"What are you doing here Uncle Rico?"
"Grandma took a little spill down at the sand dunes. Broke her coccyx."
"What? Since when does she go to the dunes?"
"Looks like there's a lot you don't know about."
Despite being belittled by Uncle Rico, young Napoleon Dynamite seems aware of what a coccyx is. However, he might not know its significance in evolutionary theory. The coccyx, or tailbone, is an example of a vestigial structure.
A vestigial structure is a body part that has lost its original function and now either performs a different function or no function at all. You can think of them as evolutionary "leftovers" as a species evolves to adapt to its local environment.
People wondered why, in a world designed so perfectly and intelligently, would the designer construct humans with a tailbone. It didn't make sense. The design didn't seem very intelligent. Along came Darwin (and Wallace) to put this into perspective.
Our tailbones are what remains of the tails our ancestors had. To this day somewhere on Earth humans are occasionally born with a tail. It was the unlucky mother living in the middle ages if her child was born with a tail. Both surely would have been burned as witches.
Sometimes humans are called "the naked ape." But that's not really true. Humans are covered with a fine (or not so fine in some cases) coat of fur. What? You say it's hair and not fur? Whatever helps you sleep at night. Actually, our body hair and the hair on our heads is different. The hair on our head doesn't stop growing. Our fur does stop growing at a certain length. What's that? Your fur keeps you warm? When was the last time you relied on body hair to keep you warm? Early humans didn't either. They "borrowed" fur from other animals.
How about goose bumps? Why would an intelligent designer give us goose bumps? What purpose do they serve? None, in us. However, in our ancestors and other living species (like your pet dog) they serve a critical function.
Technically they are called erector pilli and they are weird little muscles that cause your dog's "hackles" to go up. Lots of mammals use these to communicate the largeness of themselves to a rival or predator. They are also used in conjunction with fur to increase their insulation properties. That's why yours activate when you get a rush of adrenaline or get chilly. But still they are just weird, useless "leftovers", ghosts of our evolutionary past.
Did you ever wonder why men have nipples? They serve no purpose in males. Why would a designer give me nipples? Look at the picture! I'm not attracting a mate with my nipples. The answer, of course, is that a designer wouldn't, and didn't.
Why do I have them then? Very early in our development when we were in our mother's womb we were neither male nor female. As we developed genes and hormones did their work on us. Evolutionarily speaking, it's much easier to work with what you have than it is to redesign a new gender. Evolution didn't make males from scratch but rather worked with the same basic human structure and made essential male parts.
Have you ever had your wisdom teeth removed? If you had then you might have concluded that our designer had no wisdom at all. Of course there was no designer, because why would a designer give us more teeth than a mouth could hold?
Wisdom teeth are an additional set of molars that are still embedded in our gums. Sometimes in early adulthood they try to join the other teeth. The problem is, there's no room. Evolution can explain this bad design. Early hominids had larger jaws and ate lots of tough plants. As modern humans evolved our faces got less prognathic, our jaws got smaller and our diet switched to omnivore status.
So maybe all this talk about the useless parts of humans is freaking you out. Let's look at a different organism. The common dandelion has some great examples of vestigial structures, namely its pistil and its stamen. Think back to high school. The pistil and the stamen are the "female" and "male" reproductive parts of flowering plants. The thing is, dandelions evolved internal fertilization. They don't need the bee to pass pollen from the stamen to the pistil. Yet dandelions still produce external pollen and still have pistils and stamens. Again, “ghosts” of their evolutionary ancestors.
I could go on and on (we haven’t even mentioned wings on flightless birds and pelvises on whales) but I think the point has been made. I bring up the topic because in a recent poll of believers the question “why do you believe in God” was asked. The number one response was “the good design/natural beauty/perfection/complexity of the world or universe.” with 28.6%.
You may not believe me, but I truly don’t care if you believe in God or not. I’m not trying to disprove God or talk anyone out of their belief in God. But science is not based on belief, it’s based on evidence from natural phenomena. The existence of God is not testable. However, some of the assertions made by advocates of intelligent design are wrong scientifically. The scientific claims for intelligent design have been debunked by a consensus of the world’s skilled, dedicated scientists, a large class of people that are smarter than I am. What you are left with is the supernatural, which does not belong in the science classroom.
Earth and it’s living inhabitants are not perfect and not generally well designed. Living things are susceptible to disease, breaking and dying for lack of energy. Over 99% of all species that have ever inhabited Earth have gone extinct. I thank my ancient ancestors every day for providing me with just enough genes so I can eke out a living, find a mate and avoid getting eaten by wolves.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 84
When hormones do their work on us, speaking of nurture vs nature, is why some of us arrive transgendered
Thanks for a great article.
Wendy, thank you for your contributions to scientific research.
Pete, I'm a bit confused by what you say about Occam's Razor. I think ID gets it wrong: "God did it" multiplies entities, because it posits the existence of an entity that is not scientifically proven (and which would then require an explanation itself, but that's another story). I don't think natural selection is an "entity" in that sense. It's a natural phenomenon that obviously exists. Even creationists agree it takes place; they just refuse to believe it's responsible for turning "one kind of animal into another kind". That it is indeed responsible for speciation is a theory that accounts for observed natural phenomena, not an "entity" in the Occam's Razor sense. Am I getting something wrong here?
The number of people in this country living off public assistance or SSI is at epidemic proportions, and many are abusing the system because back pain is so hard to disprove medically.
If Americans would eat PROPERLY, exercise, and get 8 hours of sleep every night, the 'back pain hysteria' would simply reduce to the people who genuinely have a damaged back!
Joseph, I believe in a 'higher power' even if it all boils down to being "Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise"...there's still something that started everything, and I'm not willing to give the concept up...it's comforting to me, despite the fact that I love the science research of 'from whence we came'. They are NOT mutually exclusive, just maybe the chronology of the Bible is misinterpreted....how did so many of those in the bible live over 200 years? Maybe their concept of time/space is different than modern man perceives it.....or perhaps we originated on Mars?
Read a short story by Ray Bradbury called "The Silver Seed".
It will open your eyes to a whole new concept!
Thanks for the article! It was fun!
...and watch out for the wolves!
While I do hold off from finally declaring that there can be no god, because of the reasons you stated, that god or the existence of a spiritual side to life cannot be disproved, I also hold out hope that more and more people will come to see my special friend as I do. What do you mean, "What friend?" Surely you see him? Yes, hovering over my head as I type this, just out of my lines of sight, but going with me everywhere I go, talking with me whenever I ask, helping me have courage and peace in life. Well, I don't know what he looks like. That's a little maddening to me, that he doesn't ever stop hovering and just sit down in front of me. I must admit I've never seen him. Well, I "see" him all the time, just not in the way that you see with your eyes. How do I know he's real if I've never seen him? Well, because he's always with me. I can feel his presence. Yes, I'm a huge Trekkie. Why do you ask?
"But how do you know it's a guy? Could it possibly be some non-gendered species, since you've never seen him? And where is your friend from? Probably not a local..."
And so on. The truly dedicated science lover will withhold judgment in cases where the evidence is insufficient to come to any conclusions, and the existence of god is a prime example. But in conceding that god cannot be disproved, I don't have to admit that god, or my imaginary friend, is actual, even though I must pay lip service to the possibility. Figments of people's imaginations can't be proved or disproved, but that doesn't mean anything about their actual existence.
I'm almost prepared to take that leap of faith, and say, finally, that there is no god, because day after day, through my 53 short years on this earth, I have never encountered any good evidence for the existence of god. There is just as much evidence that supports the Douglas Adams version of earth's fate as exists supporting the existence of our 'special friend'. [In Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", earth is put on 24 hour notice that it is to be bulldozed to make way for the new, intergalactic superhighway.]
Call me a fool if you want to. I just think a person is less of a fool if he or she sticks to what's real and is always ready to redefine beliefs to reflect new knowledge. Ptolemy, Copernicus, Michaelangelo, each had to work on the church for a while before their discoveries were taken off the "heresy" list. But in each case, the church had to finally, grudgingly accept the new knowledge imparted by these scientific explorers. They did not discover new special friends, but what we now see as hard science, rarely refuted by the sane.
So now we know why the sun rises in the east every morning.
