Spirituality
19 Jun 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThe predictive claim of the evolutionists was that the appendix and tonsils were vestigial organs left over from evolution. It is basically the same predictive claim they have made about "junk" DNA, because they thought it had lost its function. But it has turned out that they do have functions.
So somehow in your delusional brain, the discovery that the tonsil and appendix have useful function proves creationism? It has been known for quite a while the appendix is a storehouse of good bacteria in case for some reason the guts loses all the bacteria there, they get replaced by the appendix.
Even the idea that a vestigal organ lost its function is not evolution, but instead, it is de-evolution or degeneration, the opposite of what the theory of evolution is supposed to be. The fact that the creature was better in the beginning supports creation, not evolution.
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/vestigial-organs-evidence-for-evolution/
😏
28 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYour BS video as usual answers nothing, it only ASSERTS. You can say Goddidit all you want but that doesn't make it true. It just makes you desperate.
The predictive claim of the evolutionists was that the appendix and tonsils were vestigial organs left over from evolution. It is basically the same predictive claim they have made about "junk" DNA, because they thought it had lost its function. But it has turned out that they do have functions.
Even the idea that a vestigal organ lost its function is n ...[text shortened]... /answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/vestigial-organs-evidence-for-evolution/
😏
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou clearly still have an abysmal understanding of evolutionary theory, which is quite an underachievement given the number of posts and links on the subject directed specifically at you.
Even the idea that a vestigal organ lost its function is not evolution, but instead, it is de-evolution or degeneration, the opposite of what the theory of evolution is supposed to be.
I won't bother explaining how you're wrong about that, since clearly it's a waste of time, but you're wrong (as usual in these matters).
28 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessAll you can do is claim I am wrong. That is all any evolutionist can do. 😏
You clearly still have an abysmal understanding of evolutionary theory, which is quite an underachievement given the number of posts and links on the subject directed specifically at you.
I won't bother explaining how you're wrong about that, since clearly it's a waste of time, but you're wrong (as usual in these matters).
28 Jun 15
Originally posted by SuzianneYou apparently did not look at the video because the message that is terrifying to the evolutionists and the old earth theists like you is that mutation rates between human Mitochondrial DNA indicates humans have existed only about 6000 years. Now isn[t that a terrifying message to those that don't believe in a literal 6 day creation? 😏
I dunno, I'm still waiting on this "terrifying message" mentioned in the thread title.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
28 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsEvolution is about adaptation, and adaptation is a relative phenomenon. Variation (alleles) in a genotype is caused by mutations. The more alleles that are expressed in a population, and the bigger the population, the better, because the odds are increased that at least some large portion will survive (adapt) to changing living conditions. Therefore, a change in an allele that may be considered to have a weakening effect on those individuals in which it is currently expressed (perhaps creating an increased risk of developing certain illnesses), may turn out to be very useful for future adaptation. It follows then that there is no such thing as de-evolution. Thus, I think I can safely conclude that you are wrong.
All you can do is claim I am wrong. That is all any evolutionist can do. 😏
28 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHinds1. You need to define "de-evolution". I don't know what it means.
1. Even the idea that a vestigal organ lost its function is not evolution, but instead, it is de-evolution or degeneration, the opposite of what the theory of evolution is supposed to be.
2. The fact that the creature was better in the beginning supports creation, not evolution.
2. "A creature was better in the beginning" ??? Better for what?
28 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI showed in my calculation of her figures, i.e. a sixteenfold error in the occurrence of predicted mutations, that "Eve" would have been born 120 000 years ago, not 6000.
You apparently did not look at the video because the message that is terrifying to the evolutionists and the old earth theists like you is that mutation rates between human Mitochondrial DNA indicates humans have existed only about 6000 years. Now isn[t that a terrifying message to those that don't believe in a literal 6 day creation? 😏
Using HER figures.
But nothing but stunned silence from His Near Genius Highness, Lord Smugface.
29 Jun 15
Originally posted by C HessYou clearly still have an abysmal understanding of the theory of evolution. And de-evolution, is simply degeneration. I can also play the Duchess game.
Evolution is about adaptation, and adaptation is a relative phenomenon. Variation (alleles) in a genotype is caused by mutations. The more alleles that are expressed in a population, and the bigger the population, the better, because the odds are increased that at least some large portion will survive (adapt) to changing living conditions. Therefore, a change ...[text shortened]... there is no such thing as de-evolution. Thus, I think I can safely conclude that you are wrong.
29 Jun 15
Originally posted by wolfgang591. I defined "de-evolution" by giving a synonym for it.
1. You need to define "de-evolution". I don't know what it means.
2. "A creature was better in the beginning" ??? Better for what?
2. When God made a creature in the beginning, it was made good. That is, it was better for what it was designed for by God than it is today. The creatures today are a result of degeneration over time, the opposite of evolution.
29 Jun 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat forms the basis for your statement?
When God made a creature in the beginning, it was made good. That is, it was better for what it was designed for by God than it is today. The creatures today are a result of degeneration over time, the opposite of evolution.[/b]
29 Jun 15
Originally posted by moonbusYes, and actually, even more terrifying is that people like this are on the Texas Schools Board, which decides which textbooks the school system (in Texas) will use every year. So their redneck message gets passed down to a new generation of youngsters, despite the US Constitution and its Establishment Clause.
The terrifying message is that people like him have the vote in your country.
29 Jun 15
Originally posted by SuzianneNot only in Texas. There is a powerful lobby still re-running the Scopes Trial, over and over, to get Genesis taught as science in the public schools. Back when I was still an American, I was a card-carrying member of the ACLU to help stop this nonsense. But the religious right is relentless. Watch out!
Yes, and actually, even more terrifying is that people like this are on the Texas Schools Board, which decides which textbooks the school system (in Texas) will use every year. So their redneck message gets passed down to a new generation of youngsters, despite the US Constitution and its Establishment Clause.