are always vastly less efficient and direct and often overly complicated compared to what they do.And in your last sentence you demonstrate this belief, as in order for there to be any variation in cell types, at all, there first needs to be the information and the template to create each of the cell types, then there also needs to be information to interpret and respond to different cell types accordingly (one cell of which is more advanced than any super computer or rocket).
-_- you are human just as much as I am; if being surrounded by created objects didn't prevent YOU from noticing that they were created, why would it prevent anyone else? I just find organisms, etc., to be too chaotic and inefficient to perceive them as having a design.Truly an emblem of atheism is being "Aristotle's fish" (not aware of the fact it is wet because all it knows is wet) so likewise you do not recognize creation by a Creator because everything around you was created, taking for granted that everything from the smallest sub-atomic particle to the largest star in the heavens requires a Creator.
-_- rivers form as well as dry up regardless as to my existence. Not everything in my life depends on my involvement, or even the involvement of humans in general. Funnily enough, I don't do my own laundry, my fiance does, so even that gets done without my intervention. But you seem to be assuming that the universe MUST have been created, and on that premise, are asserting that it cannot be created without a creator. But alas, you've neglected to actually demonstrate that the universe had to be created by any intelligent being or force. It's similar to your statement of "intelligence only comes from intelligence", but you've never demonstrated that to be a true statement.If you still can't find evidence around you for God, go look in the mirror. You keep citing a lack of actual evidence, but just as your laundry doesn't get done unless you do it, so also nothing in creation was created without a Creator.
"This is my holy book. There are many others like it, but this one is mine." Seriously, the bible has nothing special about it. It's not even the most entertaining holy book, the most outlandish, the most realistic, the oldest, or the newest. The NT was 1 Roman emperor away from falling into obscurity.And the Bible makes the claim that it is from the One who created all things and His Son Jesus affirmed this and made the claim that He is in the Father and the Father in Him and that no one comes to the Father except by Him.
No, I just don't know. I don't reject YHWH anymore than you reject giant purple people eaters or bigfoot. Your entire post seems to behave as if other religions that worship different deities and different creations don't exist.This is not at all a lack of evidence, and seeing you cannot substantiate a remotely viable alternative beyond "I don't know", this is a rejection of God.
What a great way to disregard me if I never believe. Just assume I wasn't genuine. Look, you cannot read my mind, thus, you cannot assert any knowledge about my wants and desires. Consider how cruel it would be, to assume that seekers that never end up believing aren't genuine, if you are wrong. I could die tomorrow, and if I did, you'd consider me insincere, just because I couldn't believe in time. As if I have motivation to lie to you. How could I possibly view you making an excuse for if I never believe that casts a shadow on my character in a positive way?God tells us if we seek Him with all of our heart we will find Him (Jeremiah 29:13). You've stated that you cry yourself to sleep at night wanting to believe. So from what I can see based upon our brief encounter here is that: 1) God's word is present and true and has the answers you're seeking, and 2) If your desire for Him is genuine then you will believe.
Oh yeah, that's a great thing to say to someone you want to convert. You better have converted to Christianity as an adult, or you'll never understand what it is like to seek belief outside of childhood.I can either conclude you are not genuine in your desire to believe or there is something else you have not been forthcoming about in this struggle to believe.
-_- again, I have stated before that I require evidence to believe that the bible is the word of a deity, on the basis of the fact that there are many other books that claim much the same. There would have to be some defining difference in the bible's actual content to make it stand out compared to the rest, but upon reading it, I didn't find any such thing. If you have, present it.On the surface it would seem the desire to believe is there, but then when you are presented with the truth in His word - Him telling you that He made everything, He made you, loves you, sent his Son to die for your sins so that you could spend eternity with Him, you respond with "nope" and I see this in post after post from you grasping at any alternative (even if unrealistic and unreasonable).
-_- then how do you sense it? All this tells me is that you have no actual evidence for the deity you believe in, that you have never spoken to it, seen it, etc. When I was 13, I believed in ghosts, on account of evidence as weak as the show Ghosthunters, and yet even that was better evidence than I have ever gotten for the existence of any deity.We have to recognize that our senses do not reveal all truths - there are things beyond sight, taste, touch, sound, and smell.