The subject of my next exploration shall be: Why is there a 'me'?
All this is argument for the sake of argument; I am an agnostic, a firm believer in the current Darwinian theory, and I might say that it is only the music of J.S. Bach that keeps me from being an atheist.
Second, I'm really glad that early on, you mentioned that science and faith aren't necessarily incompatible, and I heaved a great sigh of relief, since that's what I've thought pretty much all my life. Whoever thought they weren't? Since when is it an either-or option? Thanks for being the second person I know to say something like that.
The Kansas Board of Education voted today to eliminate mandatory teaching of the theory of evaporation from schools across the state. Most scientists believe that water and other liquids are spontaneously converted by so-called evaporation into the form of a gas, and carried off into the atmosphere. This, they say, is the explanation behind sudden disappearances of water all across the state.
Many non-scientists, however, stand by the widely accepted theory that a lovable invisible two-headed thirsty blue giraffe named Clarence is responsible for the disappearances. The two theories, evaporation and Giraffism, will now be taught on a more equal footing to school-children across Kansas. Parents are pleased, saying that Giraffism is easier to understand and far more comforting to small children. "There's nothing happy about evaporation," says Frank Nubbins, father of Jason, 6, and Sue Ellen, 4. "Clarence the giraffe is blue, and he's lovable. You can't say that about evaporation, that's for sure. I love my children."
"Nobody has ever adequately explained evaporation," says Dr. Harold Thumper, of the Kansas Board of Education. "With evaporation, we're expected to imagine that water just disappears, all by itself, with no rhyme or reason. That's ridiculous."
Clarence the lovable invisible two-headed blue giraffe, on the other hand, is always thirsty, an explanation which is simple and obvious. He has a well-established presence in children's literature. "Every culture on the planet," says Dr. Thumper "has a story about giraffes, or thirstiness, or lovable blue things. Most of these have happy, happy endings. My children just love these stories. But I challenge you to find a single good story about evaporation."
The theory of evaporation is getting a dry reception in academia these days. At leading universities including Harvard, Stanford, and MIT, it's impossible to find a single professor of Evaporation on the faculty. "What's the point?" says Gwen O'Malley, dean of the Harvard Medical School. "It's not exactly a good career move to spend your life trying to explain evaporation to people."
I being shy, and a person without much scientific knowledge; am afraid of sounding stupid. I may anyway. I am curious to know if there is any one else whom may agree, and if it is plausible.
What about Evolution - hand picked by (insert higher power)? Not by intelligence, or who desrves to evolve, rather; the less evolved remain to remind us of our humble beginings?
believe it or not susan, the idea that europeans are the descendants of neatherthals has been discussed in academia. Not that i was included in that discussion but the idea was mentioned in a biological anthropology class i took once. I think that it is plausable but not likely. All humans today probably are the decendants of a single female (or a small population) that lived about 160tya-200tya. If you think about it that makes everyone alive today at the most the 6500th cousin of each other. Hi cous.
btw , I forgot a great vestige:the 13th rib. Most of us have 12 pairs of ribs but 8% of us have 13 pairs. Guess who also has 13 pairs: you guessed it, chimps and bonobos.
bitch fell off the back?
I do believe in evolution, but worth reading this:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions12.html
First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential.
Second, even if the alleged vestigial organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution not evolution. The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation. However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity.
How about answering a few questions for me.
1. Where did matter come from?
2. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, entropy, etc.)?
3. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
4. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Wes
I like Einstein's and Stephen Hawking's view of God: God is what is unknowable. And God is the "rules" of it all that make the universe work (or something like that)
"First, it is in principle not possible to prove that an organ is useless, because there is always the possiblity that a use may be discovered in the future. This has happened with over a hundred alleged useless vestigial organs which are now known to be essential."
You can determine if an organ is useless. Remove it, see what happens. I didnt mention over a 100 useless organs. Explain the purpose of the ones I did mention.
I dont know what "devolution" is. Darwinian theory makes no mention of it.Give me the definition.
" However the particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, i.e. those which are increasing in complexity."
Please, give me a break.Your telling me life has not gotten more complex.Your not really living in the same world as most people. Is that what your saying in a public forum? Your saying that life or organs have not gotten more complex over time?
