New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

mpok1519 · Sep 8, 2013

LastSeven said:
You can choose to wait for science to prove everything to you, if you like, but what if they don't discover the truth in time for you to believe?

You realize science doesn't seek to explain everything? With each piece of truth revealed, it's given that more questions and unknowns will be revealed within discovery of the truth.

Science never claimed to seek to explain everything. If something is unknown, one should not blindly assert their own beliefs with faith, but understand that somethings are simply unknowable at the moment, an that is just the way it is.

It's intellectually dishonest to presume anything without evidence of it's existence.

nuttypiglet · Sep 8, 2013

lasthero said:
So, basically, you're going to ignore what the actual definition of a vestigial organ is, come up with your own strawman definition, then beat it senseless.

I have no idea what you're smoking but that isn't the situation at all. It has been claimed that the human body has vestiges, I'm saying it doesn't. So, what's the problem. I've shown where charlie boy darwin went wrong with his idea.

nuttypiglet · Sep 8, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
The line will probably drawn at the ability for a cell to replicate itself.

Is that good enough for you?

It isn't whether it's good enough for me, it's the accepted line drawn among the scientific community that I'm after. If you say it's reproduction, then that's fine with me. So, when I hear evols saying "evolution is after life started", then they are wrong and I can correct them? Unless you class life as having the ability to reproduce, while means most mules are really dead, oh and some donkeys too. Perhaps someone should tell them?

nuttypiglet · Sep 8, 2013

lasthero said:
Also, this is just a straight, bold-faced LIE.

Weirdersheim published the list you're talking about in 1893. Guess what? Charles Darwin died in 1882. So how exactly did 'Charlie' resurrect Robert's list? Your inanity never ceases to amaze me - your arguments are terrible. I'm starting to think you're just a poe who's coming here to make creationists look bad.

There is a big difference between a lie and a mistake dudie. I meant Weirdersheim got some of his ideas off mr charlie idiot darwin.

nuttypiglet · Sep 8, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
Thanks for admitting that you don't know what a vestigial organ is.

The appendix is a vestigial organ. The tail bone is a vestigial tail. People sometimes grow actual tails, and they are not mere scraps of skin.

Here is a simple article on vestigiality. If you read it you will understand better:

Human vestigiality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have been listening to lying sources again. The fact that the appendix still has a use does not mean it is not a vestigial organ. It no longer performs its original function, that makes it vestigial.

And Evols claiming the appendix in humans had another purpose millions of years ago doesn't prove a thing.

nuttypiglet · Sep 8, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
What do you mean? There have been no major contradictions. Ever.

Why would you expect a chimp to look like a man unless he was related to man? There are many examples of convergent evolution where two very similar looking animals do not share as much DNA as chimps and humans do. Yet we do see that closely related animals share a lot of DNA We don't share quite enough with Chimps for us to breed, that process is called speciation and has been observed several times.

And your rebuke of the appendix merely shows you that you don't know what a vestigial organ is. There are others that are even more obvious. The claws on the wings of an emu are one. If you need more I can give more.

You need to do more than just deny to prove your claims.

how is an emu a human? are you now saying birds and humans evolved from apes?

nuttypiglet · Sep 8, 2013

Subduction Zone said:
And once again he proves his ignorance.

Oils do not help cool the skin, now you have your false uses messed up. And you do not get goosebumps when you want to cool down.

Talk about not having a clue.

And hair does not have never endings. There may be nerves associated with hair, but the hair itself is effectively dead.

One more time, new uses does not mean that an organ is not vestigial. You still don't know the meaning of the word.

You have been going to lying sources for your "science" and it shows.

Where on earth did you study anatomy? Any liquid on skin will cool it down, as air passes over it. Have a close look at hair follicles, they have nerves wrapped around the base of them. How do you think you feel an insect moving the hairs on your arms? Try a simple experiment, gently touch the hair on your head (taking you're not bald) and I bet you feel the hair move. Without nerves, how the heck do you think you feel it?

nuttypiglet · Sep 8, 2013

EternalDragon said:
Our tail bone is essential to connect certain muscles or you would not be able to sit down in your computer chair. It also holds other things together. It's not a vestigial tail.

The appendix has a function. It aids in digestion and produces antibodies that defend your body against bacteria. Some studies have shown that the appendix has an important role even before a person is born.

Goosebumps do serve a function.

If you believe in all these vestigial organs, you are sadly being misled.

It's useless telling them. First they tell you that you're not intelligent enough to understand what they are talking about, second they prefer to stick to theories which died out decades ago. Obviously the text books and teachers need some SERIOUS updating with research.

lasthero · Sep 8, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
I have no idea what you're smoking but that isn't the situation at all. It has been claimed that the human body has vestiges, I'm saying it doesn't. So, what's the problem. I've shown where charlie boy darwin went wrong with his idea.

It does have vestiges. The problem is that you're not using the proper definition of vestigial organ. It doesn't mean what you're acting like it means.

OllieFranz · Sep 8, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
Where on earth did you study anatomy? Any liquid on skin will cool it down, as air passes over it. Have a close look at hair follicles, they have nerves wrapped around the base of them. How do you think you feel an insect moving the hairs on your arms? Try a simple experiment, gently touch the hair on your head (taking you're not bald) and I bet you feel the hair move. Without nerves, how the heck do you think you feel it?

It is not a liquid that cools the skin if allowed access to air, it is the evaporation of the liquid. Moving air cools it faster because when the air is still, it becomes saturated with the vapor and evaporation slows down. But not every liquid evaporates well at room temperature, or even higher temperatures. When you are frying, and get a grease spatter, you need to wash off the hot greases or your burn will be worse. Not only does the grease not evaporate, it is a thermal energy reservoir, which can absorb a lot of heat and hold it. It does not cool off very fast, and continues to burn you. Even worse, oil is hydrophobic, and will not allow the water in your perspiration close to the birn site to help cool it.

The nerves are not in the hair. If it were, going to a barber would be a painful and traumatic experience. The nerves you mention are in the skin. and you would get exactly the same tickling of those nerves if you shaved the skin and then teased it with a feather.

Subduction Zone · Sep 8, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
Where on earth did you study anatomy? Any liquid on skin will cool it down, as air passes over it. Have a close look at hair follicles, they have nerves wrapped around the base of them. How do you think you feel an insect moving the hairs on your arms? Try a simple experiment, gently touch the hair on your head (taking you're not bald) and I bet you feel the hair move. Without nerves, how the heck do you think you feel it?

I can tell you never took anatomy, or chemistry for that matter.

Now here is a tough one for you, if goose bumps are supposed to cools us off why do we get them only when it is cold or we are scared?

Also, oils evaporate very poorly. They are not effective at cooling.

You know, you should not make stuff up and then post it. A little research can save a lot of embarrassment on your part.

lasthero · Sep 8, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
There is a big difference between a lie and a mistake dudie. I meant Weirdersheim got some of his ideas off mr charlie idiot darwin.

You really have no space to call anyone an idiot, let alone any actual scientist, past or present.

Hey, try this experiment - douse yourself in oil, then run around and see how cool you get.

nuttypiglet · Sep 8, 2013

OllieFranz said:
It is not a liquid that cools the skin if allowed access to air, it is the evaporation of the liquid. Moving air cools it faster because when the air is still, it becomes saturated with the vapor and evaporation slows down. But not every liquid evaporates well at room temperature, or even higher temperatures. When you are frying, and get a grease spatter, you need to wash off the hot greases or your burn will be worse. Not only does the grease not evaporate, it is a thermal energy reservoir, which can absorb a lot of heat and hold it. It does not cool off very fast, and continues to burn you. Even worse, oil is hydrophobic, and will not allow the water in your perspiration close to the birn site to help cool it.

The nerves are not in the hair. If it were, going to a barber would be a painful and traumatic experience. The nerves you mention are in the skin. and you would get exactly the same tickling of those nerves if you shaved the skin and then teased it with a feather.

I didn't say the nerves were IN THE HAIR? I wrote "they have nerves wrapped around the base of them". You can feel a feather because there are other sensors just under the skins surface also. These are different.
here's a nice little diagram for you https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/89809360/353-767.jpg
However, pain can be involved, try plucking a hair or two.

nuttypiglet · Sep 8, 2013

lasthero said:
It does have vestiges. The problem is that you're not using the proper definition of vestigial organ. It doesn't mean what you're acting like it means.

So enlighten us, what was the appendix once used for? and don't say to digest veg.

nuttypiglet · Sep 8, 2013

lasthero said:
You really have no space to call anyone an idiot, let alone any actual scientist, past or present.

Hey, try this experiment - douse yourself in oil, then run around and see how cool you get.

God says charlie darwin was a fool, that's good enough for me.

lasthero · Sep 8, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
God says charlie darwin was a fool, that's good enough for me.

I bet Darwin never thought that grease was a good way to cool down.

AceHero · Sep 8, 2013

lasthero said:
Vestigial does not mean 'without function'. You've spent too much time on ID hack sites.

EternalDragon said:

If you believe they are left over organs from evolution you have spent too much time listening to the babbling of men and not enough listening to God.

Click to expand...

God has never told me a thing about my appendix or coccyx.

Subduction Zone said:
What do you mean? There have been no major contradictions. Ever.

Why would you expect a chimp to look like a man unless he was related to man? There are many examples of convergent evolution where two very similar looking animals do not share as much DNA as chimps and humans do. Yet we do see that closely related animals share a lot of DNA We don't share quite enough with Chimps for us to breed, that process is called speciation and has been observed several times.

And your rebuke of the appendix merely shows you that you don't know what a vestigial organ is. There are others that are even more obvious. The claws on the wings of an emu are one. If you need more I can give more.

You need to do more than just deny to prove your claims.

nuttypiglet said:

how is an emu a human? are you now saying birds and humans evolved from apes?

Click to expand...

You know exactly what we're talking about.

lasthero said:
You really have no space to call anyone an idiot, let alone any actual scientist, past or present.

Hey, try this experiment - douse yourself in oil, then run around and see how cool you get.

nuttypiglet said:

God says charlie darwin was a fool, that's good enough for me.

Click to expand...

Which book, chapter, and verse is that? Or did He speak to you in a vision?

TLK Valentine · Sep 9, 2013

nuttypiglet said:
God says charlie darwin was a fool, that's good enough for me.

God said no such thing -- you did. And you, my friend, are not God.

Now, we all understand your anger and bitterness; We've seen it before from men and women at least as devout as yourself. Clearly you've put a lot of effort into promoting yourself at the expense of others, but please don't let your lack of success frustrate you -- there's a lot you can still learn here.

Loudmouth · Sep 9, 2013

EternalDragon said:
Our tail bone is essential to connect certain muscles or you would not be able to sit down in your computer chair. It also holds other things together. It's not a vestigial tail.

A vestigial organ/feature is one that does not have the same function as that seen in other species. The human coccyx does not support a tail like it does in other species, therefore it is vestigial. What functions it does have are rudimentary which is still in keeping with the definition of vestigial. This has been the case since the inception of the theory of evolution:

"An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.... [A]n organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object."--Charles Darwin

Even Darwin stated that a vestigial organ can have function and still be vestigial. Why do creationists like you continue to spread these lies?

The appendix has a function. It aids in digestion and produces antibodies that defend your body against bacteria. Some studies have shown that the appendix has an important role even before a person is born.

The appendix does not house commensal bacteria that break down cellulose as seen in other species. Therefore, it is vestigial even if it has some very rudimentary function.

Loudmouth · Sep 9, 2013

EternalDragon said:
If you believe they are left over organs from evolution you have spent too much time listening to the babbling of men and not enough listening to God.

Then why do vestigial organs fall into the expected nested hierarchy? Why do we find a vestigial pelvis in whales, but not in whale sharks?

New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Veteran

I've already read the books you want burned.

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency