- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 17 2010,04:21) There are actually is no debate when I tell you the appendix has a purpose, you call it vestigial, I prove that it has a purpose and then you say you disregard the evidence.
This exchange demonstrates that you have little interest in learning, and that you are therefore hypocritical in seeking to teach others.Why? In our earlier exchange on the meaning of 'vestigial' we discussed the fact that the word means a structure that may or may not have a function, but if it does, that function is different from its function in the past.
The appendix is such a structure: it has a very weak function in the immune system, one that is easily assumed by alternative mechanisms, and when removed there are no ill effects, no matter how young the appendectomy patient. You also cited a paper in which some authors claimed that the appendix stores microfauna in the event of gut bacteria being killed. Again, this is not an essential function: it is pretty easy to repopulate your gut with appropriate bacteria by eating yoghurt. The function of the appendix was different in our distant ancestors, that of holding essential cellulose-digesting bacteria. The modern functions are different, so the appendix qualifies as a vestigial structure.
Or, in the words of a replier to you at RD.net:
Again, you are repeating a line of reasoning …that was completely demolished. I'll not go through all of it again. Get an education you poor fool.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 16 2010,23:08) You just proved my point if injury to the coccyx bone makes sitting uncomfortable then it stands to reason that the comfort a person experiences when they sit is in part based on having a coccyx not to mention as I said before it has important muscles attached to it. As stu pointed out in an earlier post, just because the coccyx has a function, it does not mean it is not vestigial. It was a tail at one time and no longer serves that function. So I admit an earlier error when I said it was useless.
IOW, if the coccyx of humans is part of the creation of man, it should not have unexpected components. From http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/vestigial.htm
(1) The coccyx is made up of small, separate bones, apparently an extension of the vertebral column. These fuse during development to form a single piece. The hypothesis does not predict this: to 'serve as a point of attachment for ligaments and several important muscles', it need not be small separate-then-fused pieces. One has to wonder why it is not a single bone to start with.
(2) The small, separate-then-fused bones of the coccyx bear an unanticipated similarity in shape to the tail-bones of creatures with tails, especially to creatures with very small tails, such as hamsters, guinea pigs and mandrills. This does not mean that it is a result of evolution; we're setting that aside for now. It is simply something the designed-as-it-is hypothesis does not predict, and something that is not required for the coccyx to perform its function. Why should a muscle-support structure resemble a tail?
(3) The human coccyx often, though not always, has another muscle attached to it, the extensor coccygis. As Gray’s Anatomy puts it: “The Extensor coccygis is a slender muscular fasciculus, which is not always present; it extends over the lower part of the posterior surface of the sacrum and coccyx. It arises by tendinous fibers from the last segment of the sacrum, or first piece of the coccyx, and passes downward to be inserted into the lower part of the coccyx. ” This muscle would, if it contracted, flex the coccyx. Unfortunately for the muscle, the coccyx is a fused single piece, and so it cannot do that. This is another feature of the coccyx that the hypothesis does not predict. (I'll note in passing that in animals that do have tails, the equivalent muscle to the human extensor coccygis has an obvious function.)
(4) It seems from genetic research that the same genes that form the tails of mice are also responsible for the formation of the human coccyx. Again, there is no reason, from the designed-as-it-is hypothesis, why this should be. We know from experiments that genes are often interchangeable even between radically different organisms (eg mice and chicks, mammals and insects). On the other hand, the necessary muscle-attachment structure might reasonably be formed as part of the pelvis, and / or as a single bone, and be shaped by the genes that do that elsewhere. It is odd at the least that tail-making genes should be responsible for something designed to “serve as a point of attachment for ligaments and several important muscles”.
(5) Human embryos at around 28 days clearly have tails. This structure is later reabsorbed by apoptosis (programmed cell death). It is made, only to be mostly destroyed. The made-as-it-is hypothesis does not predict this.
(6) Furthermore, there is a separate mechanism controlling the embryonic tail's apoptosis, so that the occasional human born with a tail isn't like that because of the reactivation of old genes, but rather because the genes to remove it have malfunctioned. The x-ray below shows that such 'tails' really are tails, complete with internal vertebrae.
Quote No diversion at all, what would be the mechanism to acquiring taste buds? Do you say that at one point there were no taste buds and then they evolved? If so, Why? It is impossible to determine if taste buds were never present, but they do fit the mode of natural selection. The ability to detect bitterness in foods was advantageous as it would reveal poisonous and rancid foods to ancient species. This, in conjunction with the sense of smell, would promote survival. Without taste buds, ancient species would not know what would be safe to eat.
Quote I'm not insulting you at all, you severely lack knowledge in many things you bring up so telling you that your ignorant is suggesting that you really apply knowledge to what you say before you say it. Some of the things I am telling you are easily observeable and common sense. Enjoyment of different tastes is a side effect of taste buds. Ancient species did not have an abundance of food as we do in modern societies, so their taste buds were only there to determine what might be safe to consume.
Take plain white rice as an example. Not many people desire to eat plain white rice as it is pretty much bland and tasteless. But give a bowl of rice to a starving child and it means survival. Give that same child a bowl of unprocessed acorns and the child will likely not eat it because the bitter taste would indicate to them that the food was not good for consumption.