Hearts. Sea squirts,the simplest chordate(animals with backbones) has a 1 chambered heart. Fish have 2 chambers. Amphibians and reptiles have 3 chambers(are ya following this wes p. or whoever you are). Mammals and birds have 4 chambers.There is an example. So I guess your now a materialist Darwinian evolutionist, right?
"The creation model allows for deterioration of a perfect creation"
I understand the comfort of the "creation model",I really do. The creation model by its nature allows for EVERYTHING. Anything is possible if all it takes is a snap of the crackhead designer's fingers.
nothing+nothing=something.
You have way more faith than I do.
Can you show me the animal that transitioned from dinosaurs to birds. That should be easy right? I am assuming you believe that dinosaurs are birds ancestors.
Here are a few more nuggets to chew on. You have only addressed your beliefe in Micro -evolution for living organisms. Lets hear a few more answers on the following systems that had to also evolve:
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Last but not least how about your conscience, how did that evolve. Are you a complete materialist?
You still haven't shown me one nascent organ. I am waiting for lots of answers.
Wes
I said:"Hearts. Sea squirts,the simplest chordate(animals with backbones) has a 1 chambered heart. Fish have 2 chambers. Amphibians and reptiles have 3 chambers(are ya following this wes p. or whoever you are). Mammals and birds have 4 chambers.There is an example."
Then you said,"You still haven't shown me one nascent organ."
Focus, Wes p.(or whoever you are). Normal people are watching and they dont understand why you said that?
If not believing that some crackhead designer up in the clouds is guiding organic evolution like the micky mouse wizard in Fantasia then I guess that makes me a materialist.
btw, Im not an earth science kind of guy so I dont know much about the big bang and those other non-darwinian ideas other than the concensus of the scientific community accepts them. My article was about vestigial organs so why dont you answer my question: "I didnt mention over a 100 useless organs. Explain the purpose of the ones I did mention."
I have no use for my nipples. What do you use yours for?
Ok here you go for an answer:
Men and women are mammals (from the Latin mamma breast) a species that have breasts and feeds its young with milk. The human embryo has tissue that will evolve into breasts. Both male and female babies are born with nipples and ducts intact. It is the presence of genes that direct hormones to differentiate the breast tissue. The Y chromosome stimulates hormones such as testosterone to form male features.
Male and female have them before the sex is even determined in the womb. So according to your micro-evolution why are they still there on men? If we have been evolving over millions of years we shouldn't have them?
Maybe you should go have yours removed since they provide no purpose. We will see how silly you look. I dont know about you but I like when my wife kisses them too. Maybe God designed them in the man for strict pleasure. And obviously in the women for feeding our babies.
Regarding the coccyx can you show me one fossil evidence of a man with a short tail and all the fossil records of it disappearing?
Wes
FWIW, I have a third nipple. It looks a lot more vestigial than the other two.
Regardless, I find the ignorance of the purposes of science and the way the scientific method works that I've seen here very troubling. I was a history major in school, for gosh sakes. Science is about finding the best possible explanation for something given the information we have. The scientific method has constant questioning of conventional wisdom built in. E. g. Newton's laws of motion turned out not to work at the quantum level. Who knew? That's because scientists wondered if they did and devised experiments to test their hypotheses. Don't worry, they're plenty good enough for the macro level.
Evolution doesn't lead to complexity. Species that do well in a particular environmental niche survive. As it happens, complexity sometimes aids survival. OTOH, a lot of microorganisms have been around a lot longer than any other species. What counts is breeding and continuing to breed.
Progress and evolution are two independent concepts. Evolution is adaptation to changing conditions. Progress means improvement. We're not better than cockroaches in the evolutionary sense. Cockroaches have been around a long time and may last longer than our species. We're smarter and have opposable thumbs but that doesn't mean we'll outlast the cockroach.
I'm curious about the organs formerly thought to be vestigial that turned out to be useful. I don't want a list of hundreds but I'd love to hear about a couple.
