>> Thursday, February 12, 2009

Charles Darwin took his first breath 200 hundred years ago today, February 12, 1809. Today, though his "theory" still plagues our schools and culture, according to a Gallup Poll fewer than 4 in ten believe in Evolution... just 39%.

Sadly interesting, 24% of those who attend church weekly believe Darwin's theory. They're willing to believe that 'nothing made everything.' Personally, I believe it's easier and more rational to believe God made everything out of nothing.


62 comments:

Dan Trabue February 12, 2009 at 8:34 AM  

I don't believe Darwin's theory suggests that "nothing made everything."

Al-Ozarka February 12, 2009 at 9:28 AM  

But...the modern theory of evolution DEMANDS that Darwin's theory suggests that "nothing made everything".

There's really no debate, is there, Daniel-san?

Dan Trabue February 12, 2009 at 1:19 PM  

? Um, no. I'm no scientist, but I don't believe science (evolutionary or otherwise) holds a position on "what made everything."

Do you know of a theory or a scientist that demands such? Do you have a quote?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford February 12, 2009 at 4:26 PM  

Between the banner above this post, and Ozzie's comment, it's clear that these people have no idea what they're talking about. Let 'em rant; I'm celebrating Darwin Day quite happily.

Jim February 12, 2009 at 10:07 PM  

Will the poster here please look up the word "theory" and post the definition here. Thank you.

Marshall Art February 13, 2009 at 12:20 AM  

Wow! Look at you moonbats, feelin' all cocky. Ya got Dan, doin' his usual thing, demanding quotes and such. Ya got Jim askin' for definitions. Geoffrey's doin' his usual condescension routine cuz he thinks right-wingers don't understand science. And there's ER with the cutesy word play.

Allow me to help you all.

You know Darwin was a Christian until his daughter died. That tragedy led him to rebel against God, but from that point on, he was much more agnostic than atheist. He felt that his theories were perfectly compatable with any belief in deity.

Not so much his associates, however. One dude named Huxley was a confirmed atheist and he thought Darwin's work DID suggest there was no God, and others did as well. (It is said that a descendant of Huxley has supposed that those who have adopted Darwin's theories, and evolution in general, do so because it removes the restrictions a belief in God normally has toward sexuality. Now they're free to get down. Typical.)

So if there is no God, then we are really left with only two possibilities regarding the origin of all things. One is that there is no origin, that all things always existed, possibly expanding and contracting over and over again to extremes, each contraction ending in another "big bang" that begins the process all over again. The other would a spontaneous "big bang" that either began the universe we now know, or some prior universe before with each subsequent going throught the aforementioned expanding and contracting process.

The latter explanation prompts the "nothing made everything" notion mentioned by Eric and Al. So the connection between the "Origin of Species" and the origin of everything else is provoked by the implication of what it means to atheists who cling to evolution as some kind of evidence to dismiss the notion of God. No scientist or science text book has to say anything about what caused the universe, nor are they willing to so stick out their necks.

So, to review, there can only be three possibilies: Everything always was, nothing made everything, or God did. I hope you were taking notes.

Mark February 13, 2009 at 7:17 AM  

Art, I did a couple of entire posts dedicted to this subject, and, as usual the usual suspects attacked wht I said. The funny thing was, they were attacking what Evolutionists themselves said. There are many samplings of quotes from evolutionists admitting evolution is phony in this post
.

You wrote, "(It is said that a descendant of Huxley has supposed that those who have adopted Darwin's theories, and evolution in general, do so because it removes the restrictions a belief in God normally has toward sexuality

Here is the actual point you are referencing:

Sir Julian Huxley, the grand nephew of Thomas Huxley, was in his day, probably the worlds most prestigious evolutionists, was being interviewed on a National Public Television station. He was asked, "Why do you suppose that so many scientists accepted evolution so quickly?"

This is what he replied: "I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin Of the Species (Darwin's book)was because the idea of a God interfered with our sexual mores."


In Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled", Ben interviewed Richard Dawkins, who found himself against the wall trying to explain the origin of life without a God Creator. He was more or less forced, through common sense, to acknowledge the existence of some kind of intelligent design, putting forth the theory that perhaps aliens from another planet created life on Earth. Of course, if that were true, that still doesn't explain how the aliens came into existence.

See, the whole point is this: If there is no God, than everything was created by nothing. It is a natural progression of logic.

