Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Smidlee]

You didn't deal with the part about no animal that has a tail ever has a coccyx.

There is no animal with a tail has ever been seen doing brain surgery nor reading a book.
This is fun.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is no animal with a tail has ever been seen doing brain surgery nor reading a book.
This is fun.

Well, I take that as having no refutation for the evidence that a coccyx is a transformed tail.

 

[Smidlee]

Well, I take that as having no refutation for the evidence that a coccyx is a transformed tail.

It's hard to refute make-believe as it's so attractive to so many people.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's hard to refute make-believe as it's so attractive to so many people.

Evolution stands on evidence, including but not limited to the evidence you are rejecting in this instance.

 

[Smidlee]

Evolution stands on evidence, including but not limited to the evidence you are rejecting in this instance.

I know you got no evidence that "evolution" can re-engineering anything since it's a total blind process. Even changing a tail into a coccyx would require some engineering skills. All you've got is make-believe.

 

[Kylie]

No, it displays an amazing refusal to accept observational evidence on your part and to pretend your theory has ever been observed in real life.

And this is you ignoring all the times it HAS been observed in real life.

And yet you also insist that Darwin's Finches which are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring before your very eyes are separate species. So you'll have to excuse me if I doubt any evolutionist has a clue as to what species actually are. So according to evolutionist's birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are separate species and birds that interbreed and don't are separate species. You claim Tigers and Lions are separate species - yet they produce fertile offspring. If you were at least consistent in your claims - you might have ground to stand upon instead of quicksand sinking beneath your feet.

The issue of species is a complex one, and there are many ways that biologists define it.

However, if you start the definition using a Biblical term that has never been defined, you're not going to get anywhere.

Yet only you claim sharks and tuna are of the same kind. Again - if you were to claim all sharks were of one Kind, just separate infraspecific taxa within that Kind - and all fish that are similar to tunas are all of one Kind, just separate infraspecific taxa within that Kind - you might have solid ground beneath your feet. Just because you lump all fish as one Kind as you try to lump all mammals as one kind - doesn't make it so.

Okay, so let's take this idea and see where it leads us.

If tuna and sharks are two different kinds, what does that say about other groups? Surely we can conclude that horses, donkeys and zebras are all different kinds? Surely lions and tigers are different kinds as well, as they look very different, they have very different social structures and hunting habits (although you were happy to claim they were the same species earlier). And among birds, there is a pigeon kind, a sparrow kind, a finch kind, a kingfisher kind, a heron kind, a quail kind, an albatross kind, an owl kind, a falcon kind, an eagle kind, a hawk kind, a gull kind, a tern kind, a penguin kind, an emu kind, a chicken kind, a cuckoo kind, a crane kind, a flamingo kind, a grebe kind, a hummingbird kind, a kiwi kind, a loon kind, a nightjar kind, a parrot kind, a pelican kind, a rhea kind, a sandgrouse kind, a shorebird kind, a tinamous kind, a trogon kind, a woodpecker kind and a waterfowl kind.

And that's just for birds. When it comes to insects, imagine how many different kinds there are! How was Noah able to provide enough room for all of those countless different kinds?

And where did I try to make all mammals one kind?

What evidence - classifying birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring right in front of your eyes as separate species???? The claim that started the entire thing rolling??????? So the entire theory was started based upon an incorrect classification????

Here's some evidence, which you will no doubt ignore or find some flimsy reason to dismiss.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And this is you ignoring all the times it HAS been observed in real life.

I ignore nothing - you have NEVER observed one species becoming another species EVER. Nor even one infraspecific taxa in the species becoming another infraspecific taxa. EVER. You have only observed two infraspecific taxa within the species mating and creating a new infraspecific taxa within the species.

The issue of species is a complex one, and there are many ways that biologists define it.

However, if you start the definition using a Biblical term that has never been defined, you're not going to get anywhere.

That's just it - I am using your definition that you refuse to follow. So what is your excuse?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species
"Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species
"biology : a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus"

And Kind has been defined.

Full Definition of SPECIES
1
a : kind, sort

b : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class

c : the human race : human beings —often used with the <survival of the species in the nuclear age>

d (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name
(2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/species
" biology a set of animals or plants, members of which have similar characteristics to each other and which can breed with each other"

There is no problem at all of classifying creatures that are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes. It is only when such is not directly observed in which problems arise.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
"(taxonomy)

(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"In biology, a species (abbreviated sp., with the plural form species abbreviated spp.) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem."

You only have a problem because you are ignoring those creatures interbreeding right in from of your eyes. Did you not observe them doing so then you might have a problem in defining them. "Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

Okay, so let's take this idea and see where it leads us.

If tuna and sharks are two different kinds, what does that say about other groups? Surely we can conclude that horses, donkeys and zebras are all different kinds? Surely lions and tigers are different kinds as well, as they look very different, they have very different social structures and hunting habits (although you were happy to claim they were the same species earlier).

Are you again going to ignore your own scientific deffinitions?

"Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

Are you saying you can't tell that Donkey and Horse are recognizably the same???? Are you saying you cant tell that Tigers and Lions are recognizably the same - not to mention they produce fertile offspring????? Are you saying you cant tell that sharks are all recognizably the same?????

Quit ignoring your own definitions to try to fit your pre-conceived beliefs in and you wouldn't have such a problem.

And among birds, there is a pigeon kind, a sparrow kind, a finch kind, a kingfisher kind, a heron kind, a quail kind, an albatross kind, an owl kind, a falcon kind, an eagle kind, a hawk kind, a gull kind, a tern kind, a penguin kind, an emu kind, a chicken kind, a cuckoo kind, a crane kind, a flamingo kind, a grebe kind, a hummingbird kind, a kiwi kind, a loon kind, a nightjar kind, a parrot kind, a pelican kind, a rhea kind, a sandgrouse kind, a shorebird kind, a tinamous kind, a trogon kind, a woodpecker kind and a waterfowl kind.

Now you are not even using the correct definitions anymore but throwing in strawmen.

Are you telling me you cant recognize that Pigeons are different than Sparrows? That you can't recognize that a Heron is different than a Quail?? Are your senses of observation so lacking?????

And that's just for birds. When it comes to insects, imagine how many different kinds there are! How was Noah able to provide enough room for all of those countless different kinds?

And this is the problem - your now taking it to the point of stupidity. You might as well say all dogs are of a different kind - which would be utterly stupid. They are certainly all recognizable as belonging to the same Kind or Species. Are you telling me you cant recognize that all dragon flies are the same kind while all spiders are of a kind? You are so eager in your attempt to uphold your Fairie Dust your reasoning has become unsound to the point of being ridiculous.

I believe it is evolutionists that try to say two interbreeding birds producing fertile offspring are separate species and at the same time tell us two interbreeding birds producing fertile offspring are the same species. And you wonder why there is a species problem!!!!!

Here's some evidence, which you will no doubt ignore or find some flimsy reason to dism

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Only an evolutionists would have a problem thinking these are recognizably the same...

Any logically thinking individual has no problem recognizing they are completely different and so are separate species.

 

[JacksBratt]

You didn't deal with the part about no animal that has a tail ever has a coccyx.

Why would that matter? No animal that has a beak has lips........ The coccyx and the tail may do the same thing but in no way are they the same thing or prove that we once had a tail.

We have a bone structure, that we need for various body functions, it is in the same area as a tail so "scientists" say we used to have a tail and now have this useless boney extension of our spine. However, it is not useless and proves we used to have a tail as much as having fingernails prove we used to have claws...

It's just another assumption, speculation, extrapolation of facts that stttttttttrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeetttttttttccccccccchhhhhhhhes the monkey to man fable.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I ignore nothing - you have NEVER observed one species becoming another species EVER.

You are so willfully ignorant it must hurt. We have directly observed the emergence of new species. This had been published over a century ago. It is observed in nature, and in experiments.

"Emergence of New Species"

 

[Kylie]

I ignore nothing - you have NEVER observed one species becoming another species EVER. Nor even one infraspecific taxa in the species becoming another infraspecific taxa. EVER. You have only observed two infraspecific taxa within the species mating and creating a new infraspecific taxa within the species.

Since you have so obviously failed to do any actual research into the study of evolution, tell me why I should continue to try to correct your painfully flawed arguments?

Nevertheless, here are some actual observed instances of speciation. Now stop saying that it never happened! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

That's just it - I am using your definition that you refuse to follow. So what is your excuse?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species
"Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species
"biology : a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus"

And Kind has been defined.

Full Definition of SPECIES
1
a : kind, sort

b : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class

c : the human race : human beings —often used with the <survival of the species in the nuclear age>

d (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name
(2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/species
" biology a set of animals or plants, members of which have similar characteristics to each other and which can breed with each other"

There is no problem at all of classifying creatures that are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of your eyes. It is only when such is not directly observed in which problems arise.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Species
"(taxonomy)

(1) The lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic unit or category of biological classification.

(2) An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"In biology, a species (abbreviated sp., with the plural form species abbreviated spp.) is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem."

You only have a problem because you are ignoring those creatures interbreeding right in from of your eyes. Did you not observe them doing so then you might have a problem in defining them. "Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

But since those unions do not produce lions, nor tigers (like their parents), we can still conclude that the parents are different species.

Are you again going to ignore your own scientific deffinitions?

"Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same."

Are you saying you can't tell that Donkey and Horse are recognizably the same???? Are you saying you cant tell that Tigers and Lions are recognizably the same - not to mention they produce fertile offspring????? Are you saying you cant tell that sharks are all recognizably the same?????

Quit ignoring your own definitions to try to fit your pre-conceived beliefs in and you wouldn't have such a problem.

Recognizably the same? REALLY? So if I show you a picture of a lion and a tiger, you think they are the same? The fact that one has stripes and the other doesn't is kind of a big DIFFERENCE! In case you are unaware, a difference is something that is NOT THE SAME.

Now you are not even using the correct definitions anymore but throwing in strawmen.

Are you telling me you cant recognize that Pigeons are different than Sparrows? That you can't recognize that a Heron is different than a Quail?? Are your senses of observation so lacking?????

You didn't really pay attention to my point, did you?

I was saying that all of these would be different kinds, not the same kind. Where did I ever say that pigeons are of the same kind as sparrows? I clearly stated that they were DIFFERENT kinds. Differences include size, colour, food, social structure etc.

And I also said that poor Noah, faced with so many different kinds (in a Biblical sense), would have found looking after them all and even just finding room for them on the ark a very difficult propsect.

So next time, try reading my post properly, okay?

And this is the problem - your now taking it to the point of stupidity. You might as well say all dogs are of a different kind - which would be utterly stupid. They are certainly all recognizable as belonging to the same Kind or Species.

Yes, all dogs are the same species.

Are you claiming that "kind" as used in the Bible means the same thing as species?

Are you telling me you cant recognize that all dragon flies are the same kind while all spiders are of a kind?

Here's a list of some of the scientific names of different dragonflies. As you can see, they are not just different species, but different genus as well. http://www.commanster.eu/commanster/Insects/Dragonflies/dragonflies.html

And do you think all of the spiders on this page are of the same kind? Remember, you said that a kind is "ecologically and recognisably the same". Are these all the same in your opinion? http://guff.com/some-of-the-strangest-spiders-youll-hopefully-never-see

You are so eager in your attempt to uphold your Fairie Dust your reasoning has become unsound to the point of being ridiculous.

Since you are obviously unaware of the actual scientific background of evolution, you aren';t really in a position to make this claim, are you?

I believe it is evolutionists that try to say two interbreeding birds producing fertile offspring are separate species and at the same time tell us two interbreeding birds producing fertile offspring are the same species. And you wonder why there is a species problem!!!!!

Breed a sparrow and a pelican and see what you get, then come and talk to me.

Only an evolutionists would have a problem thinking these are recognizably the same...

Any logically thinking individual has no problem recognizing they are completely different and so are separate species.

Ya huh. And pray tell, where in anything I posted did I or anyone else claim that these were the same species? I could only find the first image in the link I provided to you, where it was labelled as a legged sea cow, specifically, Pezosiren portelli. Is the lower image claimed to be the same species? If so, provide a source. If not, then stop lying.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why would that matter? No animal that has a beak has lips........ The coccyx and the tail may do the same thing but in no way are they the same thing or prove that we once had a tail.

Tails and coccyxes don't do the same thing. (My apologies, I don't know the correct plural for coccyx . . . )

We have a bone structure, that we need for various body functions, it is in the same area as a tail so "scientists" say we used to have a tail and now have this useless boney extension of our spine. However, it is not useless and proves we used to have a tail as much as having fingernails prove we used to have claws...[

It's just another assumption, speculation, extrapolation of facts that stttttttttrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeetttttttttccccccccchhhhhhhhes the monkey to man fable.

re.

All those uses you cite are phoney. People don't need a coccyx, and the fact that things attach to it merely happens because it is still there.

Of course, our fingernails are left over from claws on an ancestral species, it's bright of you to point that out.

As the tiny hairs on your arms and even your forehead are left over from fur on an ancestral species.

As the useless ear wiggling muscles you have are left over from a species that could actually move its ears to good effect.

As the broken vitamin c gene you possess was once a working vitamin c gene in a species that didn't need dietary vitamin c.

You have, of course, assumptions, speculations, extrapolations of your religious ideas that keep you from accepting these truths. We understand that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

Evolution is simply defined as the change of alleles (traits), in populations over time. That is a very different thing from assuming universal common ancestry. What you have to believe is the God created life and only God can because that is the promise of the New Testament, that God makes us new creatures in Christ.

 

[JacksBratt]

All those uses you cite are phoney.

Of course they are..... totally phoney, because if it was true then the coccyx would have a function and not be vestigial.

The Tailbone

The tailbone or coccyx has often been presumed to be vestigial and a leftover remnant to our alleged mammal and reptilian ancestors who also had tails. Evidence that is cited includes the variable number of bony segments humans can have (usually 4 but can be 3 or 5) as well as “babies born with tails.” But these so called tails are not really tails at all and instead are a type of fatty tumor. There are no bones or muscles in them at all, and thus, it cannot truly be considered a vestigial organ.5


Spinney acknowledges that the coccyx now has a “modified function, notably as an anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place.” In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.

