Evolutionary Contradictions

[Jolly Roger]

Speech is a learned behavior. And don't give me the "language evolved" crap. Its learned, therefore it must be taught. Who taught the apelike men how to speak?




Vtmarik wrote:

The best example of a vestigal structure is the human appendix, which currently has no purpose other than to get infected and get cut out.

Maybe it controls common sense? I still have mine!

Would you like to re-think your assertion that language is learned and therefore must be taught? I think you should. (Hint: Who taught Edison how to make a lightbulb?)

Would you like to speak with a behavior scientist? Because speech is a learned behavior.

Invention is not a learned behavior, its trial and error. :wink:

Trial and error is just self-directed learning. Edison had to try many different combinations of materials and designs before he was able to produce a lightbulb that worked properly. With each failure, he learned something. My point is that just because something is learned, doesn't mean it must be taught. Language too is a product of invention. Why do you suppose they are always updating dictionaries? Was anyone using the word, "lightbulb" before the invention of the lightbulb? Language is part invention. There are hundreds of words that were never used until Shakespeare wrote them down. Who taught him those words? Language evolves to suit the needs of those who use it. Not only did it evolve; it is still evolving. Where do you suppose the language you use comes from? Has English been around forever? Like Edison and his lightbulb, we learn language based on what has been developed by those who have come before us. We then build upon this knowledge based on our needs. New linguistic elements are then passed on to the next generation if they are useful or discarded if they are not.

[vtmarik]

Jay, were you talking about behavioral evolution or physiological evolution?

Behavior and the development of behavior is another thread. I'm here to answer confusions about biology/Evolution. You can start a behavioral science thread.

[Truman]

The best example of a vestigal structure is the human appendix, which currently has no purpose other than to get infected and get cut out.

The vermiform appendix is a vestige of the cecum, an organ that was used to digest cellulose by humans' herbivorous ancestors. Analogous organs in other animals similar to humans continue to perform that function, whereas other meat-eating animals may have similarly diminished appendices. The modern functionality of the appendix is still controversial in the field of human physiology, although most scientists and physicians believe that it has little or no function.

Obviously the author is ignorant, or he's lying. You can live without your appendix: no question. But just because you can live without it doesn't mean you don't need it. If your appendix is removed then you'll be susceptible to all kinds of diseases. The appendix is part of the immune system and has many functions in keeping your body healthy from harmful viruses.

The appendix produces the necessary antibodies IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders in the bloodstream.

According to Science News (March 20, 1971), the appendix also plays a large part in protecting from Hodgkin's Disease.

When the appendix is infected it is vital to remove it, but this gives no evidence as a vestigial organ in any degree. You can live without both your arms and both your legs. Does that mean you don't need them?

So as I said before, the author is either ignorant, or he's lying. Vtmarik, don't use this argument again, please.

They also exist in other species:

In whales and other cetaceans, one can find small vestigial leg bones deeply buried within the back of the body. These are remnants of their land-living ancestors' legs. Many whales also have undeveloped, unused, pelvis bones in the anterior part of their torsos.

Lie #2. The whale's pevis is used in reproduction and has nothing to do with walking. Haven't you studied biology lately?

An example of the dispute is the gas bladder of many fish, which is thought to be a vestigial lung, "left over" from the occasionally-air-gasping common ancestor of ray-finned fish and land vertebrates.

The gas bladder is still being used by the fish today for floatation in the water. I really don't see how it's vestigal. Can you fill me in without saying, "Well, it looks as if it might have been..." in your statement. Speculation on what might have happened does not prove evolution, only hard facts, which evolutionism doesn't have.

It makes me laugh to see the people saying, "With this animation you can clearly see..." and "If you picture the changes..." and "If it happened this way..." It's based on imagination.

[vtmarik]

Obviously the author is ignorant, or he's lying. You can live without your appendix: no question. But just because you can live without it doesn't mean you don't need it. If your appendix is removed then you'll be susceptible to all kinds of diseases. The appendix is part of the immune system and has many functions in keeping your body healthy from harmful viruses.

Yes, but those aren't main functions. If you can live without something, that's means that it isn't necessary for survival.

The appendix produces the necessary antibodies IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders in the bloodstream.

According to Science News (March 20, 1971), the appendix also plays a large part in protecting from Hodgkin's Disease.

When the appendix is infected it is vital to remove it, but this gives no evidence as a vestigial organ in any degree. You can live without both your arms and both your legs. Does that mean you don't need them?

For survival? No. If you can survive without your limbs, then you don't need them. There are paraplegics who live complete lives without their legs/arms.

So as I said before, the author is either ignorant, or he's lying. Vtmarik, don't use this argument again, please.

No, the author is a scientist who is speaking from both experience and by referencing the work of other scientists. I wouldn't expect you to understand, since in your field there is only one Authority.

Lie #2. The whale's pevis is used in reproduction and has nothing to do with walking. Haven't you studied biology lately?

And the vestigal leg? Did you forget about that?

The whale's pelvis is used for reproduction? Where'd you read that?

The gas bladder is still being used by the fish today for floatation in the water. I really don't see how it's vestigal. Can you fill me in without saying, "Well, it looks as if it might have been..." in your statement. Speculation on what might have happened does not prove evolution, only hard facts, which evolutionism doesn't have.

Yes, that it is. But that doesn't mean that the gas bladder was designed to do that. Just because an organ is still useful in some way doesn't make it non-vestigal. When a species evolves, it only discards the organs/parts that are hindering. A cavefish is completely blind, yet it still has eyes.

The term 'vestigal' in evolution science refers to the fact that an organ no longer serves as what it was originally designed to do.

Ostriches have wings, yet they do not fly. They might use the wings for other purposes, but they are useless for flight. An ostrich's wings are vestigal organs.

Speculation based on evidence is what science is.

If you throw an apple in the air, it will fall to the ground. That's fact, but scientists don't know why that occurs.

Try to think outside of the box next time Truman, K?

It makes me laugh to see the people saying, "With this animation you can clearly see..." and "If you picture the changes..." and "If it happened this way..." It's based on imagination.

You remind me of myself whenever I get involved in an argument over the Bible.

[Truman]

Yes, but those aren't main functions. If you can live without something, that's means that it isn't necessary for survival.

You can also live without your nose, fingernails, one kidney, one arm, one ear, one eye, a toe, your tonsils, sense of smell, both hands, and many other parts of your body as well and survive. We don't need them at all but yet we have them. This is very flawed logic as you can see.

For survival? No. If you can survive without your limbs, then you don't need them. There are paraplegics who live complete lives without their legs/arms.

So I guess that concludes that we never needed them, huh?

Here's a thought. If a world police force arose and decided that their going to arrest everybody and kill them afterwards. But you have no arms! So they can't hand-cuff you! So you survive! For a while at least. What happens when the police decided not to do what they planned? You wouldn't get along too well in the normal population if you ask me.

No, the author is a scientist who is speaking from both experience and by referencing the work of other scientists. I wouldn't expect you to understand, since in your field there is only one Authority.

The author is agreeing that "...most scientists and physicians [including himself] believe that it has little or no function." The "scientist" is lying or is ignorant. He says the appendix isn't usefull at all. Even you said,

"...the human appendix, which currently has no purpose other than to get infected and get cut out."

Why do you ignore what you just said? Please don't get me wrong, but when you say the appendix has "no purpose" it sounds to me like you're saying the appendix has no purpose. Then you turn right around and disregard the fact that you ever said these words. Do I sense contradiction?

And the vestigal leg? Did you forget about that?

I thought I wouldn't have to comment on it since it's so simple. These "hind legs" are only found in the Right Whale, and if you look closer they turn out to merely be strengthening bones to the genital wall. How is this vestigial?

The whale's pelvis is used for reproduction? Where'd you read that?

Umm, modern biology? Even wikipedia admits it.

Yes, that it is. But that doesn't mean that the gas bladder was designed to do that. Just because an organ is still useful in some way doesn't make it non-vestigal. When a species evolves, it only discards the organs/parts that are hindering. A cavefish is completely blind, yet it still has eyes.

The term 'vestigal' in evolution science refers to the fact that an organ no longer serves as what it was originally designed to do.

So you're saying that Haekel's forged embryonic drawings are real? Many evolutionists claim that they've slowly adapted to a different use over time. If Haekel had never made those fake drawings, evolutionists would have never dreamed that embryo stage could possibly evidence for any evolution or proof they are vestigial.

If it's vestigial, you don't need it by definition. Saying that an organ or bone could do or did do something else long ago and far away is not science, nor does it support your ideas.

Ostriches have wings, yet they do not fly. They might use the wings for other purposes, but they are useless for flight. An ostrich's wings are vestigal organs.

You're assuming they are by saying that they could do something long ago and far away where no study can be conducted. If you want to believe or speculate that it could, that's fine. But you are going outside the realm of science to claim something can do what you say it can. The ostrich's wings do what they do.

They cannot be considered anything rather than what they do or else it's called "imagination." Considering that they were used for flying before is a nice idea, but you're leaving the realm of science when doing so. Just want to point that out.

[/qoute]Speculation based on evidence is what science is.

If you throw an apple in the air, it will fall to the ground. That's fact, but scientists don't know why that occurs.

Try to think outside of the box next time Truman, K?[/quote]

Science is systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. according to Webster's dictionary. Speculation is a variable in science, as you know, and should be as one. It should not dominate the study or observation, which is what evolution does especially whenever the vestigials topic arises.

[AndyDufresne]

**Rides the Carousel** Around...and around...and around...and...


--Andy

[vtmarik]

My friend, you are what the French call 'Les Incompetant.'

• My comment about the appendix is what authors call hyperbole.
• Your comment about the world police state is immaterial.
• My logic is not flawed. We don't need all four limbs to survive. We need both eyes to survive because of depth perception. We need the sense of smell to survive because without it we wouldn't be able to tell if there was a gas leak.
• The scientist never said that the appendix was functionless, merely that the original function (which scientists believe was to digest fiber) wasn't what the appendix was doing. There are no absolutes in science.
• What are you talking about with Haekel? How does he enter into this debate?
• If it's vestigal, that means that it's original main purpose has been shut off. It doesn't mean that the organ is useless.
• A bird's wings are designed for flight, yet the ostrich does not fly. That is where that argument comes from.
• Speculation is what people do when they don't have the data to form a conclusion. Then, scientists test their speculations and discover evidence that either supports or does not support their speculation. That is discovery.
• Unlike religion, science does not formulate a conclusion and then go trapsing off to find proof. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain the observable evidence of evolution. It is not the end-all-be-all proof or explanation. It is simply an attempt to explain the parallels between sets of observations and conclusions.

If one part of a theory is wrong, then just that one part is wrong. Vestigal organs may not be evidence of evolution, but that does not lead to the conclusion that the entire theory is bunk.

I mean, the fact that you can't reach heaven with a tower has been proven (since above the Earth is Outer Space) but that doesn't disprove the entire Bible now does it?

Truman, I'm done with you. This is a thread for discussion and answering confusions, I am not here to debate the soundness of the theory with you. You ask a question, I provide information, and you draw your own damn conclusions. This is not a soapbox for you to prove/disprove anything. Either stick to the spirit of the thread or get lost.

*takes a deep breath*


Anyone else with a confusion?

EDIT: In order to prove that I still had my sense of humor when I started this thread, guess what poll option I chose.

[2dimes]

Evolutionary contradictions al.

No intelligent designer would produce hendy and patroclus.

I'm trying to say they didn't evolve. That joke may not be working.

[Truman]

You ask a question, I provide information, and you draw your own damn conclusions.

Vtmarik I provided facts for what each organ was for in reality and all you had to say was that it used to be (long ago and far away) something else without scientific data to back it up.

This thread is about evolutionary contradictions according to the title. You said previously that you're going to answer the acclaimed contradictions lik I have been doing with the Bible. Now, when I show that your examples for vestigial are all bogus, you say,

"Vestigal organs may not be evidence of evolution..."

I sense something here. Is it just me?

[vtmarik]

I can see that this argument is completely pointless, since Truman here cannot grasp complexity and sees any chink in my argument as proof of it's incorrectness.

I'm not an expert, I refer you to some other experts. I've decided that I really don't have the patience to argue with you Truman. As a great man once said, "I just don't give a shit."

My dear Mr. Dufresne, could you do me the honor of closing this thread? I would be most appreciative as I have finally learned that I don't need to defend my beliefs against people like Truman here who has the incessant need to attack those that aren't like him in some kind of projection of his own insecurities about his beliefs.

