Wonderfulcross said:In that movie, I know for a fact that he majored in biology and even gives lectures on the subject.
No, vestigial structures are those structures that used to have function, but have little or no function now.Wonderfulcross said:Vestigial structures have no function therefore they are not vestigial.
OK, just because you major in biology for your undergrad degree? - that doesn't make you a biologist. Especially if it was 40 years ago. Get a graduate degree, continue to publish original work in peer reviewed journals, then you can call yourself a biologist. And even then it doesn't mean you know diddly about evolution because there are a lot of areas of biology that don't focus on it. That's why we look at the evidence rather than blindly following authority figures.Wonderfulcross said:In that movie, I know for a fact that he majored in biology and even gives lectures on the subject.
By "from the beginning" do you mean from the time of its short-necked ancestors? Think about it.Wonderfulcross said:[An example of an animal that couldn't have evolved]
1 animal. Giraffe
heart is 24 pounds and 2.5 feet long. it needs this heart to pump blood to its brain. What happens when the Giraffe bends down to get a drink? The intense pressure on its brain would literally explode. That doesn't happen. The Giraffe has a sponge-like material in between the valve from the heart, and the brain. When it bend down, the material absorbs the blood so it doesn't explode, then slowly releases it so it doesn't passout. If the giraffe didn't have this mechanism from the beginning, it would have died. Therefore, it couldn't have evolved this structure.
Wonderfulcross said:dna is more like a recipe than a blueprint.
They are the same thingThey are both instructions on how to create something.
Wonderfulcross said:dna is more like a recipe than a blueprint.
They are the same thingThey are both instructions on how to create something.
"DNA is commonly referred to in textbooks of molecular biology as the "blueprint" for an organism. I think it is better not to call it a blueprint. I would rather call it a recipe or it is a bit like a computer program.
The difference between a blueprint and a recipe is that a blueprint is reversable, and a recipe is not. If you have a house and you have lost the blueprint you can reconstruct the blueprint by taking measurements, but if you have got a well prepared dish in a great restaurant you may enjoy the dish and you may dissect it and look at it in every detail but you cannot reconstruct the recipe."
Richard Dawkins
I mean this seriously, as one who is a researcher in the life sciences. I think I have a pretty good picture on what these people think, as I'm working in one of the relevant fields. The vast majority of the scientists in the relevant fields are convinced that evolution is correct. If anyone told you otherwise, you have been lied to.Wonderfulcross said:You think that all of the earth's scientists believe in evolution???
There are thousands (25,000) of scientists around the world that think evolution is impossible. That number is growing daily as the flaws of evolution and truths of Creationism are revealed.
Oh, shuckconsideringlily said:Maybe some of the more diplomatic evos can take turns introducing newbies to the CE board.
Notto, Tomk80, Vance, Gluadys, H2Whoa, Jet Black, Dale Usincognito, michabo,HRE, Sotek I can't think of others who have helped me to understand.
I learn from the less diplomatic here too but I don't take the jibes personally.
Just a thought
Arikay said:A good tip. Find a better source for your information. All three of your young earth claims are known to be false.
Some Discussion. Please give a reason.
I said it before, but i'll say it again. From Chuck Missler, and InSix Days.
Wonderfulcross said:Biology, Biochemistry, Medical research, Mechanical engineering, Physical chemistry, Genetics, Physics, Mathematical physics, Botany, Meteorology, and zoology. These are the fieldsof several of the scientists, that wrote InSix Days
Wonderfulcross said:I was not there, I don't know exactly how they figured 25,000. But the only way to even come up with a statistic is by use of a poll. Which is probably what they did.
Wonderfulcross said:Their ancestors' necks where still long compared to other animals. Just not as long as they are now. Besides, they would still die with those short necks. Their food source is at least 20 feet high. They couldn't reach it. Therefore, they would still die out.
Wonderfulcross said:
Their ancestors' necks where still long compared to other animals. Just not as long as they are now. Besides, they would still die with those short necks. Their food source is at least 20 feet high. They couldn't reach it. Therefore, they would still die out.
I was not there, I don't know exactly how they figured 25,000. But the only way to even come up with a statistic is by use of a poll. Which is probably what they did.Wonderfulcross said:How was this determined? How do you (or Chuck) know?
Did they poll them? Do they have a list? How were they counted?
[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] I also read this on the internet. There very well might be 700 in the U.S. You obviously missed it when i said Global.
Wonderfulcross said:[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]According to Newsweek (June 29, 1987), "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% However, the American public thinks very differently.
I also read this on the internet. There very well might be 700 in the U.S. You obviously missed it when i said Global.
[/font]
HRE said:This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
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?