Hey kodi, if you feel no need for your brain(your not really using it) than I will pay for you to have it removed.
wes p(or whoever you are), are you suggesting that I explain to my students when they ask about male nipples (and they do) that mickey mouse in fantasia gave them nipples because he wants wes' wife to kiss them? I cant believe you wrote that. Now I understand the AKA.
Thats right wes p, I suspect that this is an assumed identity and you are an established gatherer. I dont really blame you. You join gather 2 days ago and go right for me trying to pick debate. No connections, no picture, no profile, no"agreeing" comments, Just straight for me. Oh one other piece of evidence, You are dishonest. Dont you know that teachers are masters at detecting plagerism. You copied that little mammal and nipple lecture and posted it word for word trying to pass it off as your own to give yourself credibility.Its also posted here:
http://qna.live.com/ShowQuestion.aspx?qid=B1AAE67736BD4EF3BCF7F1ED4DD94042
btw,"Regarding the coccyx can you show me one fossil evidence of a man with a short tail and all the fossil records of it disappearing?"
no, so what? Whats your point? Evolution doesnt say anything about humans having tails and losing them. liar
You don't like my answer no problem. Make fun of me no problem. You are the one who has not answered a single rebutel. But hey what would I expect. I knew you wouldn't be up for the challenge.
Oh and how did I attack you because I dont agree with you. Please how old are you?
How weak is your argument then about the coccyx being a vestigial organ. You said the following, I quote "Our tailbones are what remains of the tails our ancestors had."
So do we have vestigial tales or not?
Let me address Nippy Katz,
Here is a small list of items I am grabbing this from the following url http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Vestigial.html Just so Joseph R is happy
Here are a few of our "useless" organs, whose function is now known:
The Appendix
This is the classic vestigial organ of evolutionists. It sometimes becomes swollen, and it was noticed that people can survive if it is removed, and was therefore labeled as useless. We now know that it plays a role in antibody production and protects our intestines from infection. The appendix lessens the chances of a person getting leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, cancer of the colon and cancer of the ovaries.
The Tonsils
These organs in the throat protect us from infections.
The Coccyx
These are vertebrae found at the bottom of the spine. It was once thought to be useless, a remnant of a tail from our evolutionary past. It has since been discovered that some important muscles attach to it, namely the levator ani and coccygeus. Without it, our pelvic organs would just fall down, we wouldn't be able to walk, sit upright or have bowel movement.
The Thymus
This "worthless" organ has been discovered to play an important role in the development of the immune system. In this gland lymphocyte and antibody production takes place. Without it, our immune system would not develop properly.
Pineal Gland
Produces vital hormones, such as melatonin. It also affects the functions of other endocrine organs.
Thyroid Gland
Produces the hormone thyroxin that controls metabolism and growth. It's deficiency at birth causes cretinism.
Pituitary Gland
It is the master endocrine gland which controls and stimulates almost all the other endocrine glands in the body. It ensures proper growth of the skeletal system and control the water balance of the body. It's malfunctioning causes gigantism, Cushing's syndrome, dwarfism, diabetes insipidus, acromegaly, etc.
All of these were thought to be useless organs until we discovered what they really did.
Hey Joseph can you answer any questions of mine with a reasonable and non sarcastic response. Someone gives you a little challenge and your house of cards fall apart.
Wes
So do we have vestigial tales or not?"
Yes we do have vestigial tails. You didnt ask that. You asked:
" Regarding the coccyx can you show me one fossil evidence of a man with a short tail and all the fossil records of it disappearing?"
to that I replied: "no, so what? Whats your point? Evolution doesnt say anything about humans having tails and losing them. liar"
When I say "ancesters", I dont mean your great granny.(you know that) I mean you 750,000 greats granny. liar
I said, "A vestigial structure is a body part that has lost its original function and now either performs a different function or no function at all. You can think of them as evolutionary "leftovers" as a species evolves to adapt to its local environment."
you said:"This(appendix) is the classic vestigial organ of evolutionists. It sometimes becomes swollen, and it was noticed that people can survive if it is removed, and was therefore labeled as useless. We now know that it plays a role in antibody production and protects our intestines from infection."
Yea, so its vestigial. The modern appendix is a modified cecum. People with horses know that the cecum in their horses is a pocket of tissue on the large intestine filled with bacteria that help herbivores digest cellulose(plants). It doesnt do that for our species(damn crackhead designer).That list of vestigial organs your referencing came from a list compiled in 1890. Thats not honest. Come on wes, your not changing any minds.
btw,love that website. I learned lots of new stuff like: "Surveillance and control go hand in hand: you cannot control everyone without a global surveillance system. The main goal is not surveillance, but total control. They intend to control our actions and even our thoughts, as we will discuss on the following pages. Mind control experiments have been going on for generations and the methods are becoming more and more sophisticated: drugs, microwaves, magnetic fields and implantable microchips. We are especially concerned about the last one, because this device can also be used as an ID card without which buying and selling would not be possible in a future cashless society (see 11. The Cashless Society). So this may be the mark of the beast"
Please show me the proof that my ancestors had tails. All I am asking for is that if I have lost my tail there should be fossil records of it getting smaller and smaller. Don't you agree or do you just dismiss that fact? Or you just BELIEVE. Show me the scientific proof.
Wes
Your arguments are week for your so called crack head designer. If these are the best you have then your point is absolutely false. I would try going back to the design board to make your assertion because your examples are horrible for your argument.
Your faith is great in the god of evolution.
Wes
You said,"Please show me the proof that my ancestors had tails. All I am asking for is that if I have lost my tail there should be fossil records of it getting smaller and smaller."
I say,"Humans never had tails. You dont think your 750,000 greats granny was a human do you? Look if you really dont know this I wont make fun of you. Dont you know that the other "great apes"(chimps,gorrillas,etc) dont have tails either?Please clarify your meaning of ancestors(ancestors that were human or ancestors that were not human)
You said,
"So you are saying the appendix has NO use today. It is totally useless?"
I say: I never said that,or infered that.liar. What I did say was this: "A vestigial structure is a body part that has lost its original function and now either performs a different function or no function at all. You can think of them as evolutionary "leftovers" as a species evolves to adapt to its local environment." I am saying that in our herbivore ancestors, The body part that we call the appendix is actually a cecum.We may or may not use it now but we definatly do not use it for digesting cellulose(its previous purpose). So yes, the appendix is vestigial.
you said"Well for one you don't know my theology or my eschatalogy. I used that site just to get the list of vesitgial organs I didn't read the rest of the site and I don't buy into the "mark of the beast". "
I say, why do you get your science from a website that is afraid of mind-control experiments and implantable microchips?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6373560
So you are saying people born with web hands are remanents when we were frogs or were we ducks. Can you show me ONE fossil record of Macro-Evolution taking place.
Let me tell you why you hang onto your Faith called evolution and you deny the living and true God.
John 3:19
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
It's because you love your sin more than anything Joseph. You don't want there to be a Creator so you can go on doing as you please. There will be a day that you stand before God and will give an account of your actions. If you have broken any of His laws you will be guilty. Just like me I am guilty of breaking all His laws. But here is the good news for you and for me.
Christ died on the cross for your sins and mine. He has paid our debt. I really don't care if you believe in evolution or not. What I do care about is that you know the truth. You can continue in your life denying God but one day just like me he is going to ask you what you did with His Son.
One million years from now there is only that question that is going to matter. What did you do with Christ. He wants to have a relationship with you. If you continue to deny Him you will spend an eternity seperated from Him. Everything that you know that is good today will be gone. There will be no love for you, no happiness, no laughing an absent of anything good and in complete isolation suffering.
But there is the free gift of redemption. If you repent from your sins and turn towards God He is faithful and loving and will forgive you.
You worship the creation instead of the Creator.
Why do I bother even trying to dialog with you. Its because how sick would it be if I knew you had cancer and I had the cure and I didn't give it to you. Now you have the choice to either take it or not. No one is going to force you. It's your choice.
In a way that you will never know I don't want you to perish. Call me crazy, call me a liar, call me anything you would like. But I am only here on this earth to serve Christ. He has changed my life from a life you are living to something so much more fulfilling.
Wes
wow,your god is mean wes
Thanks becky,Ill let your comment be my retort to wes.