*looks at Truman* I took psychology too buddy, I know the difference between a disagreement and a need to lash out.

Or wicked, or any moderator really.

[Truman]

I love this quote that gives a perfect example of how any evolutionist is close-minded:

"...I don't need to defend my beliefs against people like Truman here who has the incessant need to attack those that aren't like him in some kind of projection of his own insecurities about his beliefs."

I have not defended anything, but have simply shown your ideas of vestigial organs to be in error, and you are unwilling to accept it.

I have not mentioned one thing in all my replies that pertain to my religion in any way, but have debated using facts, logic, and statistics. Vtmarik does not wish to regard it as so because it comes from a Christian like me who knows more about it than he does. I'm sorry if I'm being offensive, but it's true. My God, a Christian fundimentalist dares to question the absolutely scientific and logical proven fact of evolution! He's a hypocrite! Burn him! BURN HIM! No repudible scientist in the world doesn't accept evolution!

.... And Issac Newton was a creationist, who wrote more papers on fundimentalism than on science.

[vtmarik]

I have not defended anything, but have simply shown your ideas of vestigial organs to be in error, and you are unwilling to accept it.

"Vestigal organs may not be evidence of evolution..."

Sounds like acceptance to me.

Don't come down on me because I'm not an expert on evolution. I'm not a scientist, I'm just more willing to follow the evidence. How dare you turn this into some kind of ad hominem nonsense Truman. I'm ashamed for letting myself fall to your level.

You asked a question, I posted the info, I never said that what I posted would be the intefatigable proof, I merely said that it would be information. I'm not here to convert anyone, merely to clear up misconceptions. I see now that my endeavor was pointless from the start.

The thread is dead.

[hendy]

you got thhat last 1 of the history of the f word on funny junk

[AndyDufresne]

I see no reason for the thread being closed. Once a thread is started, it is Community Property, and if there are no violations, it remains open. It would be a little selfish to just close the thread. Anyone can feel free to delete their own posts though.


--Andy

[maniacmath17]

Hey Truman, what's your response to the cavefish which has eyes even though it's completely blind? I understand that arms and legs may not be necessary to live, but they do have a function.

This fish on the other hand happens to have eyes that serve absolutely no function to the fish. Just curious as to your explanation.

[jay_a2j]

Hey Truman, what's your response to the cavefish which has eyes even though it's completely blind? I understand that arms and legs may not be necessary to live, but they do have a function.

This fish on the other hand happens to have eyes that serve absolutely no function to the fish. Just curious as to your explanation.

The cavefish used to have sight until they migrated into underwater caves. No longer using their eyesight because the caves were pitch black, they ceased to function. This is not evolution. Its adaptation.

[maniacmath17]

First of all, there is no record of cavefish ever having lived in other places besides underwater caves. So please don't make things up and then post them, thanks.

There is the possibility of a somewhat similar species that found its way down to these caves and adapted to the new environment, but that would go against your beliefs since the species would have had to go through changes to create the new characteristics (such as its unusually light skin) of the species which we now know as cavefish.

If I remember correctly, creationists believe species are the same today as they were when they were created, with no changes in characteristics.

Oh, and by the way:

adaptation - any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment.

Are you saying you believe in natural selection but not adaptation?

[heavycola]

but you're leaving the realm of science when doing so

dear god, the irony.

I love this quote that gives a perfect example of how any evolutionist is close-minded:

OK. :deep breath:

Calling people evolutionists makes as much sense as calling them gravityists. If the theory if evolution were ever to be superceded, then rational people would be able to accept a new paradigm. Unlike you.
The reason your beliefs get an 'ism' is because, as vtmarik pointed out, they involve shoehorning spurious evidence into a worldview based on one unassailable assumption - that every word in a very old collection of books is 100% true - while ignoring the mountain of evidence that screams the opposite in your faces. Creationism as a theory was superceded by evolution a long time ago, and people moved on. Except you lot. Carry on clinging to these ideas in the face of all available evidence and ridicule from every serious scientist on the planet - no one cares but you.

You are the ones tied to a belief. That is closed-mindedness.