Thomas Huxley was affectionatley known as Darwin's attack dog. "It is clear," said Huxley, "that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation. Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe in the Bible."

Dan Trabue February 13, 2009 at 8:31 AM  

Marshall said:

Ya got Dan, doin' his usual thing, demanding quotes and such.

This is really funny (and an appropriate tribute to the anti-thinking, anti-science movement) that you see that I ask for actual "evidence" and "support" for arguments as a bad thing...

Mark, Huxley is right. IF you are concerned about "evidence" and "science" and "objectivity," then it DOES become believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. So, those who say that the Bible (including the Creation story) MUST AND ONLY MUST be taken literally or you have to reject the whole Bible, these people do a great disservice to Christianity.

If, on the other hand, the Bible is a book of truths, not facts; of philosophy, not science, well then, we by no means need to reject belief in the Bible. Your position chases thinking people away from the church. I'd suggest you stop that, unless you want a whole church full of people who are suspicious of "thinking" and "evidence."

BenT - the Unbeliever,  February 13, 2009 at 9:10 AM  

What Richard Dawkins believes or Mr Huxley believes is not relevant to the theory of evolution.

And in fact your further suppositions only highlight your misunderstanding of Darwins's theory.

What Dawrin's theory says is that animals born with traits that let them prosper in an environment are more likely to succeed and pass those traits on to their offspring. He posits that slight mutations over time have led to the earth's great biodiversity.

Humans are not descended from chimpanzees. Both humans and chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor. As all birds are descended from a common ancestor. And even further back is a common ancestor for all four-legged creatures. And before that an ancestor that prospered because it had a skeletal system of some sort.

The same being true for plants.

Notice that nowhere does Darwin address the origins of life. In fact this is an area of research that is practically unexplored.

Darwin's theory remains the best answer to explaining reality. And that is why it is so accepted and endorsed by scientists.

BenT - the Unbeliever,  February 13, 2009 at 9:14 AM  

As an extra tail let me give you one example of current evolution.

The tusks of African elephants are getting smaller. Because of ivory hunting, elephants with smaller tusks live longer and have more offspring. They pass on the genes for smaller tusks to their young. And of the new generation those with smaller tusks again thrive under the new environmental pressures. And they pass along even greater reductions in tusk size.

That is evolution.

Al-Ozarka February 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM  

"Do you know of a theory or a scientist that demands such? Do you have a quote?"

How lame of you, Daniel-san.

One needs to quote no individual. The prevalent view among modern evolutionary "science" is that there is NO DEBATE!

That blows "science"'s definition of the word, "theory" right out of the water. Modern "science" doesn't believe evolution is a "theory". It believes that evolution is a fact. It rejects ANY debate about intelligent design.

Where have you been, Danny-Boy?

That's right...studying on ways to deceive others.

Al-Ozarka February 13, 2009 at 10:33 AM  

BenT,

For someone who thinks himself above the intelligence of anyone contributing to this blog, you sure are a gullible little guy!

One of these days, that elephant might turn into a rackledacklopotumus, right?

What logic!

Jim February 13, 2009 at 11:10 AM  

Al, for crying out loud, look up the work "theory". It does not mean "guess".

Al-Ozarka February 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM  

There's your sign, Daniel-san.

Al-Ozarka February 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM  

Jimothy, the entries that pertain to the subject:

2: abstract thought (SPECULATION)

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (the wave theory of light)6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture

All from Merriam Websters

I The definition only re-enforces what I've already repeated - the "theory" of evolution is considered not "theory" but accepted as truth.

According to your gurus who like to call themselves "scientists", evolution is NOT a theory...it is proven beyond any debate.

You see, reasonable, objective people like those who write the definitions for words like "theory" and print them in prestigious publications like Merriam Webster's Dictionary use words like "speculation", "assume", and "unproved".

It's nonobjective "science" that INSISTS evolution is more than just theory.

As I first said in my opening comment on this thread:

"There's really no debate, is there Daniel-san?"

Maybe it's YOU who needs to read the definition for the word "theory" and then take a hard look at what modern "science" is trying to force down the throats of the gullible in order to further its agenda of a godless society.

Marshall Art February 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM  

"This is really funny (and an appropriate tribute to the anti-thinking, anti-science movement) that you see that I ask for actual "evidence" and "support" for arguments as a bad thing..."

What's funny is your asking for proofs due to a comment who's point doesn't require one. Al wasn't saying the theory or the scientists who subscribe to that theory stated anything. He said the theory itself demands such a conclusion.

My point in mocking your request is that it always rises from no real argument on your part, or a complete misunderstanding of the argument on the other's part.

Marshall Art February 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM  

Bent,

Your second to last comment speaks of macro-evolution, the morphing of one creature into another, but you use in your last comment an example of micro-evolution, changes within a particular species. Most "anti-evolutionists" don't have a problem with micro-evolution. The trouble comes in insisting there is proof of macro. To say that similarities must mean a common ancestor is where I, personally, have a problem. Why MUST it mean that? It MAY simply mean there are similarities and the story ends there. The lack of skeletal evidence suggests so.

"And in fact your further suppositions only highlight your misunderstanding of Darwins's theory."

I believe what your inferred regards what we are stating evolutionists believe about God and/or creation as a result of evolutionary theory.

Marshall Art February 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM  

Dan,

"IF you are concerned about "evidence" and "science" and "objectivity," then it DOES become believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible."

This is not suggested by the quote Mark offered. Perhaps you have one that aligns with what appears to be an attempt to validate your own perspective of Biblical teaching by laying that over the Huxley quote.

Mark February 13, 2009 at 3:21 PM  

Dan, I don't understand what you are saying when you say,"it DOES become believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible."

Is that grammatically correct? Cause I can't make any sense of it.

Otherwise, what you seem to be saying is the Bible is not completely true.

So, let me employ your tactics. Cite what specific passages you believe are not the true Words of God. Which passages are lies? Which specific passages were added to the Bible just to fool us Bible believers?

And why would whoever did these things do them? To deliberately mislead us? Was it just a joke?

Then, tell us please, who told you? And why should we trust whoever it was who told you which of God's Words are not true over what God says is true.

Now, if no one told you these truths, and you have simply decided for yourself that God was just kidding when He told us all these lies that are contained in the Bible, Perhaps you can tell us who made you the ultimate arbiter of what's true in the Bible and what's not true.

You are right, Dan. You are no scientist. You are no Biblical scholar either. You are no true Christian either if you don't believe God when He specifically said, "ALL scripture is inspired by God."

Do you really believe God would allow some unnamed, uncredited, unauthorized, usurper of His truth to add or detract anything from His inspired and inerrant Word?

Is your God really that ineffectual?

Dan Trabue February 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM  

Mark said:

I don't understand what you are saying when you say, "it DOES become believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible."

That's because I missed a word, sorry.

"It DOES become IMPOSSIBLE to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible..."

Something along those lines is what I meant to say. Sorry.

Dan Trabue February 13, 2009 at 3:48 PM  

Mark said:

what you seem to be saying is the Bible is not completely true.

It is my belief that the Bible IS completely true. It's just not completely factual.

The Bible is a book of truths, so when the Bible says, "God created the heavens and earth," I agree.

The Bible is NOT a science textbook, so when it says, "In six days, God created the Earth..." it is not literally true. That's a mythical explanation of the creation that would be something the original audience could understand.

The original audience couldn't have understood "Billions of years ago God created the Earth and over billions of years, life evolved as we know it today, and continues to evolve..." there was no context or scientific understanding to which to attach a scientific explanation.

As to how I KNOW the biblical explanation of creation, for instance, is not factual, it's because even as a scientific sophomore, I understand enough of the physical record and scientific method to know that the genesis story is a mythological explanation, not a scientific one.

Why would you presume that it HAS to be taken literally? Does the Bible tell you to do that? Has God spoken to you and said, "These 66 books must be taken literally!"?

No, you do so for reasons of human tradition. Which is fine, as far as that goes. But it's not necessarily godly nor logical.

God created us wonderfully in God's image and that includes the ability to reason. Our reason tells us that Genesis is not a scientific explanation and the Bible nowhere says otherwise.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford February 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM  

Marshall, for the record, I wasn't being condescending. I was being factual, and the entire comment thread here demonstrates it all to a "T". The only person who has described the way the SCIENCE of EVOLUTION works to EXPLAIN the way NATURAL SELECTION works has been Ben. All the crap about Julian Huxley and Richard Dawkins - meaningless mumbo-jumbo because it isn't science.

As to the confusion about evolution as theory and as fact. Evolution itself is not a "theory". A century before Darwin it was widely recognized that various species of animals were closely related; Darwin's grandfather had a detailed theory of evolution through acquired characteristics (what is usually described today as Lamarkian evolutionary theory). Darwin didn't "invent" evolution; what he did is use a wide variety of disparate date to explain the reality of evolution using a theory he called natural selection. Natural selection is the theory - a highly resilient one, BTW - and evolution is the fact it attempts to explain.

Now, anyone who took a HS biology class should know this. My teacher used a chicken skeleton to demonstrate some of the issues addressed by the theory of natural selection (comparative anatomy) and cowboys to show acquired characteristics don't pass down (all that bow-leggedness isn't rampant throughout Texas, Wyoming, etc.). The discovery of Mendelian genetics, at first, was thought to be incompatible with Darwin's theory, and it took a couple generations to synthesize the two. Genetics works on an individual level, while the theory of natural selection deals with populations. The statistical science of population genetics deals quite nicely with the conundrum.

Mark February 13, 2009 at 4:38 PM  

Dan says, with authority, "The Bible is NOT a science textbook, so when it says, "In six days, God created the Earth..." it is not literally true."

Oh, really Dan? Who told you that? God?

Cause if God didn't tell you that, you will excuse me if I prefer to believe God. Sorry, but I don't believe that you or your atheistic buddies know more than He.

Here's something to chew on... If Gos can create an entire Universe simply by speaking it into existence, Why couldn't God be able to make it appear to mere mortals that it is a lot older than it is?

See, the trouble with you and your so-called "scientific" minded friends, is you keep trying to put God into a finite box of mortal proportions. You cannot do that. God is way beyond anything that mere mortals can conceive. For that reason, all your scientific arguments that purport to contradict God's word are foolish.

You need to keep in mind that God is. None of us can wrap our minds around that fact, but fact it is.

God is. God was. God will always be.

You can't change that fact by merely pronouncing it to be false, whether you pronounce it with authority or foolishness.

I believe God. Until someone comes along who can prove God wrong, I will opt to believe God.

Mark February 13, 2009 at 4:48 PM  

Geoffrey, anyone can draw comparisons between two separate entities without them being in any way related.

But that's ok. If you want to believe your father is a babboon, I won't dispute it. In fact, I see similarities in your avatar already.

Dan Trabue February 13, 2009 at 4:49 PM  

Mark said:

Oh, really Dan? Who told you that? God?

Cause if God didn't tell you that, you will excuse me if I prefer to believe God.


Where did God tell you to take that Genesis story (stories) literally? Do you have a source? IF God is big and powerful enough to speak a universe into being, is God not big enough to tell a creation story using mythology?

We have no logical reason to take that story literally. Not one.

We have plenty of obvious, logical reasons not to take it literally.

Who shall I believe? Mark's illogical, bad sci-fi imagination or my God-given reasoning (and the reasoning of millions of others more informed on scientific matters than Mark or I)?

Mark February 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM  

Dan smugly asks, "...is God not big enough to tell a creation story using mythology?"

Why, yes, He is, Dan, but why would He need to? Because some self-described intellectuals might not believe the truth? Do you really believe God didn't anticipate scoffers? Does God have to conform to what some people's ideas are of Him or is it the other way around?

Come on, Dan. You can do better than that. Like, why not just believe the truth? duh.

Mark February 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM  

We have no logical reason NOT to take God's creation story literally. Not one.

Jim February 13, 2009 at 5:01 PM  

Al, I noticed you proffered definitions 2 and 5 but not 1:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.[emphasis added]

Mark February 13, 2009 at 5:35 PM  

LOL! You might just as well give up, Dan. I'm smarter than you.

Jim February 13, 2009 at 9:14 PM  

Mark said Why couldn't God be able to make it appear to mere mortals that it is a lot older than it is?

Then Mark said Why, yes, He is, Dan, but why would He need to? Because some self-described intellectuals might not believe the truth?

Is Mark confused?

Eric February 13, 2009 at 10:30 PM  

"Darwin's theory remains the best answer to explaining reality."

This is subjective... an opinion. It cannot be proven.

When we look at a building we know it had a builder. When we see a painting we know it had a painter. Yet when we look at a baby, vastly more complex than a building or painting, we choose to believe the baby came about from a "theory" that ultimately states that all life has a common ancestor? Impossible.

It is in fact easier to believe God created all things than that life evolved from lifelessness.

A single cell over millions of years produces a dog. Is it male? Female? Let's assume it's male. For that dog then to survive he must find a female that had also evolved and is at the same stage of evolution with a desire to mate. Without such a female he's a dead dog. The chance that two single cells produced the same creature over millions of years and created them at the same rate of evolution both male and female? And not just dogs, but cats, elephants, giraffes, horses, bees, spiders, mites, mosquitoes....

Preposterous.

Eric February 13, 2009 at 10:41 PM  

As to poaching... Should the poaching be stopped, what to keep those tusks from growing longer? The male with the largest tusks rules the herd... and the females. What's to keep tusks from growing in successive generations of elephant?

Nothing. This isn't evolution. It's adaptation.

Eric February 13, 2009 at 11:18 PM  

Dan said: "We have no logical reason to take that story literally. Not one."

Luke takes Jesus' genealogy all the way back to Adam. Is Adam a single man created by God? Or is "Adam" representative of an early "people" as some evolutionists suggest? Was Abraham a real person? Or just a representative "group"? Abraham is only twenty generations removed from Adam. Was David a real person? Or just a representative "group"? He's just thirteen generations removed from Abraham. What about Jesus? Was He a real person? Or just a representative group. He's forty-two generations removed from David.

At what point do we stop accepting the individual person-hood of these men? If Jesus was real, if David was real, if Abraham was real, mustn't Adam also be real? And if he was indeed a real person, and not just a representative group, then mustn't we accept that he was the first man? Created by God without the artifice of evolution? Or natural selection?

I agree with Mark. We have no logical reason NOT to take the account of God's creation literally.

For myself I am not so much interested in Darwin and his theory as much as its impact on modern society, and the abuse atheists do to society as a whole, and their own immortal souls because of it. Evolutions is used as an excuse for them to live their lives free of consequence of their sins. They are like men who walk backward; whose heads never turn to see where their folly takes them.

Jim February 14, 2009 at 1:00 AM  

It is in fact easier to believe God created all things than that life evolved from lifelessness.

Why do you insist that these are mutually exclusive?

Marshall Art February 14, 2009 at 2:23 AM  

Jim,

Because they are polar opposites.

One says that there is a direct cause, that is, God.

The other says that there was no cause, that everything came about spontaneously. An example would be that in your living room, a small spontaneous explosion occurred that produced a new coffee table. Nothing caused it, it just happened.

Evolution gives some the excuse to be atheistic. This has been shown to be the case in previous comments and posts. The argument is that if evolution is used to deny the existence of God, then, as I indicated in a previous comment, there can only be two possibilities for creation, one of which is that everything just spontaneously began without cause.

I hope this clears things up for you.

Mark February 14, 2009 at 6:36 AM  

Jim, my views are consistent. It simply comes down to the fact that God can do anything. Also, I accept there are things about the nature of God I can't understand. Looking at it that way, my statements are perfectly compatible.

Look, I can accept the possibility that God took billions of years to create the Earth. It isn't altogether unbiblical. The Bible says it took six days for Him to create the earth, and it also says a day is as a thousand years to God, so I won't discount the possibility. Perhaps the evening and the morning of the first day came about a billion years apart.

However, the evolutionists would have us believe that God had to make millions of rough drafts before He got it right in creating man.

In "The origin of the Species" Darwin explains how man came to be the highest form of life (on earth) through "survival of the fittest". In this process, what eventually became man supposedly won out over the other animals because man was stronger, smarter, and more adaptable. This would indicate that, in the beginning, man was no better than the animals surrounding him, if man was a man at all.

Using this logic, that means God made millions of mistakes in creating man. His first effort wasn't good enough, so He had to make improvements over and over again until we at last find ourselves at this point in our evolution.

My God doesn't make mistakes.

Perhaps Geoffrey and Dan's God does.

Perhaps that explains them. Hey! Maybe I'm just more evolved than Dan, Geoffrey and Jim because I have a better (not perfect)understanding of the omnipotence of God!

Evolution is dangerously wrong.

Mark February 14, 2009 at 6:40 AM  

You know, looking at Dan and Geoffrey's avatars, it does appear that their foreheads jut out a little more than average, just like a gorilla or Neanderthal man.