You know the truth Joseph. Paul writes in Romans the following:
16 For I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes–Jews first and also Gentiles. 17 This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith. As the Scriptures say, "It is through faith that a righteous person has life."*
18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves.* 19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.
21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people, or birds and animals and snakes.
You worship creation and not the Creator. You can say nature is chaotic. But you have studied the human body and you really know how amazing it is. How did your conscience evolve? You know what God said above is true, but you deny it because you like sin more than you like God. Just the facts.
He loves you Joseph He just hates your sin. He will forgive you if you turn to Him and ask for forgiveness. He is a merciful but a just God.
Wes
That vestigial 13th rib is neat though huh. Most of us have 12 pairs of ribs but 8% of us have 13 pairs. Guess who also has 13 pairs: you guessed it, chimps and bonobos.
Before you discount intelligent design so fast Joseph you might want to look at the evidence more closely. If you are up for the challenge why dont you read Lee Strobel's book The Case for the Creator.
God's word is truth. Don't worry I will not be back to your site. I just wanted to give you a warning directly from God's mouth. You have all the evidence you need to turn from your ways. The sad thing is if you choose to keep worshiping the creation and love your sin more than the light you will remember God's Word for all eternity. God's word never comes back void my friend.
Good luck in your life Joseph. If you have a Bible start reading it and ask God to reveal Himself to you. He will if you seek after Him. Think about it hard, all eternity rides on what you are going to do with Jesus. Peace out! all for His glory and honor.
My heart yearns for you to turn from your ways.
It seems to me there is a gap between the possibility of there being "a creator" and that creator being the god of the bible. Historically, that god came to the scene pretty late. I think that you've inadvertantly exposed the real agenda of ID folks; it's not ID they (you) are promoting, it is christianity.
John
Oh, and, you don't have to read the Bible. You seem to have it pretty well together.
Hearts. Sea squirts,the simplest chordate(animals with backbones) has a 1 chambered heart. Fish have 2 chambers. Amphibians and reptiles have 3 chambers. Mammals and birds have 4 chambers.
kodi, wes said that his crackhead designer gave him nipples so his wife can suck them. why did your crackhead designer give you nipples?
Not at your article, Joseph. It was well done. Some of the comments here. Hilarious.
I teach college human anatomy and physiology so we go into human vestigial structures quite often. Female by default- lack of testosterone OR receptors for testosterone will produce a female "looking" person (with breasts, no penis, vulva, etc.), too much testosterone will produce a male "looking" infant (clitoris looks like a penis, a scrotum is present instead of vulva), even if that's not the genetic gender of the individual. Extra nipples are always found on "the milk line". Ever seen one on anyone's back? And Kodi's remark, wouldn't men look unusual without nipples, well NOW they would because that's what we are used to, but if they never had them...no, that would be the norm.
I learn new things all the time. Were you aware that phagocytic immune system cells were discovered in sea urchins? I didn't realize lower invertebrates had that sort of immune function. TOOO interesting.
Okay, I'll stop laughing now. You did a nice job defending the science, Joseph. Vicki's blue giraffe story...okay, I'm laughing again.
My response to where did matter originate, etc. etc.
Well, we don't know YET. From where did God originate?
My new "catch phrase" - Unintelligent Design -- feel free to use it at your own risk.
I can't believe you haven't gotten the movie yet. It's been a week.
David
We still clot off infections with fibrin to prevent spread.
Ten unsolicited points from the world's worst connection. Merry whatever you celebrate!
Wes was doing the classic "god of the gaps" argument. The creationist strategy.... keep asking questions of science until they can't be answered. Then pounce and exclaim that all of science is wrong and the only plausible alternative must be god. Hmmm. Not very logical, but certainly quite human.
When people quote the bible from a literal perspective I always wonder which god they are aligning with - there are multiple ones therein. I would suggest reading Sam Harris (the end of faith) to learn more about the incompatibilities portrayed throughout the bible for those who want to be literalists.
For those who want to see what the scientific response should be to all the creationist boobytraps check out TalkOrigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/
I think it ironic that some of those who would profess allegiance to god would also ignore evidence and/or mislead others so that their world view would prevail. Seems to be the essence of evil... As my bumper sticker says: Lord, protect me from you followers!