[TheMisterSnake]

Only country in the western world debating if evolution is true is... United States of America. We euro-trash don't need such debates. If you want to see why ID is total bullshit go look up Ken Miller on youtube.

[Truman]

Creationism as a theory was superceded by evolution a long time ago, and people moved on. Except you lot. Carry on clinging to these ideas in the face of all available evidence and ridicule from every serious scientist on the planet - no one cares but you.

Wow.

Let's have a study lesson of what the evolutionists say themselves instead of dogmatic followers of it like you.

First, let's try Charles Darwin himself. What did he have to say about it? In his book he mentioned:

"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without in some degree becoming staggered..." (1)

He also said in a letter:

"...Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy." (2)

Do you know who Thomas Huxley is? Of course you do: you believe evolution so you'd have to know! Darwin's bulldog and all that crap. Whatever. Supported evolution with all his might. Did so much to try to support evolution theory. Here's a quote he made about creation:

"'Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori
arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation." (3)

Sir Arthur Keith. Big supporter of evolution and biggest one in England at his time. Here's what he says about it:

"A Belief in Evolution is a basal doctrine in the Rationalists Liturgy." (4)

A doctrine in liturgy? I think he nailed it right on there.

As we go forward into time we find renoun evolutionary astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle who said,

"...Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 10 to the 50th power blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." (5)

Of course you've also heard the infamous statement about the Boeing 747:

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged (through evolutionary processes) is comparable with the chance that a 'tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.'" (6)

There's Stephen Jay Gould who came a bit later who said about creation being taught in school:

"...No statute exists in any state to bar instruction in 'creation science.' It could be taught before and it can be taught now." (7)

Gould discredited evolutionism many times. He talked about fossils and the prediction Darwin made on how if his theory was correct, numerous transitional fossils would have been found. Gould said,

"One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (8 )

Gould also said,

"Increasing diversity and multiple transitions seem to reflect a determined and an inexorable progression toward higher things. But the paleontological record supports no such interpretation. There has been no steady progress in the higher development of organic design. We have had, instead, vast stretches of little or no change in one evolutionary burst that created the entire system." (9)

Evolutionist Louis Agassiz said about evolution,

"The theory is a scientific mistake." (10)

Ambrose Flemming, the President of the British Association for Advancement of Science said this:

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." (11)

Science Magazine declared:

"The reader...may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions." (12)

Famous evolutionist Robert Jastrow admitted,

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." (13)

I end this with a very informing quote by evolutionist James Gorman,

"Evolution...is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." (14)

I could go on all day long if I wanted to.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES:

(1) Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1958 Edition; p. 161

(2) Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887; Vol. 2, p. 229

(3) L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, 1903; Vol. 1, p. 241

(4) Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and its Critics, 1935; p. 53

(5) Sir Frederick Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," New Scientist, Nov. 19, 1981; p. 92

(6) Sir Frederick Hoyle, "Hoyle on Evolution," Nature, Nov. 12, 1981; Vol. 294, p. 105

(7) Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism," New York Times, July 19, 1987; p. 34

(8 ) Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, June-July, 1977; pp. 22 & 24

(9) Stephen Jay Gould, "The Five Kingdoms," Natural History, June-July, 1976; pp. 30 & 37

(10) Louis Agassiz, from H. Epoch, Evolution or Creation, 1986; p. 139

(11) Ambrose Flemming, from his speech The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought

(12) Science, January 22, 1965; p. 389

(13) Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, 1981; p. 19

(14) James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980; p. 88

[heavycola]

you really are not as clever as you think you are.

a) Darwinism is not the same as evolution. Our understanding of the subject has advanced hugely since his book was published.
b) Stephen Jay Gould is a famously outspoken critic of creationism. His arguments have been about how evolution works, not the idea itself. This is a good example of cherrypicking.
c) I am not a dogmatic follower of anything - and the massive fucking irony of a fundamentalist christian accusing someone of that is stunning. I don't care about evolution per se. Show me a better theory with more supporting evidence and i will glady change my opinions. Theories, by the way, are partly arrived at by using them to predict patterns, behaviour, etc correctly. Name me one prediction that creationism makes about the natural world that is not immediately falsifiable.
d) Darwin's ideas were heretical. He was scared. But taking quotes from the guy who came up with the idea as evidence against it is ridiculous.

Jesus your posts are annoying. Please try and use less smug smilies - your posts don't warrant smugness.

[Truman]

Name me one prediction that creationism makes about the natural world that is not immediately falsifiable.

What exactly do you mean by "prediction"? Do you mean:

"a prediction based on what happens on earth normally (weather patterns, erosion rates, etc.),"

"a prediction concerning earth features that are already formed,"

or "a prediction of circumstance, like cause and effect occurences."

I need you to define your definition before I write anything.

[heavycola]

Obviously anything yet to take place cannot be verified, so how's about a prediction made in the past by creationist theories that has been verified and which at the same time hurt the case for evolution?

But you're sidestepping my point. You keep accusing the 'evolutionists' of being closed-minded - but like i said, calling someone an evolutionist is like calling them a gravityist, or a round-earthist. You lot are wedded to a belief based on a single, unprovable assumption, which makes you dogmatic and closed-minded.

One more thing: I was reading today about flat earthists - these are fundamental chrtistians (with the emphasis on mental) who believe the 'four corners' quote in the bible is literal, and that therefore the earth must have four corners. What is your take on that?

[Truman]

Obviously anything yet to take place cannot be verified, so how's about a prediction made in the past by creationist theories that has been verified and which at the same time hurt the case for evolution?

And at the same time hurt the case for evolution? Ok, now we're getting specific.

Evolutionism proposes that man didn't know much about science back when the Bible was written; so any prediction from the Bible woudl hurt evolution, proving man did know a lot about things back then from God.

There are many predictions about the earth in the book of Job, which is probably the oldest book in the Bible. Job 38:19 says,

"Where is the way where light dwelleth? And as for darkness, where is the place thereof?"

Light goes in a way: it travels. Darkness doesn't move.

Here's another one from Job 38:24,

"By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?"

Now wait, the light causes the wind? Sure does. Ask any weather man and he'll tell you the sun causes the ground to warm up and causes the air to warm up, which in turn causes it to expand which causes the wind. Interesting, isn't it? God said that 4,000 years ago.

Verse 35 of the same chapter says,

"Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?"

Wait a minute, is God telling Job electriciy can be used to send a message? Sure is. That's how radios, televisions, and telephones send messages; they send "lightnings" (electricity) through cable wire that can say words to another.

Tell me, why is Job 38:16 in the Bible? It was written about 4,000 years ago, so why does it say,

"Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?"

How come it says this in Job when springs in the sea weren't discovered until 1977? You'll say, "You can interpret scriptures any way you want to make it sound like it says something it doesn't." But this is not one of those scriptures, is it? It flat out says, "springs in the sea" and there's no getting around this fact.

Just this one book of the Bible predicts all kinds of scientific facts. There are many other instances too, including the hydrologic cycle desribed in Ecclesiastes 1:7 and Isaiah 55:10. Evaporation is talked about in Psalms 135:7 and Jeremiah 10:13.

Condensation nuclei is mentioned about in Proverbs 8:26. Isaiah 40:22 talks of how the earth is round and how the atmosphere of the earth is protective.

I could go on and on about how the Bible is correct concerning science. The Bible talks about evolutionary thinking being false where it talks about uniformitarianism in 2 Peter 3:4. The next verse after it describes how people in the coming days will reject the flood and believe the earth is very old, according to evolutionism. It seems to have worked on you.

But you're sidestepping my point. You keep accusing the 'evolutionists' of being closed-minded - but like i said, calling someone an evolutionist is like calling them a gravityist, or a round-earthist. You lot are wedded to a belief based on a single, unprovable assumption, which makes you dogmatic and closed-minded.

Calling someone an evolutionist is perfectly fine when you consider it to be a full-fledged religion. A religion requires worshipping a supernatural being. Evolutionists believe that long ago and far away the big bang created the universe. There is no evidence for it though (see my long explanation for some of the supposed evidences for the big bang theory on page 59 of "Logic Dictates there is a God!"). Natural processes created everything, and is therefore your god. Sorry if you can't handle that fact.

My belief has much evidence for your information, but you're so close-minded you never look it up. I could list some here, now, but this is getting to be a pretty long reply, and I know how you're afraid of long replies...by me at least.

One more thing: I was reading today about flat earthists - these are fundamental chrtistians (with the emphasis on mental) who believe the 'four corners' quote in the bible is literal, and that therefore the earth must have four corners. What is your take on that?

The "four corners of the earth" to me soudns simple. It talks about the compass directions according to the magnetic field in the earth's core. But that's my interpretation. It could just be a metaphore for God creating the earth, since the term "four corners of the earth" is only used when talking about the creation.

But Columbus isn't rolling over in his grave, because for one, he isn't in a grave, and he's in a small space:

EDIT: That's the real box Columbus' remains are in.

[Pilate]

Ok, here's one.

Evolutionism claims that vestigals prove evolution.

Well for one, they don't prove anything since none exist, and plus, why would losing something propose that evolution could have happened anyway? "Yes boys and girls, we slowly lost everything and that's how we got it all."

So, my contradiction is, evolutionists propose that there are such things as vestigal structures in any living organism proves evolution, when there have been none shown.

By the way, I don't know why men have nipples, but that doesn't prove they're vestigal. We probably just haven't figured out what they're for and in later years probably will. Just wanted to get that through.

Vestigal Structures. First proposed by an anonymous author in 1844.

In evolution, an organ is considered vestigal when it's main function is shut off by evolution.

Vestigial structures are often homologous to structures that are functioning normally in other species. Therefore, vestigial structures can be considered evidence for evolution, the process by which beneficial heritable traits arise in population over an extended period of time. The existence of vestigial organs can be attributed to changes in the environment and behavior patterns of the organism in question. As the function of the structure is no longer beneficial for survival, the likelihood that future offspring will inherit the "normal" form of the structure decreases.

The vestigial versions of the structure can be compared to the original version of the structure in other species in order to determine the homology of a vestigial structure. Homologous structures indicate common ancestry with those organisms that have a functional version of the structure.

While they alone do not prove evolution, they add weight to the theory.

The best example of a vestigal structure is the human appendix, which currently has no purpose other than to get infected and get cut out.

The vermiform appendix is a vestige of the cecum, an organ that was used to digest cellulose by humans' herbivorous ancestors. Analogous organs in other animals similar to humans continue to perform that function, whereas other meat-eating animals may have similarly diminished appendices. The modern functionality of the appendix is still controversial in the field of human physiology, although most scientists and physicians believe that it has little or no function.

They also exist in other species:

In whales and other cetaceans, one can find small vestigial leg bones deeply buried within the back of the body. These are remnants of their land-living ancestors' legs. Many whales also have undeveloped, unused, pelvis bones in the anterior part of their torsos.

The controversy over Vestigal Structures:

Controversy

Because vestigial organs are used as supporting evidence for evolution, some creationists oppose the validity of the idea. They question whether these organs are actually useless, since they believe that God gave each organism its organs for a specific reason and use.

Those who question the existence of vestigial organs usually claim a different definition for vestigial, giving a strict interpretation that an organ must be utterly useless to qualify.[13] This is a definition often used in dictionaries[14] and children's encyclopedias.[15] Biology textbooks[16][17] and scientific encyclopedias[1] usually describe an organ as vestigial if it does not serve the same function in the modern animal as the cognate organ served in an ancestor, even if the modern organ serves a completely different use (preadaptation).

Those who consider the true meaning of vestigial to be "completely without use" tend to claim that the meaning has been changed over time as structures thought to be vestigial were found to have other uses.[18] However, documentation indicates that from the theory's beginnings in the 19th century, vestigial structures have invariably been understood to "sometimes retain their potentiality"[19], becoming either "wholly or in part functionless".[20] It was thought that "not infrequently the degenerating organ can be turned to account in some other way".[21]

An example of the dispute is the gas bladder of many fish, which is thought to be a vestigial lung, "left over" from the occasionally-air-gasping common ancestor of ray-finned fish and land vertebrates.

Source: Wikipedia. (August 2006). Vestigal structure. Retrieved September 2, 2006 from Wikipedia Web Site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigal_organs

Further Reading: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#vestiges

truman's argument is silly. Vestigal argument's do more harm to creationist theory. Why would god design functionless organs? Basically, even if an organ has absolutely NO USE at all, apologists will simply use the standard "I can't explain it, but there has to be a function just because that's how god works"