Given that you think I'll end up in the lake of fire otherwise, I should think you share that sentiment with every human.Just being transparent here, I'd like to see you come to believe and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
Try forcing yourself to believe that the sandwich originated in Canada and see how much free will you have in making yourself believe something, even if you take efforts to prevent yourself from being exposed to contradictory evidence.If your preference though is to reject His love for you, you have the free will to do so - this is your God-given right.
Interesting article that speaks exactly to what you are referencing:Well, to be fair, with over 34,000 denominations, Christians have no clue what it is to really be a True Christian.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-Christian-churches-are-there-in-the-world
In fact, the information in your DNA, is from His mind.
PART 2
In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species.
In WHAT’S ‘paraympathetic stimulated phase’??? The coccyx? It is a bone. The ganglion impar? That is a SYMPATHETIC ganglion! A sympathetic ganglion does not GET parasympathetic stimulation! The coccygeal plexus? A network of nerves does not receive parasympathetic stimulation. Totally incoherent – the writing of a person that thinks they know more than they do.
It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites.
That sentence makes literally no sense at all. For one, the author has clearly never taken freshman level biology. High School freshman. The direction of impulse transmission within a neuron is dendrite, cell body, axon, not ‘across the dentrites’ [sic].
Why do creationists pontificate on the nervous system when they are so uninformed about it? This is like that other creationist on here that claims the larynx receives motor input from the aorta and the gut via the recurrent laryngeal nerve in an attempt to claim that the RLN is 'good design...'
To sum up thus far – no reason to take any of the first part of that rant seriously.
This is a classic creationist bait and switch – the thread-starting post declared that it was ab out how the coccyx was not vestigial, yet thus far, all we have are (erroneous) depictions of what things NEXT TO the coccyx do. And even those depictions are misleading or outright wrong!
Moving on...
Roberto Spiegelmann, Edgardo Schinder, Mordejai Mintz, and Alexander Blakstein, in "The human tail: a benign stigma," Journal of Neurosurgery, 63: 461-462 (1985) explain that “True human tails are rarely encountered in medicine. At the time when Darwin's theory of evolution was a matter of debate, hundreds of dubious cases were reported. The presence of a tail in a human being was considered by evolutionists as an example that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."
Do Roberto Spiegelmann, Edgardo Schinder, Mordejai Mintz, and Alexander Blakstein provide valid references for their claim “The presence of a tail in a human being was considered by evolutionists as an example that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."? Funny – there wasn’t one in what was posted. And when I searched for their paper – amazingly, it was behind a paywall. But also amazingly, I DID find the quote presented on ‘evolutionnews’, an ID creationist hack outfit’s site. Coincidence? Right…
But the theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has been disproven in modern times. The main proponent of this notion was Ernst Heakel [sic] who had produced a document showing the similarity of embryos allegedly demonstrating that embryos represent a fish like stage of evolution. We know now that Heakel [sic] had perpetrated an intentional fraud, and that these drawings were enhanced to produce the illusion of support for the theory.
We “know” this, do we? Do we know know to spell the name of the guy we are attacking?
"Haeckel: Fraud not proven"
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud%20not%20proven.pdf
And yes, I am aware of the hatchet job that some engineer and violin player from creation.com spewed forth against that article with help from Sarfati, but I was unimpressed. It is the usual creationist nitpicking in order to preserve their ad hominem attack on Haeckel – which seems to be about they have these days. And for crying out loud – Haeckel stated clearly in the first edition of his book that he had removed the yolk sacs for clarity!
Anyway…
The premise is not true. Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny.
Yes, and so what? Who uses that as evidence for evolution?
The ether doesn’t exist either, are creationists going to attack the people that thought it did to try to make a point?
The alleged “gills” are just fat folds on the embryo and all non-egg laying animal embryos receive their oxygen through the blood of the mother, and in no other way.
‘Fat folds’? From what uninformed source was that gem of ignorance copied? There is no fat in an embryo in a stage in which the pharyngeal apparatus is seen. And they are not “folds” as in ‘they are there because of folding’. The ‘folds’ are there because they house internal structures which make it appear, from the outside, to be ‘folds.’ Since this creationist is wrong in his depiction of the pharyngeal apparatus, shall we adopt their anti-vestige tactic and attack him as a fraud? And by the way – fish embryos don’t get oxygen from their “gill slits”, either. Weird that your engineer/violinist/creationist source did not mention this.