Quote Kejonn, I want you to really, I mean really pay attention: You have no idea what you are talking about and “survival” has nothing to do with an “evolutionary model” and most people like yourself do not understand that the idea of survival having anything to do with the theory of evolution is absolute ignorance and misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution even is. The idea of evolution rests on the idea of BIOLOGICAL FITNESS/VIABILITY, Period! simply “what will live does” It has no intent or mode of direction. Once you understand that you will stop saying things that prove to me you don't understand what you are saying.
Is biological fitness/viability not also survival? Why yes it is! So you can call me ignorant all you want but you just proved me to be dead on correct.
Quote So, according to the theory a tree doesn't develop fruit so it could be eaten or we don't lose our “tails” because we don't need them…etc. The fruit of a tree contains seeds. These seeds develop into new trees. That some fruit is good for consumption is a side effect and does nothing for actual survival of the tree.
And while the coccyx might still serve some function, as shown earlier in this post, it has many features that are unexpected if it was designed solely for the functions you propose. Why is that?
Quote That is all junk science for those who misunderstand the actual theory is organisms mutate and “if it survives” having
that mutation that trait will continue” The term “Natural Selection” is also a weasel term with no inherent meaning because according to the theory Nature doesn't actually select anything and is not doing anything and once again the actual process according to the theory is living organisms growing, reproducing and dying are changing biologically for no reason and whatever lives and reproduces will change and biologically for no reason.Not junk science at all. Mutations occur and those which lend to the continued survival of a species will be passed on. Those that do not will also be passed on, but if they are detrimental to the species, then the species will either not survive or all those with the bad trait will not.
Quote You see the effects of any external stimuli would not be relevant to a large extent in single lifetimes and it is only local social evolution that determines a change in behaviour and that combined with the fauna and flora cause diversity across a species but does not “create” species. Hence we have genetic boundaries in cross speciation these are the real facts. We are talking millions of years, BD, not single generations. You think in the realm of a 6000 year old earth so it is difficult for you to fathom what can take place of the span of millions of years of evolution.
Quote Evolution does not account for desire and in-fact it cannot account for desire. The theory of evolution does not address in anyway instinct or intuition it does not unleash a sex drive to assure the continuity of a species all of that is not what evolution theory is even about but you accepted it to be such from your lack of study. Desire is indeed beneficial to survival. Would you want to have sex with your wife if there was no enjoyment in it? Without desire, you would never get an erection and your wife would never self-lubricate, so sex would not even be possible.
It really is common sense.
Quote Another example of you not knowing what evolution is, if it was did this enjoyment of food and sex evolve or was it always there? If it wasn't always there why would it be developed if the goal of viability was already met? You forget that we evolved from single-celled organisms. Not all at once, mind you, but it was a process that took millions — if not billions — of years. You are thinking in the realm of thousands of years. So the development of things such as taste buds would be beneficial, as I have already pointed out. If a food was not bitter, then it was supposedly good (not always).
Quote Eating is not a voluntary act if you don't do it you will die and if you are hungry enough taste is not an issue. God gave us JOY and KINDNESS and you remain ever ungrateful. Breathing is involuntary. Eating requires action, so it is totally voluntary. Try holding your breath until you pass out. Once you do, you will start breathing again.
Now, try not eating food until you are at the point of starvation. You can still starve if you do not take food and eat it. It is voluntary.
Quote You don't think what I am saying makes sense? The most intelligent species is born one of the weakest, most dependent, no permanent coat for weather, no housing and no common language. We create languages, We create homes, We create garments for different climate conditions this is not a fluke my dear friend it is the truth made manifest. What does this have to do with not having fur but retaining the mechanism to raise the fur?
Quote What does shivering do?
Unrelated.Kejonn, I read somewhere that you used to pray, or believe,
what happened to make you stop believing?Quote (karmarie @ Feb. 17 2010,16:55) Kejonn, I read somewhere that you used to pray, or believe,
what happened to make you stop believing?
I studied the Bible without Christian bias.Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 18 2010,13:57) Quote (karmarie @ Feb. 17 2010,16:55) Kejonn, I read somewhere that you used to pray, or believe,
what happened to make you stop believing?
I studied the Bible without Christian bias.
Sorry I dont get youCan you explain more?
Quote (karmarie @ Feb. 18 2010,01:06) Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 18 2010,13:57) Quote (karmarie @ Feb. 17 2010,16:55) Kejonn, I read somewhere that you used to pray, or believe,
what happened to make you stop believing?
I studied the Bible without Christian bias.
Sorry I dont get youCan you explain more?
Its a longer story than just that. Here's the Reader's Digest version:* I was once an evangelical Christian (20 years) who believed in the Trinity. Never really studied it, just took the belief for granted. It was easy when you live in an area of the world where almost everyone else around you believes the same thing and also does not take the time to question it.
* I debated an atheist on another board. While I was able to “hold my own” and get her to concede some points, I found that I did not have a strong knowledge of some of the things I said I believed, the Trinity being one of them.
* I started studying the bible to learn more about the beliefs I had as an evangelical Christian. After I studied for some time, I believed that there was no good biblical evidence of the Trinity. My history here shows my various debates on the matter.
* Although I did not believe in the Trinity, I still did not know what to believe about the preexistence of Jesus. So I studied that, paying much attention to the Old Testament to try to find Jesus there. After study, I also found there was no solid biblical evidence for Jesus existing prior to his earthly ministry.
* After this, I began to wonder why Jews did not accept Jesus as their promised Messiah. I looked into the various prophecies concerning the Messiah and determined that Jesus did indeed fail to meet 99% of them. At this point, Christianity could no longer be a viable faith for me as much of what I had believed had turned out to be false.
* I wanted to hold onto belief in the God of Abraham so I began searching for something I could justify. However, after study of the Old Testament, I no longer could. What I saw there horrified me, a god who could be so cruel yet call it love. A god who supposedly killed people for not worshiping him properly or worshiping other gods.
* I began to even question if this god could be real. There is no evidence that he exists in the modern world, and I came to the conclusion that he was simply a creation of ancient Semitic people.
* Still, I wanted to believe there was some god out there, some creator. I began looking into other revealed religions, and none of them made sense. They were all man-made in my opinion — all of them reflected a human mindset while trying to appear to be something more. The closest I found to one that made any sense was the original Zoroastrianism found in the Gathas of Zarathushtra. The Gathas did not show a wrathful god or one who gave mankind a list of dos and don'ts to live by to make it to heaven. It worked on a simple concept of three principles: good thoughts, words, and deeds.
* In the end, I realized that the concept of gods arose out of two factors: fear of death and unexplained phenomena in the universe. Most people simply cannot accept that this life is all there is and they wish to be able to live forever. That is one reason that vampires are all the craze again, its just another concept of immortality. And the “god of the gaps” is becoming less and less necessary as we make more discoveries about how things actually work.At best, I am a deist, one who believes there might be a creator but s/he is uninvolved. Otherwise, I am simply an agnostic atheist. I am open to some revelation of a god — or gods — but none have been forthcoming.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2010,18:15) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 17 2010,04:21) There are actually is no debate when I tell you the appendix has a purpose, you call it vestigial, I prove that it has a purpose and then you say you disregard the evidence.
This exchange demonstrates that you have little interest in learning, and that you are therefore hypocritical in seeking to teach others.Why? In our earlier exchange on the meaning of 'vestigial' we discussed the fact that the word means a structure that may or may not have a function, but if it does, that function is different from its function in the past.
The appendix is such a structure: it has a very weak function in the immune system, one that is easily assumed by alternative mechanisms, and when removed there are no ill effects, no matter how young the appendectomy patient. You also cited a paper in which some authors claimed that the appendix stores microfauna in the event of gut bacteria being killed. Again, this is not an essential function: it is pretty easy to repopulate your gut with appropriate bacteria by eating yoghurt. The function of the appendix was different in our distant ancestors, that of holding essential cellulose-digesting bacteria. The modern functions are different, so the appendix qualifies as a vestigial structure.
Or, in the words of a replier to you at RD.net:
Again, you are repeating a line of reasoning …that was completely demolished. I'll not go through all of it again. Get an education you poor fool.
Stuart
Quote and when removed there are no ill effects Once again an ignorant and irresponsible statement. How in the world could you possibly know what effects everyone has or has not had. Some effects are very noticeable but not attributed the removal of the appendix. One such effect is the lack of energy/lethargy.
I guarantee that you do not have the same energy level that you had before you took your appendix out but actually your body was constantly fighting infection so you were already having problems seen or unseen. Who knows what types of infection are now looming inside you.
Quote In our earlier exchange on the meaning of 'vestigial' we discussed the fact that the word means a structure that may or may not have a function, but if it does, that function is different from its function in the past. The function has always been the same in the appendix so you are still wrong about it being vestigial there is nothing vestigial in the Human Body. Just like Kejonn tried to say about wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth are not a problem for everyone and often they are a great benefit.
I have my wisdom teeth and when two other molars went Bad My wisdom teeth helped anchor my teeth to fit perfectly in my mouth.
Quote The function of the appendix was different in our distant ancestors, that of holding essential cellulose-digesting bacteria. The modern functions are different, so the appendix qualifies as a vestigial structure. Speculation and conjecture, I have already told you what kind of bacteria it holds, it did not change so you are wrong.
I will say though that your dedication to memorizing outdated information from old text books is admirable but you should have kept up your studies and actually “learned” your ignorance on some things is downright alarming.
Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 18 2010,00:55) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 16 2010,23:08) You just proved my point if injury to the coccyx bone makes sitting uncomfortable then it stands to reason that the comfort a person experiences when they sit is in part based on having a coccyx not to mention as I said before it has important muscles attached to it. As stu pointed out in an earlier post, just because the coccyx has a function, it does not mean it is not vestigial. It was a tail at one time and no longer serves that function. So I admit an earlier error when I said it was useless.
IOW, if the coccyx of humans is part of the creation of man, it should not have unexpected components. From http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/vestigial.htm
(1) The coccyx is made up of small, separate bones, apparently an extension of the vertebral column. These fuse during development to form a single piece. The hypothesis does not predict this: to 'serve as a point of attachment for ligaments and several important muscles', it need not be small separate-then-fused pieces. One has to wonder why it is not a single bone to start with.
(2) The small, separate-then-fused bones of the coccyx bear an unanticipated similarity in shape to the tail-bones of creatures with tails, especially to creatures with very small tails, such as hamsters, guinea pigs and mandrills. This does not mean that it is a result of evolution; we're setting that aside for now. It is simply something the designed-as-it-is hypothesis does not predict, and something that is not required for the coccyx to perform its function. Why should a muscle-support structure resemble a tail?
(3) The human coccyx often, though not always, has another muscle attached to it, the extensor coccygis. As Gray’s Anatomy puts it: “The Extensor coccygis is a slender muscular fasciculus, which is not always present; it extends over the lower part of the posterior surface of the sacrum and coccyx. It arises by tendinous fibers from the last segment of the sacrum, or first piece of the coccyx, and passes downward to be inserted into the lower part of the coccyx. ” This muscle would, if it contracted, flex the coccyx. Unfortunately for the muscle, the coccyx is a fused single piece, and so it cannot do that. This is another feature of the coccyx that the hypothesis does not predict. (I'll note in passing that in animals that do have tails, the equivalent muscle to the human extensor coccygis has an obvious function.)
(4) It seems from genetic research that the same genes that form the tails of mice are also responsible for the formation of the human coccyx. Again, there is no reason, from the designed-as-it-is hypothesis, why this should be. We know from experiments that genes are often interchangeable even between radically different organisms (eg mice and chicks, mammals and insects). On the other hand, the necessary muscle-attachment structure might reasonably be formed as part of the pelvis, and / or as a single bone, and be shaped by the genes that do that elsewhere. It is odd at the least that tail-making genes should be responsible for something designed to “serve as a point of attachment for ligaments and several important muscles”.
(5) Human embryos at around 28 days clearly have tails. This structure is later reabsorbed by apoptosis (programmed cell death). It is made, only to be mostly destroyed. The made-as-it-is hypothesis does not predict this.
(6) Furthermore, there is a separate mechanism controlling the embryonic tail's apoptosis, so that the occasional human born with a tail isn't like that because of the reactivation of old genes, but rather because the genes to remove it have malfunctioned. The x-ray below shows that such 'tails' really are tails, complete with internal vertebrae.
Quote No diversion at all, what would be the mechanism to acquiring taste buds? Do you say that at one point there were no taste buds and then they evolved? If so, Why? It is impossible to determine if taste buds were never present, but they do fit the mode of natural selection. The ability to detect bitterness in foods was advantageous as it would reveal poisonous and rancid foods to ancient species. This, in conjunction with the sense of smell, would promote survival. Without taste buds, ancient species would not know what would be safe to eat.
Quote I'm not insulting you at all, you severely lack knowledge in many things you bring up so telling you that your ignorant is suggesting that you really apply knowledge to what you say before you say it. Some of the things I am telling you are easily observeable and common sense. Enjoyment of different tastes is a side effect of taste buds. Ancient species did not have an abundance of food as we do in modern societies, so their taste buds were only there to determine what might be safe to consume.
Take plain white rice as an example. Not many people desire to eat plain white rice as it is pretty much bland and tasteless. But give a bowl of rice to a starving child and it means survival. Give that same child a bowl of unprocessed acorns and the child will likely not eat it because the bitter taste would indicate to them that the food was not good for consumption.
Quote Kejonn, I want you to really, I mean really pay attention: You have no idea what you are talking about and “survival” has nothing to do with an “evolutionary model” and most people like yourself do not understand that the idea of survival having anything to do with the theory of evolution is absolute ignorance and misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution even is. The idea of evolution rests on the idea of BIOLOGICAL FITNESS/VIABILITY, Period! simply “what will live does” It has no intent or mode of direction. Once you understand that you will stop saying things that prove to me you don't understand what you are saying.
Is biological fitness/viability not also survival? Why yes it is! So you can call me ignorant all you want but you just proved me to be dead on correct.
Quote So, according to the theory a tree doesn't develop fruit so it could be eaten or we don't lose our “tails” because we don't need them…etc. The fruit of a tree contains seeds. These seeds develop into new trees. That some fruit is good for consumption is a side effect and does nothing for actual survival of the tree.
And while the coccyx might still serve some function, as shown earlier in this post, it has many features that are unexpected if it was designed solely for the functions you propose. Why is that?
Quote That is all junk science for those who misunderstand the actual theory is organisms mutate and “if it survives” having that mutation that trait will continue” The term “Natural Selection” is also a weasel term with no inherent meaning because according to the theory Nature doesn't actually select anything and is not doing anything and once again the actual process according to the theory is living organisms growing, reproducing and dying are changing biologically for no reason and whatever lives and reproduces will change and biologically for no reason. Not junk science at all. Mutations occur and those which lend to the continued survival of a species will be passed on. Those that do not will also be passed on, but if they are detrimental to the species, then the species will either not survive or all those with the bad trait will not.
Quote You see the effects of any external stimuli would not be relevant to a large extent in single lifetimes and it is only local social evolution that determines a change in behaviour and that combined with the fauna and flora cause diversity across a species but does not “create” species. Hence we have genetic boundaries in cross speciation these are the real facts. We are talking millions of years, BD, not single generations. You think in the realm of a 6000 year old earth so it is difficult for you to fathom what can take place of the span of millions of years of evolution.
Quote Evolution does not account for desire and in-fact it cannot account for desire. The theory of evolution does not address in anyway instinct or intuition it does not unleash a sex drive to assure the continuity of a species all of that is not what evolution theory is even about but you accepted it to be such from your lack of study. Desire is indeed beneficial to survival. Would you want to have sex with your wife if there was no enjoyment in it? Without desire, you would never get an erection and your wife would never self-lubricate, so sex would not even be possible.
It really is common sense.
Quote Another example of you not knowing what evolution is, if it was did this enjoyment of food and sex evolve or was it always there? If it wasn't always there why would it be developed if the goal of viability was already met? You forget that we evolved from single-celled organisms. Not all at once, mind you, but it was a process that took millions — if not billions — of years. You are thinking in the realm of thousands of years. So the development of things such as taste buds would be beneficial, as I have already pointed out. If a food was not bitter, then it was supposedly good (not always).
Quote Eating is not a voluntary act if you don't do it you will die and if you are hungry enough taste is not an issue. God gave us JOY and KINDNESS and you remain ever ungrateful. Breathing is involuntary. Eating requires action, so it is totally voluntary. Try holding your breath until you pass out. Once you do, you will start breathing again.
Now, try not eating food until you are at the point of starvation. You can still starve if you do not take food and eat it. It is voluntary.
Quote You don't think what I am saying makes sense? The most intelligent species is born one of the weakest, most dependent, no permanent coat for weather, no housing and no common language. We create languages, We create homes, We create garments for different climate conditions this is not a fluke my dear friend it is the truth made manifest. What does this have to do with not having fur but retaining the mechanism to raise the fur?
Quote What does shivering do?
Unrelated.
I can't discuss evolution with you if you keep misusing the information regarding evolution. I want you to get it through your head that evolution is a non goal oriented process there is no process of selecting advantages there is no Unity of Function whereas one thing is the cause of another. The actual theory is based not upon benefits or advancement in anyway it is merely about BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY and that is why no evolutionist can discuss evolution without skewing the information or distorting the theory itself.Remove all the anthrmorphism out of your discussion of evolution with me an you will have to simply fall silent. In the theory of evolution there is no reason/ no cause. You can't say taste buds evolved “because” or fruit taste good “because” and the reason is the actual theory of evolution is that organisms that had random mutations over millions or billions of years and all that remained viable with these mutations are what you see today
The theory of evolution cannot explain the predator/prey relationship or the plant/animal relationship
Evolution cannot explain why Plants create oxygen and animals produce carbon creating a life giving exchange.
So can you or STU present the actual theory of evolution dropping the anthromophic descriptions?
Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 19 2010,01:14) Quote (karmarie @ Feb. 18 2010,01:06) Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 18 2010,13:57) Quote (karmarie @ Feb. 17 2010,16:55) Kejonn, I read somewhere that you used to pray, or believe,
what happened to make you stop believing?
I studied the Bible without Christian bias.
Sorry I dont get youCan you explain more?
Its a longer story than just that. Here's the Reader's Digest version:* I was once an evangelical Christian (20 years) who believed in the Trinity. Never really studied it, just took the belief for granted. It was easy when you live in an area of the world where almost everyone else around you believes the same thing and also does not take the time to question it.
* I debated an atheist on another board. While I was able to “hold my own” and get her to concede some points, I found that I did not have a strong knowledge of some of the things I said I believed, the Trinity being one of them.
* I started studying the bible to learn more about the beliefs I had as an evangelical Christian. After I studied for some time, I believed that there was no good biblical evidence of the Trinity. My history here shows my various debates on the matter.
* Although I did not believe in the Trinity, I still did not know what to believe about the preexistence of Jesus. So I studied that, paying much attention to the Old Testament to try to find Jesus there. After study, I also found there was no solid biblical evidence for Jesus existing prior to his earthly ministry.
* After this, I began to wonder why Jews did not accept Jesus as their promised Messiah. I looked into the various prophecies concerning the Messiah and determined that Jesus did indeed fail to meet 99% of them. At this point, Christianity could no longer be a viable faith for me as much of what I had believed had turned out to be false.
* I wanted to hold onto belief in the God of Abraham so I began searching for something I could justify. However, after study of the Old Testament, I no longer could. What I saw there horrified me, a god who could be so cruel yet call it love. A god who supposedly killed people for not worshiping him properly or worshiping other gods.
* I began to even question if this god could be real. There is no evidence that he exists in the modern world, and I came to the conclusion that he was simply a creation of ancient Semitic people.
* Still, I wanted to believe there was some god out there, some creator. I began looking into other revealed religions, and none of them made sense. They were all man-made in my opinion — all of them reflected a human mindset while trying to appear to be something more. The closest I found to one that made any sense was the original Zoroastrianism found in the Gathas of Zarathushtra. The Gathas did not show a wrathful god or one who gave mankind a list of dos and don'ts to live by to make it to heaven. It worked on a simple concept of three principles: good thoughts, words, and deeds.
* In the end, I realized that the concept of gods arose out of two factors: fear of death and unexplained phenomena in the universe. Most people simply cannot accept that this life is all there is and they wish to be able to live forever. That is one reason that vampires are all the craze again, its just another concept of immortality. And the “god of the gaps” is becoming less and less necessary as we make more discoveries about how things actually work.At best, I am a deist, one who believes there might be a creator but s/he is uninvolved. Otherwise, I am simply an agnostic atheist. I am open to some revelation of a god — or gods — but none have been forthcoming.
Kejonn! Thanks for sharing.That is what happened to me too, I was on a site and started thinking about what the Athiests were saying
At the time I also was thinking about the God of the bible, I also saw ALOT of things which made me wonder about it all.
So I know what you are meaning.But theres still hope for you.
The trinity, eternal concious torment, all that rubbish isnt biblical, that is the manmade opinions of people who dont have a clue, that is thier error. And errors too in the way the bible was translated.
All I hope is that you will come to realize.
The only way I could move on was to return to God myself. Not the other way around. One day I read the first half of the Sheppard of Hermas and it somehow made sense to me. More sense than all the garbage I had filled my mind with; In a way it seemed to un-brainwash me. Mysteriously.
Eventually I approached God in prayer, then again, and again, then after a while I started to feel God there again.
Ever since, everything has now made sense to me. I finally understand it. Nothing needs to be analysed, nothing needs to be explained, I hardly even read the bible any more, God is more than a book, and it all becomes clear with true understanding.
I only trust in God and only allow Him to lead me. Wherever He will.Why does god appear so angry in the old testement? He is -very strict- but in a loving way for those who choose to follow Him.
Why did Jesus appear to not fit the old testement prophecies of the coming Messiah for the Jews? I dont know. All I do is trust in God and I know Jesus has a pretty important part in everything. Its not for me to try and figure it all out. I just cling to God and I trust him.
Did Jesus pre-exist before coming here? I believe we all did. That we have all been put into earthly bodies. But thats just how I see it. Weather im right or wrong I dont really know?
I had a feeling you still believed in a God even if you see it from an Agnostic point of view!
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 18 2010,11:02) I can't discuss evolution with you if you keep misusing the information regarding evolution. If I am misusing, please feel free to correct me, preferably by backing tour refutations up with reliable external information. I am willing to learn if I am in error. However, if all you have to offer is that I am wrong according to you, please forgive me if I ignore you.
Quote I want you to get it through your head that evolution is a non goal oriented process there is no process of selecting advantages there is no Unity of Function whereas one thing is the cause of another. The selection is in the survival. If a mutation allows an organism to survive, it will continue to be passed on. If a mutation is detrimental, the species will be weakened and eventually those with the harmful mutation will die off. That is the selection process — there is no mechanism to create beneficial mutations.
Quote The actual theory is based not upon benefits or advancement in anyway it is merely about BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY and that is why no evolutionist can discuss evolution without skewing the information or distorting the theory itself. If something is not biologically viable, will it survive? Not for long. You are simply proving my point.
Quote Remove all the anthrmorphism out of your discussion of evolution with me an you will have to simply fall silent. In the theory of evolution there is no reason/ no cause. You can't say taste buds evolved “because” or fruit taste good “because” and the reason is the actual theory of evolution is that organisms that had random mutations over millions or billions of years and all that remained viable with these mutations are what you see today I am not the one proposing that taste buds evolved because “fruit tastes good”. You are the one trying to say some god created taste buds so we could enjoy foods. I said that taste buds likely evolved as a survival mechanism. It wasn't a cause-effect, but those creatures that had the taste buds had an advantage over those that did not, if they ate similar foods.
Quote The theory of evolution cannot explain the predator/prey relationship or the plant/animal relationship Why not? The food chain fits in perfectly with evolution. Where does it not fit?
Quote Evolution cannot explain why Plants create oxygen and animals produce carbon creating a life giving exchange. Sure it can. Plants preceding animals on the earth. So these plants were already producing oxygen using the CO2 already present in the atmosphere. Creatures that could use this oxygen came after this. It really is that simple.
Quote So can you or STU present the actual theory of evolution dropping the anthromophic descriptions?
What is “anthromophic descriptions”?Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 19 2010,09:26) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 18 2010,11:02) I can't discuss evolution with you if you keep misusing the information regarding evolution. If I am misusing, please feel free to correct me, preferably by backing tour refutations up with reliable external information. I am willing to learn if I am in error. However, if all you have to offer is that I am wrong according to you, please forgive me if I ignore you.
Quote I want you to get it through your head that evolution is a non goal oriented process there is no process of selecting advantages there is no Unity of Function whereas one thing is the cause of another. The selection is in the survival. If a mutation allows an organism to survive, it will continue to be passed on. If a mutation is detrimental, the species will be weakened and eventually those with the harmful mutation will die off. That is the selection process — there is no mechanism to create beneficial mutations.
Quote The actual theory is based not upon benefits or advancement in anyway it is merely about BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY and that is why no evolutionist can discuss evolution without skewing the information or distorting the theory itself. If something is not biologically viable, will it survive? Not for long. You are simply proving my point.
Quote Remove all the anthrmorphism out of your discussion of evolution with me an you will have to simply fall silent. In the theory of evolution there is no reason/ no cause. You can't say taste buds evolved “because” or fruit taste good “because” and the reason is the actual theory of evolution is that organisms that had random mutations over millions or billions of years and all that remained viable with these mutations are what you see today I am not the one proposing that taste buds evolved because “fruit tastes good”. You are the one trying to say some god created taste buds so we could enjoy foods. I said that taste buds likely evolved as a survival mechanism. It wasn't a cause-effect, but those creatures that had the taste buds had an advantage over those that did not, if they ate similar foods.
Quote The theory of evolution cannot explain the predator/prey relationship or the plant/animal relationship Why not? The food chain fits in perfectly with evolution. Where does it not fit?
Quote Evolution cannot explain why Plants create oxygen and animals produce carbon creating a life giving exchange. Sure it can. Plants preceding animals on the earth. So these plants were already producing oxygen using the CO2 already present in the atmosphere. Creatures that could use this oxygen came after this. It really is that simple.
Quote So can you or STU present the actual theory of evolution dropping the anthromophic descriptions?
What is “anthromophic descriptions”?
So what was a random mutation?The nervous system, the immune system…etc?
The eye, the brain, the ear, the ability to move, digestion,…etc?
Can you give me a single example?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 18 2010,16:52) So what was a random mutation? The nervous system, the immune system…etc?
The eye, the brain, the ear, the ability to move, digestion,…etc?
Can you give me a single example?
Any of the above could have been a mutation. All allow a species to have greater survivability. Remember, millions of years…Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 19 2010,10:36) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 18 2010,16:52) So what was a random mutation? The nervous system, the immune system…etc?
The eye, the brain, the ear, the ability to move, digestion,…etc?
Can you give me a single example?
Any of the above could have been a mutation. All allow a species to have greater survivability. Remember, millions of years…
Your serious?So was say a sinle mutation capable of anything more than a very minute change?
Are you saying that an eye can function on a very primitive level? Can you give me an example?
BD
Stu: and when [the appendix is] removed there are no ill effects
Quote Once again an ignorant and irresponsible statement. How in the world could you possibly know what effects everyone has or has not had. Some effects are very noticeable but not attributed the removal of the appendix. One such effect is the lack of energy/lethargy. I guarantee that you do not have the same energy level that you had before you took your appendix out but actually your body was constantly fighting infection so you were already having problems seen or unseen. Who knows what types of infection are now looming inside you.
And you can cite the studies that have determined these to be symptoms of appendectomy?I’d lay money you can’t.
You do write some bollocks BD, you know. This is one of your more bollocky ones.
Quote The function has always been the same in the appendix so you are still wrong about it being vestigial there is nothing vestigial in the Human Body. Just like Kejonn tried to say about wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth are not a problem for everyone and often they are a great benefit. I have my wisdom teeth and when two other molars went Bad My wisdom teeth helped anchor my teeth to fit perfectly in my mouth.
Oh wait, I spoke too soon. You have out-bollocked yourself already…one paragraph later!Quote Speculation and conjecture, I have already told you what kind of bacteria it holds, it did not change so you are wrong. I will say though that your dedication to memorizing outdated information from old text books is admirable but you should have kept up your studies and actually “learned” your ignorance on some things is downright alarming.
Sorry, wrong kind of bacteria. Humans cannot digest cellulose, while in the past our ancestors could. I’m tempted to say you lose again but that is not what discussion is about, except to you. I guess you being wrong could be alarming for you, but you never show it.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2010,14:48) BD Stu: and when [the appendix is] removed there are no ill effects
Quote Once again an ignorant and irresponsible statement. How in the world could you possibly know what effects everyone has or has not had. Some effects are very noticeable but not attributed the removal of the appendix. One such effect is the lack of energy/lethargy. I guarantee that you do not have the same energy level that you had before you took your appendix out but actually your body was constantly fighting infection so you were already having problems seen or unseen. Who knows what types of infection are now looming inside you.
And you can cite the studies that have determined these to be symptoms of appendectomy?I’d lay money you can’t.
You do write some bollocks BD, you know. This is one of your more bollocky ones.
Quote The function has always been the same in the appendix so you are still wrong about it being vestigial there is nothing vestigial in the Human Body. Just like Kejonn tried to say about wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth are not a problem for everyone and often they are a great benefit. I have my wisdom teeth and when two other molars went Bad My wisdom teeth helped anchor my teeth to fit perfectly in my mouth.
Oh wait, I spoke too soon. You have out-bollocked yourself already…one paragraph later!Quote Speculation and conjecture, I have already told you what kind of bacteria it holds, it did not change so you are wrong. I will say though that your dedication to memorizing outdated information from old text books is admirable but you should have kept up your studies and actually “learned” your ignorance on some things is downright alarming.
Sorry, wrong kind of bacteria. Humans cannot digest cellulose, while in the past our ancestors could. I’m tempted to say you lose again but that is not what discussion is about, except to you. I guess you being wrong could be alarming for you, but you never show it.Stuart
Quote Humans cannot digest cellulose They never could. Why do you think they could?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 19 2010,04:02) I can't discuss evolution with you if you keep misusing the information regarding evolution. I want you to get it through your head that evolution is a non goal oriented process there is no process of selecting advantages there is no Unity of Function whereas one thing is the cause of another. The actual theory is based not upon benefits or advancement in anyway it is merely about BIOLOGICAL VIABILITY and that is why no evolutionist can discuss evolution without skewing the information or distorting the theory itself. Remove all the anthrmorphism out of your discussion of evolution with me an you will have to simply fall silent. In the theory of evolution there is no reason/ no cause. You can't say taste buds evolved “because” or fruit taste good “because” and the reason is the actual theory of evolution is that organisms that had random mutations over millions or billions of years and all that remained viable with these mutations are what you see today
The theory of evolution cannot explain the predator/prey relationship or the plant/animal relationship
Evolution cannot explain why Plants create oxygen and animals produce carbon creating a life giving exchange.
So can you or STU present the actual theory of evolution dropping the anthromophic descriptions?
I can see that your way of learning is to tell everyone what idiots they are for not knowing what you have just discovered (even when they DID know, actually!) but I guess the principle must be to avoid harshly criticising those who are improving……maybe you could read the evolution websites a bit faster.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 19 2010,13:56) Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 19 2010,10:36) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 18 2010,16:52) So what was a random mutation? The nervous system, the immune system…etc?
The eye, the brain, the ear, the ability to move, digestion,…etc?
Can you give me a single example?
Any of the above could have been a mutation. All allow a species to have greater survivability. Remember, millions of years…
Your serious?So was say a sinle mutation capable of anything more than a very minute change?
Are you saying that an eye can function on a very primitive level? Can you give me an example?
C'mon BD turn the page! The answer could be there in the very next paragraph. You will get there soon.Isn't it great not relying on the numbskulls at AiG any more!
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 19 2010,15:02) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 19 2010,14:48) BD Stu: and when [the appendix is] removed there are no ill effects
Quote Once again an ignorant and irresponsible statement. How in the world could you possibly know what effects everyone has or has not had. Some effects are very noticeable but not attributed the removal of the appendix. One such effect is the lack of energy/lethargy. I guarantee that you do not have the same energy level that you had before you took your appendix out but actually your body was constantly fighting infection so you were already having problems seen or unseen. Who knows what types of infection are now looming inside you.
And you can cite the studies that have determined these to be symptoms of appendectomy?I’d lay money you can’t.
You do write some bollocks BD, you know. This is one of your more bollocky ones.
Quote The function has always been the same in the appendix so you are still wrong about it being vestigial there is nothing vestigial in the Human Body. Just like Kejonn tried to say about wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth are not a problem for everyone and often they are a great benefit. I have my wisdom teeth and when two other molars went Bad My wisdom teeth helped anchor my teeth to fit perfectly in my mouth.
Oh wait, I spoke too soon. You have out-bollocked yourself already…one paragraph later!Quote Speculation and conjecture, I have already told you what kind of bacteria it holds, it did not change so you are wrong. I will say though that your dedication to memorizing outdated information from old text books is admirable but you should have kept up your studies and actually “learned” your ignorance on some things is downright alarming.
Sorry, wrong kind of bacteria. Humans cannot digest cellulose, while in the past our ancestors could. I’m tempted to say you lose again but that is not what discussion is about, except to you. I guess you being wrong could be alarming for you, but you never show it.Stuart
Quote Humans cannot digest cellulose They never could. Why do you think they could?
No, that is what I said. Humans have never been able to digest cellulose.Move ON! Get up to the biology of the caecum and descent with modification from a common ancestor.
Then we can discuss it knowledgeably.
We're all rooting for you BD, as you say in your country. The sooner you get up to speed…
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 18 2010,20:56) Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 19 2010,10:36) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 18 2010,16:52) So what was a random mutation? The nervous system, the immune system…etc?
The eye, the brain, the ear, the ability to move, digestion,…etc?
Can you give me a single example?
Any of the above could have been a mutation. All allow a species to have greater survivability. Remember, millions of years…
Your serious?So was say a sinle mutation capable of anything more than a very minute change?
Are you saying that an eye can function on a very primitive level? Can you give me an example?
I am not an evolutionary biologist so I cannot explain to you the mechanisms involved on the molecular level. Obviously eyes, fingers, arms, etc. as we see on the various species were not the result of a single mutation.And eyes can function on a primitive level. Check out http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm for more information. Examples:
SIMPLE EYE-CUP WITHOUT LENS —– e.g. Planaria
Planaria is a free-living multicellular organism living in fresh water ponds or ditches.Features:
1.cup-shaped, heavily-pigmented cells as retina
2.sense cells in contact with retina cellsUse: it can differentiate the direction and the intensity of light because cup-shaped pigment cells of the eyes shield the light sensitive cells in all directions with only one opening for light entry.
PINHOLE EYES —– e.g. Nautilus
Nautilus is an animal with a shell (cephalopoda) and lives in the ocean bottom of low light intensity.
Features: with retina, no cornea, no lens
Use: The pinhole eye brings about poor resolution and images formed are dim. It is suitable for the living habitat of Nautilus.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