LOL! Perhaps there is something to the theory of evolution after all!

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford February 14, 2009 at 6:53 AM  

I said - this is what evolution and Darwin's theory of it is. Mark said - you look like a baboon. I said - this is what science is and does - Mark said - you look like a gorilla.

After leaving this comment, I promise to de-link and never visit again. You people are pathetic. Ignorant, and proud of it.

Mark February 14, 2009 at 6:57 AM  

Oh, Come on, Geoffrey, I was just funnin' with you. Lighten up.

If you read my comment before that one, I demonstrated that I understand the theory of Evolution. I just don't buy it.

I apologize if my little joke offended you.

Dan Trabue February 14, 2009 at 7:10 AM  

Eric said:

What's to keep tusks from growing in successive generations of elephant?

Nothing. This isn't evolution. It's adaptation.


You know, Eric, that (I believe) even most creationists accept the notion of micro-evolution?

Eric February 14, 2009 at 7:26 AM  

I have no problem with that either, Dan. What I DO have a problem with is the lengths to which many take this idea; that turkeys were once velociraptors, that man and monkey have a common ancestor and that that common ancestor at some point in time began as inanimate matter... that life sprang from lifelessness.

That is impossible.

BenT - the Unbeliever,  February 15, 2009 at 1:46 AM  

"this idea; that turkeys were once velociraptors, that man and monkey have a common ancestor and that that common ancestor at some point in time began as inanimate matter... that life sprang from lifelessness.

That is impossible."


But I must accept conversely that it is more logical that all present life springs from a big boat and a single breeding pair of every animal in the world?

You think that's more logical?

Further up you stated "A single cell over millions of years produces a dog. Is it male? Female? Let's assume it's male."

And again I say that you do not fully understand the base concepts of evolution or you would never posit this idea.

The most recent research I read about gender suggests that way further back than almost anything else a single celled parasite attached to another single celled organism and triggered the separation into two compatible mating pair of organisms. Over the millenia the genetic material from that parasite became entwined with it's host organism and further differentiation led to all the haploid species we have today.

In fact all the research says that males are the result of that split that previous there existed only females.

Because evolution is messy and chaotic it best explains all the messiness of the living sphere. If there is a divine creator then what is the appendix for? It's not an essential part of the body. People have them removed all the time without ill-effect. And that is only one of many examples of a brainless creator.

Marshall Art February 15, 2009 at 1:56 AM  

The thought that we once needed tha appendix does not conflict with our beliefs. Once again, this would be an example of micro-evolution, or changes within a spiecies, where Christians don't have issues. Average heights have changed over time. This is a mutation or adaption that is within the species. Not a problem. Given enough time, racial differences will fade if enough inter-racial marriages take place. All these changes don't give Christians reason to wonder.

Mark February 15, 2009 at 7:07 AM  

Bent, you're kidding, right?

"But I must accept conversely that it is more logical that all present life springs from a big boat and a single breeding pair of every animal in the world?

You think that's more logical?
"

Yes, absolutely. At least there are a male and female of the same species at the start.

As to the rest of your comment, if you think that drivel is more logical, you are beyond hope.

That theory of two single cells attaching and intertwining, (by chance no less)to become male and female living animals of any kind is akin to two 747's colliding in midair, and hitting the ground as one Concorde.

ER is right. You are a looney.

Eric February 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM  

Leprosy used to be THE great scourge of diseases. Everyone who traveled in the middle east feared contracting it because there was no cure and it was a very messy disease. Treatment for leprosy was available as early as the 1930's but the disease mutated and so that drug failed. It wasn't until the early 1980's that a new regimen for leprosy was developed. Instead of just one drug, scientists developed a multi-drug treatment, one the disease could not overcome and, voila! Leprosy is now curable. And if caught early enough, all the disfiguring aspects of the disease can be averted.

The point is, for the longest time... thousands of years long... the cure was unknown; people thought of it as a curse from God, and as such, incurable short of divine intervention. Considering the level of scientific knowledge, advancement and research available to man just two hundred years ago (let alone 2000 years ago) the disease was, in effect, incurable. There WAS a cure, but these men were unable to acquire it, let alone imagine the processes that would allow its procurement. Leprosy could not be cured because man simply didn't know enough to cure it.

The same can be said of the "so-called" human appendix. As far as anyone knew or believed, the only use it had was to inflame and/or become tumorous... to be removed.