However, I have been reading and have even found sites where it is stated that just because a body part still has a function does not mean that it is not vestigial..... Talk about moving the goal posts.....Now, functional body parts are vestigial,......

Biology
(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.

I'm done.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Of course they are..... totally phoney, because if it was true then the coccyx would have a function and not be vestigial.

The Tailbone

The tailbone or coccyx has often been presumed to be vestigial and a leftover remnant to our alleged mammal and reptilian ancestors who also had tails. Evidence that is cited includes the variable number of bony segments humans can have (usually 4 but can be 3 or 5) as well as “babies born with tails.” But these so called tails are not really tails at all and instead are a type of fatty tumor. There are no bones or muscles in them at all, and thus, it cannot truly be considered a vestigial organ.5


Spinney acknowledges that the coccyx now has a “modified function, notably as an anchor point for the muscles that hold the anus in place.” In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.

However, I have been reading and have even found sites where it is stated that just because a body part still has a function does not mean that it is not vestigial..... Talk about moving the goal posts.....Now, functional body parts are vestigial,......

Biology
(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.

I'm done.

Well, a part can be vestigial even if it has a minor function. The usages you assert for the coccyx are all minor, if they are even real, and I'm not convinced they are real. Muscles may attach to it, but if it weren't there the muscles would merely attach to something else or each other. Look how an elephant's trunk has a lot of muscle with absolutely no bone for an attachment base.

And there are vestiges without any use at all. Ear wiggling muscles. Little toes. That little bump on the inside corner of the eye that in a former species was a nictating membrane. Toenails on toes.

 

[wndwalkr99]

What you have to believe is the God created life and only God can because that is the promise of the New Testament, that God makes us new creatures in Christ.

One HAS to believe that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

Just my two cents... if you believe that God did indeed pass on His timeless wisdom to the human authors, who then passed it along to us, you have to acknowledge the limitations of human language.

Can language, especially language from thousands of years ago, completely and accurately encapsulate the nature of God?

I've compared it in the past to trying to play Beethoven's 9th symphony on a kazoo... You'll get the tune, but you're missing out on a lot...

 

[Loudmouth]

Taken from http://www.innerbody.com/image_skelfov/skel38_new.html

Prepared by Tim Taylor, Anatomy and Physiology Instructor
The coccyx functions as a slightly flexible attachment point for several muscles in the pelvic region. The gluteus maximus muscle, a major extensor of the thigh at the hip, has one its origins along the coccyx. The levator ani and coccygeus muscles form the pelvic diaphragm that constricts the pelvic organs and helps us to delay defecation and urination. Finally, the coccyx helps to support the anus by holding the external anal sphincter in place via the anococcygeal ligament.

That would be a rudimentary function which is consistent with being vestigial.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution is simply defined as the change of alleles (traits), in populations over time. That is a very different thing from assuming universal common ancestry. What you have to believe is the God created life and only God can because that is the promise of the New Testament, that God makes us new creatures in Christ.

We CONCLUDE universal common descent because of the evidence. It isn't an assumption.

 

[James Wilson]

What Trumps the Interests of Science?

Around the end of the 20th Century, the Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a review of the proposals for hundreds of millions of dollars in annual DOE funding. One of the bureaucrats came up with a fascinating idea: They always had trouble getting qualified expert reviewers for these proposals, so he submitted all the grant proposals to the government lab and university proposers for ranking.

My boss at that time indexed the rankings by the source (which lab or university). All proposers/rankers rated their own lab’s or university’s proposals above all others submitted!

It may be obvious to some, but the answer to the question in the title above is: Self interest trumps the interests of science, even among designated peer reviewers!

Sounds pretty obvious to me, which defeats the vaunted peer review process that science uses to ‘keep itself honest’.

 

[RickG]

What Trumps the Interests of Science?

Around the end of the 20th Century, the Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a review of the proposals for hundreds of millions of dollars in annual DOE funding. One of the bureaucrats came up with a fascinating idea: They always had trouble getting qualified expert reviewers for these proposals, so he submitted all the grant proposals to the government lab and university proposers for ranking.

My boss at that time indexed the rankings by the source (which lab or university). All proposers/rankers rated their own lab’s or university’s proposals above all others submitted!

It may be obvious to some, but the answer to the question in the title above is: Self interest trumps the interests of science, even among designated peer reviewers!

Sounds pretty obvious to me, which defeats the vaunted peer review process that science uses to ‘keep itself honest’.

So people who are applying for research grants in their specific fields of expertise is self interest and trumps science? Would you prefer that they apply for grants outside their fields if expertise?