"Pseudotails" which are often found in other locations on the lower back, are obvious aberrations since they are often associated with anomalies (remember and do not be fooled, the exception is never the rule). What is considered a “true tail” (extending from the coccyx) is far more rare, and together (both kinds) have only been observed on around 100 occasions from among the many millions of births. Secondly, they are not even a real tail (they totally lack vertebrae). The Journal confirms this. In all studies done all these alleged tails lacked “…bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord.”
According to Allan Joel Belzberg, Stanley Terence Myles, and Cynthia Lucy Trevenen, in "The Human Tail and Spinal Dysraphism," Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 26: 1243-1245 (October, 1991), these extremely rare genetic abnormalities in humans have no spinal cord at all. After many surgeries they have determined they are nothing more than a “central core of mature fatty tissue divided into small lobules by thin fibrous septa. Small blood vessels and nerve fibers are scattered throughout. Bundles of striated muscle fibers, sometimes degenerated, tend to aggregate in the center.” This is nothing like any tail we would commonly find on any kind of ape (or any other animal for that matter) and NEVER have found this to be present in any demonstrable ancient ancestor.
And as far as the more common yet still extremely rare pseudo-tail formation, according to Se-Hyuck Park, Jee Soon Huh, Ki Hong Cho, Yong Sam Shin, Se Hyck Kim, Young Hwan Ahn, Kyung Gi Cho, Soo Han Yoon, "Teratoma in Human Tail Lipoma," Pediatric Neurosurgery, 41:158-161 (2005), it “has no embryological relationship to human tail development, but is any variable abnormal caudal tail-like structure or protrusion." Nothing more…not a tail…not indicative of some remote unfounded assumption about the past, not a degeneration, nor is it atrophied…
Three paragraphs of paraphrased information from an evolutionnews essay and none of them are even about the coccyx, rather they are all about attacking Haeckel and this notion of humans with tails.
Shall I start a thread on the failure of creation science to produce evidence of the flood and spend the first half of my over-long post writing about people seeing images of Jesus in pancakes?
If these phenomena were truly vestigial in nature we should expect to see at least some vestige of vertebrae or controllable movement but alas we do not.
Who said that humans with tails were vestiges? What is your rationale for declaring that is these atavistic human tails must have vertebrae in them in order to be considered vestigial? I thought this was supposed to be about the coccyx, not humans born with tails?
I guess when the creationist cannot impress us with evidence, they beguile us with BS.
Science offers no demonstrable evidence at all that the human coccyx is anything more than what it is, and likewise demonstrates no evidence whatsoever that it ever was anything other than what it is now.Wow, that was quite the bait and switch – erroneous anatomy, silly diversions, character assassination, gibberish about humans born with tails not being evidence of tailed ancestors, all followed by a non sequitur!
Other than assertions and bait and switch antics, does creation/ID offer anything relevant?
Nope.
The entire alleged theory that it is a vestigial organ is a contrived myth (science fiction) based on the acceptance of the hypothesis alone. In the 2012 paper, “Spectrum of human tails: A report of six cases”, four out of the six of the alleged “tails” were higher in the lumbar region, and three of these babies sadly had spinal bifida, one had the appendage protruding from its buttock, and the another from the sacral region. And according to the report 5 out the six allegedly vestigial tails were not even connected to the spine.
And more of the same!
Please stop brainwashing our children with this heinous fairytale. If you have been brainwashed by it please wake up now and simply look at the actual data and block the hypothesis based “interpretation” out of your thinking?
That statement coming from a person that 1. Claims to accept evolution and that 2. Believes that the deity depicted in the bible created the universe and all ‘kinds’ of creatures, is both hilarious and pathetic.
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.
Just another example of the quality of creationist argumentation.
Too much caffeine, Ophiolite?Fine. If you have some integrity you will now report yourself for attacking the member and not their argument. I'm not holding my breath.
Sure - but first, tell me all about your version of your religion's God so I know what we're talking about - i.e. does your God have any Omni traits? Is your God a trickster God? does this God want a relationship with us? etc.Good to see you are familiar with math... now what about God? Why do you feel there is no God? See post #986 on information theory - you'll see information cannot come from nowhere. Let's start there.
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?