But just like with the cure for leprosy, there just hasn't been enough knowledge/research to discover its purpose.

Which brings me to one of the biggest problems modern science has... specifically the medical field.

Each of you reading this, presumably, is sitting in front of a PC. There are also, presumably, two buttons on the front: the on/off button and the reset button. Setting aside the obvious differences between your PC and the human body, the appendix then is your reset button.

When your PC crashes or locks up you just hit the reset and your PC "reboots". You can of course live without the reset button and just turn the whole thing off and walk away, losing whatever you were working on at the time. Same with the reset, but the reset assumes you want to get immediately back to work. Not just die and let that be the end of it.

The appendix works as a reset button for your digestive system. Your appendix is a storage container filled with massive amounts of beneficial bacterias needed in the aid of digestion. There are times in everyone's life when all the good stuff in our gut dies out-- this is especially true today with the rampant overuse of antibiotics which are indiscriminate in their zeal for killing; they kill the good as well as the bad. Where then does the body get a replacement? From the appendix. The appendix keeps a store of all the good bacteria the body needs to properly digest food.

Naturally, we can live without a reset button on our PC's. We can just turn the machine off, count to twenty and then turn it back on. We can't, however, do that with our bodies. We can live without our appendixes, but we are then dependent upon probiotics, either in pill form or from plants themselves, and then, there's no guarantee of getting everything you need. You will suffer for not having your appendix... in ways most will never notice, but you can live.

So why did scientists not discover the appendixes purpose until very recently? Like with leprosy, they didn't have enough knowledge to ask the right questions and make the right observances, and come to the right conclusions.

Now, are lives saved with knowing the appendixes purpose? Quality of life, certainly. For without it, you're forced to either supplement, at a monetary cost, or suffer any number of conditions that develop because those bacteria aren't there.

No studies have yet been done (that I'm aware of) on life expectancy AFTER removal of the appendix. That would make an interesting read. But for the long-winded record, the appendix does serve a purpose, and is not, as most believe, vestigial.

Al-Ozarka February 15, 2009 at 9:52 PM  

"Dan smugly asks, "...is God not big enough to tell a creation story using mythology?"

Why, yes, He is, Dan, but why would He need to? " - Mark

I know a couple of people who like to tell tall-tales about their past. One evening, I was with them both and they went on for over an HOUR swapping stories that everone else with us KNEW were just so much BS.

Liars and deceivers LOVE to listen to...and very likely believe...other liars and deceivers.

That's why, Mark. Kinda like the gift of tongues, you know? God has to have a way to communicate with...well...you know who.

Feodor February 19, 2009 at 2:51 PM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric February 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM  

Pean to the appendix?

You're an idiot feodor. I was just correcting Ben's statement that the appendix served no purpose... that God created man with useless bits of flotsam and jetsam.

Feodor February 19, 2009 at 5:36 PM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art February 20, 2009 at 12:50 AM  

"You're an idiot feodor."

Apparently it's obvious to many. Useless bits of flotsam and jetsam, thy name is Feodor.

Feodor February 20, 2009 at 6:59 AM  

MA keeps giving us his best. Poor lamb.

Eric February 20, 2009 at 7:00 AM  

Why doesn't it belong in humans? We inherited the appendix from koalas? I ate my own tail!?

You, sir, are officially named, here and now (until someone greater comes along) the Emperor of Jabberwocky. The Jabberwocky Pulpit is officially yours.

Feodor February 20, 2009 at 7:38 AM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric February 20, 2009 at 9:39 AM  

How about lung cancer, colon cancer, parkinsons, deep vein thrombosis, down syndrome, dwarfism..... let's put those in God's column too!

Man, after all, is a fallen creation; subject to death and disease, and degradation of the flesh. And none of this would have happened had God not told Adam he couldn't eat from one specific tree.

With friends like God... no wonder we have the kind of foolishness your last comment so cleverly displayed.

And you claim I ate MY own tail!? LOL! No wonder!

Feodor February 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marshall Art February 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM  

Apparently Eric's arguments are over your foggy head. Your pretense of intelligence is wasted here. oh EoJ.

Feodor February 20, 2009 at 5:31 PM  
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marshall Art February 21, 2009 at 2:12 AM  

As usual, Jabbs breaks wind.

Feodor February 21, 2009 at 8:28 AM  
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP