Darwin's Appendix

[Dr.Drock]

You're still arguing against a regional flood scenario as if it were a worldwide flood. There was no worldwide flood in the post-scientific sense.

Question: How do zoos keep predators from eating prey?

Answer: By segregating them.

Are you stupid or something? A little Forest Gump speak.

You're questions are moot, silly.

Aside from your insults, you are the VERY FIRST person to claim that the flood was a regional flood. I can read the Bible, there is nothing there indicating that it is regional.
Indeed, quite the opposite.

"Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”


Genesis 7 NIV - The LORD then said to Noah, Go into the - Bible Gateway

"But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth;"

Genesis 8 NIV - But God remembered Noah and all the - Bible Gateway

"With more detail in Genesis 7:2-3, God instructed Noah to take seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, and two of every kind of unclean animal. Bible scholars have calculated that approximately 45,000 animals might have fit on the ark. "

Noah's Ark and the Flood - Bible Story Summary of Noah's Ark

I'm not the first person to claim such a thing at all. Biblical scholars have suspected as much for at least two centuries. In any event, the geological and archeological evidence of the past century evinces the occurrence of a flood and that it was regional. You just want a reason to reject the biblical account rather than correctly understand it. You’ve spent your life laughing at young earth hermeneutics with it never occurring to you that the pre-scientific cosmology of the ancient Hebrews is to be understood from their perspective first and adjusted accordingly. If the flood was regional, all of your objections, all of your sneering, all of you insults become moot. Your decades behind the best scholarship and the science.

PBS - Scientific American Frontiers | Beneath the Sea | Noah's Flood

Your article talks about a potential regional flood, but I need to see biblical scripture that references it being a regional flood because I don't think there's any that do.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Aside from your insults, you are the VERY FIRST person to claim that the flood was a regional flood. I can read the Bible, there is nothing there indicating that it is regional.
Indeed, quite the opposite.

"Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”


Genesis 7 NIV - The LORD then said to Noah, Go into the - Bible Gateway

"But the dove could find nowhere to perch because there was water over all the surface of the earth;"

Genesis 8 NIV - But God remembered Noah and all the - Bible Gateway

"With more detail in Genesis 7:2-3, God instructed Noah to take seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, and two of every kind of unclean animal. Bible scholars have calculated that approximately 45,000 animals might have fit on the ark. "

Noah's Ark and the Flood - Bible Story Summary of Noah's Ark

I'm not the first person to claim such a thing at all. Biblical scholars have suspected as much for at least two centuries. In any event, the geological and archeological evidence of the past century evinces the occurrence of a flood and that it was regional. You just want a reason to reject the biblical account rather than correctly understand it. You’ve spent your life laughing at young earth hermeneutics with it never occurring to you that the pre-scientific cosmology of the ancient Hebrews is to be understood from their perspective first and adjusted accordingly. If the flood was regional, all of your objections, all of your sneering, all of you insults become moot. Your decades behind the best scholarship and the science.

PBS - Scientific American Frontiers | Beneath the Sea | Noah's Flood

Your article talks about a potential regional flood, but I need to see biblical scripture that references it being a regional flood because I don't think there's any that do.

I've already provided the information you need to understand this. Go back and read my posts. Read the links.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm not the first person to claim such a thing at all. Biblical scholars have suspected as much for at least two centuries. In any event, the geological and archeological evidence of the past century evinces the occurrence of a flood and that it was regional. You just want a reason to reject the biblical account rather than correctly understand it. You’ve spent your life laughing at young earth hermeneutics with it never occurring to you that the pre-scientific cosmology of the ancient Hebrews is to be understood from their perspective first and adjusted accordingly. If the flood was regional, all of your objections, all of your sneering, all of you insults become moot. Your decades behind the best scholarship and the science.

PBS - Scientific American Frontiers | Beneath the Sea | Noah's Flood

Your article talks about a potential regional flood, but I need to see biblical scripture that references it being a regional flood because I don't think there's any that do.

I've already provided the information you need to understand this. Go back and read my posts. Read the links.

Well within this convo I can see this;

"Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

There's nothing to interpret about that, it's pretty black and white.

I just scrolled through every post of this thread. You provide links showing the measurements the Bible gave of the boat being proof that a boat of those measurements could float, which I've never disputed. But never any link to a kooky website backing your claim about a regional flood, or only certain species being on the Ark.

Which even if all that were true, it'd still be crazy, as it would require locals to be able to predict a flood coming, then build a ship of that size in time before it came, then round up all those animals and get them on the Ark. So not as crazy as the story the Bible gives, but still pretty crazy.

And still blasphemy to change God's word.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Your article talks about a potential regional flood, but I need to see biblical scripture that references it being a regional flood because I don't think there's any that do.

I've already provided the information you need to understand this. Go back and read my posts. Read the links.

Well within this convo I can see this;

"Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

There's nothing to interpret about that, it's pretty black and white.

I just scrolled through every post of this thread. You provide links showing the measurements the Bible gave of the boat being proof that a boat of those measurements could float, which I've never disputed. But never any link to a kooky website backing your claim about a regional flood, or only certain species being on the Ark.

Which even if all that were true, it'd still be crazy, as it would require locals to be able to predict a flood coming, then build a ship of that size in time before it came, then round up all those animals and get them on the Ark. So not as crazy as the story the Bible gives, but still pretty crazy.

And still blasphemy to change God's word.

No. See. The real problem here is that you're not too bright. Sad, but true.

 

[geauxtohell]

By Rabbi Yonason Goldson
July 20, 2011
Jewish World Review


Knowledge and understanding have caught up with yet another aspect of Creation

Virtually unique to human beings, serving no physiological purpose, and subject to fatal inflammation, the human appendix provided Charles Darwin with what he believed to be compelling evidence to support his theory of evolution. An organ contributing no benefits and potential harm could surely be nothing more than a remnant from distant ancestors in whom it served a function no longer relevant to man's evolved form.

LINK

It's hardly breaking news that the appendix, once considered to be vestigial, may serve as a reservoir for gut flora. However, the issue is still being debated. I am not aware of any paper or study that analyzes incidence of C. diff infections in person's who still have their appendix versus those that do not. It would be a good study.

A better example of a vestigial organism would be the coccyx.

At any rate, using this to try and refute evolution is somewhat silly. Darwin was wrong about several things and his theory of evolution has long since been refined. This article covers the issue well.

Five things humans no longer need - life - 19 May 2008 - New Scientist

 

[geauxtohell]

Someone with a degree in English trying to debunk the view of doctors.

"Since I know the best ways to use there, their and they're, that gives me qualification to debunk doctors in the medical field."

Uh-huh. The opinion of a rather substantial number of doctors in biology and the medical field, and the demonstrations that the many supposed vestigial organs do in fact have or have had important functions do not count, eh?

For example:

In fact, the coccyx [tailbone] has some very important functions. Several muscles converge from the ring-like arrangement of the pelvic (hip) bones to anchor on the coccyx, forming a bowl-shaped muscular floor of the pelvis called the pelvic diaphragm. The incurved coccyx with its attached pelvic diaphragm keeps the many organs in our abdominal cavity from literally falling through between our legs. Some of the pelvic diaphragm muscles are also important in controlling the elimination of waste from our body through the rectum. —Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D., Biology and Biomedicine​

The fact of the matter is that "vestigial organ arguments" for an evolutionary common ancestry are weak and silly—syllogistically, analogously and scientifically, as many philosophers of science, physicians and biologists, both evolutionist thinkers and skeptics, know. Only rabid acolytes of Darwinism, regardless of their credentials, think otherwise. The biggest problems for these kind of arguments—which do not require any degree to recognize, just a bit of common sense—is that they are obviously predicated on an apriority that is not subject to any objective standard of falsification, and their objects can be readily accounted for by other criteria.

People have a tailbone because we all used to have tails, at about a month into our mother's pregnancy when we were fetuses we had tails.

The Human Coccyx and Appendix: A Study in Vestigiality

Coccyx summary

The coccyx does have some functionality. But nothing about what it does requires it to be made of fused, vertebrae-like bones; to have a muscle to move it, since the fused parts cannot move; nor to be made by the particular genes that it is. In short, nothing about what it does requires it to have the form of a tiny tail.

Its structure does not match with its claimed function. It is therefore overdesigned, containing features that are irrelevant.

Thus we can reject the made-as-it-is hypothesis as an adequate explanation. Even if we have no other to offer.

As it happens, we do. Descent with modification explains how one structure can, over the course of generations, become enlarged, reduced, added to or subtracted from, and even change function or lose function. And intriguingly, other creatures have coccyxes. It is just that they are often longer, unfused, and made of more bones. But when we encounter such longer, unfused coccyxes, we call them tails.

Evolution predicts that a tail-less creature whose ancestors had a tail might have a thing just like a coccyx, just as it predicts that a lineage that lost its hind limbs on returning to the sea might still have bits of bone shaped like parts of a pelvis and femur inside it. As many whales do.

Evolution is therefore a satisfactory explanation, while creation can be rejected as inadequate.

Why do the maxillary sinuses drain upward (against gravity)? Why is our immune system prone to attack us?

Two examples of many "design flaws" by a purported intelligent creator.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm just relieved to know you don't think what I typed, you wouldn't be the first on this site to believe the crazy stuff I typed with regards to the Great Flood.

If you aren't the type to be dumb enough to think 2 of every animal including dinosaurs quietly sat down next to man, lions next to antelopes, T-Rex next to triceratops all casually fitting on a 450 long boat, you're an upgrade intellectually to the type I've been discussing with on here the last few days.

Well, I'm not a young-earth creationist, and it seems pretty clear to me that dinosaurs were extinct long before extant mammals showed up. On the other hand, challenging the idea that God led the pertinent creatures of the region to board Noah's Ark actually begins by challenging the existence of the biblical God. If God exists and can create the Cosmos, putting some animals in an Ark for safekeeping is chump change. I believe he did just that, and my belief in that begins with my belief that the Father raised the Son from the dead, perhaps an even more impressive miracle. By definition God exists eternally and commands the laws of nature. He is not subject to them. The whole point of miracles is to demonstrate His existence and authority.

In any event, you may know my thinking from a previous exchange: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...nge-to-creationists-iders-11.html#post3773009, http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...nge-to-creationists-iders-12.html#post3775892

And therein lies the rub between science and the "faith based" movement of people who want to put theology into the scientific method.

With a lack of a logical or scientific explanation to explain the virtually impossible (how a crude wooden ship that would have to be larger than a modern aircraft carrier to accommodate two of every kind to include food could be constructed by a small family who also had to round up the animals and then (a common problem with the old testament) if that ship was sea worthy, how offspring that virtually genetically identical could perpetuate the species.) - you operate off the "God did it" assumption.

That is fine as a personal belief. It just flies in the face of science. "God in the gaps" is an anathema to scientific thought.

 

[geauxtohell]

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Didn't you read the information at the end of the links I provided?

The Bible does describe a literal historical event, a literal worldwide flood, albeit, relative to the limited, pre-scientific perspective of the ancient Hebrews who were not aware of the fact that the world was round or extended beyond known regions of human habitation all those many years ago. God doesn't play with your mind; He expects you to use your mind and rightly understand the matter. The fact of the Noahic Flood has been well-established by science, geologically and archeologically. It most certainly did happen. What's wrong with you? It's a simple, straightforward matter. We know it to have been merely a regional flood post-scientifically.

Hello! Anybody home? It's not the biblical account that has been falsified; its the pre-scientific cosmology and hermeneutics of the ancients that has been falsified, their limited perspective. The Bible is not a scientific treatise; it's a theological treatise. God expects you to grasp that and adjust your understanding of it accordingly, in the light of new information. The only one playing with your mind is you.

I agree there was a regional flood that would be on par with a massive event that was disastrous and wiped out many people and animals, which is probably the spark for the Noah story.

I doubt that any "regional" event could produce the amount of water needed to produce the buoyancy needed to lift an "ark" and deposit it on the top of a mountain in Turkey (if that is truly where it is).

Use your own mind. The amount of water needed to raise the water level that high would require most of the world to be covered.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I've already provided the information you need to understand this. Go back and read my posts. Read the links.

Well within this convo I can see this;

"Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

There's nothing to interpret about that, it's pretty black and white.

I just scrolled through every post of this thread. You provide links showing the measurements the Bible gave of the boat being proof that a boat of those measurements could float, which I've never disputed. But never any link to a kooky website backing your claim about a regional flood, or only certain species being on the Ark.

Which even if all that were true, it'd still be crazy, as it would require locals to be able to predict a flood coming, then build a ship of that size in time before it came, then round up all those animals and get them on the Ark. So not as crazy as the story the Bible gives, but still pretty crazy.

And still blasphemy to change God's word.

No. See. The real problem here is that you're not too bright. Sad, but true.

A genius post, you just completely took all my points and slammed them with your completely perfect debate skills backed entirely by scientific facts and intellectual reasoning.

I provide a list of facts, and get a "you're a doo-doo head" for a reply, I wish I knew how good of a debate tactic that was when I was in college , my professors would've been so impressed!!!

 

[geauxtohell]

The problem with the ark story is that there's never been a worldwide flood during the time humans have been on earth. I don't challenge the existence of God, just that Grenesis is literal. If it isn't then, no problem, the Bible should be read as a guide for our lives not a history or science text. If it is true, then God plays with our minds, because no evidence of such a thing occuring has ever been shown to be true. I prefer the former interpretation.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Didn't you read the information at the end of the links I provided?

The Bible does describe a literal historical event, a literal worldwide flood, albeit, relative to the limited, pre-scientific perspective of the ancient Hebrews who were not aware of the fact that the world was round or extended beyond known regions of human habitation all those many years ago. God doesn't play with your mind; He expects you to use your mind and rightly understand the matter. The fact of the Noahic Flood has been well-established by science, geologically and archeologically. It most certainly did happen. What's wrong with you? It's a simple, straightforward matter. We know it to have been merely a regional flood post-scientifically.

Hello! Anybody home? It's not the biblical account that has been falsified; its the pre-scientific cosmology and hermeneutics of the ancients that has been falsified, their limited perspective. The Bible is not a scientific treatise; it's a theological treatise. God expects you to grasp that and adjust your understanding of it accordingly, in the light of new information. The only one playing with your mind is you.

The Bible also gives specifics on the size of the ship though, which is an impossibility based on everything the Bible claims the ship was carrying.

Saying it was a magical ship that could carry more than what's physically possible would make more sense than saying a 450 foot boat could carry 2 of every animal with all the food and water to keep them alive and ample space to keep them separate from killing each other.

That's roughly the size of a football field (Including the endzones) for perspective.

 

[Dr.Drock]

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Didn't you read the information at the end of the links I provided?

The Bible does describe a literal historical event, a literal worldwide flood, albeit, relative to the limited, pre-scientific perspective of the ancient Hebrews who were not aware of the fact that the world was round or extended beyond known regions of human habitation all those many years ago. God doesn't play with your mind; He expects you to use your mind and rightly understand the matter. The fact of the Noahic Flood has been well-established by science, geologically and archeologically. It most certainly did happen. What's wrong with you? It's a simple, straightforward matter. We know it to have been merely a regional flood post-scientifically.

Hello! Anybody home? It's not the biblical account that has been falsified; its the pre-scientific cosmology and hermeneutics of the ancients that has been falsified, their limited perspective. The Bible is not a scientific treatise; it's a theological treatise. God expects you to grasp that and adjust your understanding of it accordingly, in the light of new information. The only one playing with your mind is you.

The Bible also gives specifics on the size of the ship though, which is an impossibility based on everything the Bible claims the ship was carrying.

Saying it was a magical ship that could carry more than what's physically possible would make more sense than saying a 450 foot boat could carry 2 of every animal with all the food and water to keep them alive and ample space to keep them separate from killing each other.

That's roughly the size of a football field (Including the endzones) for perspective.

Yep and he said 2 of every animal god had created, so if you believe god created everything than you believe all the massive dinosaurs were on there too.

The OP is just spinning the Bible to fit science by saying only camels and sand lizards were on there despite the Bible not saying anything remotely like that.

 

[geauxtohell]

Darwinism(evolution) is a lie. There is no real scientific proof of it. It was made up by Darwin so he would not have to admitt there is a God who created the earth and all living things.

Really? Then why did Darwin sit on his theory for 20 years? If he was so eager to attack religion, why did it collect dust for 20 years?

Do you know what prompted Darwin to present his theory? Perhaps you should look up the name Alfred Russell Wallace. It was almost "Wallace's Theory of Evolution". The fact is, if Darwin hadn't of published, someone else would have. The observation behind evolution is so obvious, that it was just a matter of time before others came up with it.

In fact, the notion of gradual change over time leading to new species didn't start with Darwin. LaMarque also had similar notions.

Like most anti-evolutionists, you simply are regurgitating someone else's lame talking points. What is worse: they aren't even accurate.

Case in point: "No scientific evidence"? That is just idiotic.

 

[geauxtohell]

They "CLAIM" there is no proof for evolution, when it is in every cell of their body, every living cell in the world. They won't believe it because there is no videotape of it happening.

Easier for them to claim God is real and evolution is a lie than to bother opening a book to find the truth or fiction to either of those statements.

You don't know me from Adam. Your arrogance and presumptuousness regarding my alleged ignorance of the science is foolish.

So the proof is in every living cell on earth, eh? And of course you understand the putative genetic evidence for an evolutionary common ancestry and will make the case?

You think that this "evidence", ultimately predicated on a metaphysical presupposition regarding the history of biological life, the stuff of teleology, really, cannot be refuted?

Do you actually know and comprehend the science, its nature, first-hand like, or do you just take the word of authority?

It is in every eukaryotic cell on earth.

Why do mitochondria have their own circular (prokaryotic) mitochondria?

 

[geauxtohell]

I know the biblical story.

All of which of course, has been proven wrong by basic geology, basic engineering and a host of other sciences.

Hogwash. You're just making bald assertions out of thin air. In fact a replica of the Ark has been built to precise specifications . . . and no one knows how many animals were abroad.

There is no scientific problem whatsoever; in fact, two studies have been done on its seaworthiness. The design has been shown to be quite remarkable on that score.

WWF: Hull Form

WWF: Korean Safety Paper

In fact, it may have been found:

Has Noah's Ark Been Found on Turkish Mountaintop? - FoxNews.com

But who knows at this point on that score?

Aside from the fact that Noah's family were not ship builders by trade, that is all good and fine. However, it doesn't take into account the weight the Ark would have to accommodate.

Kind of like the architect who designed the "sinking library" because he didn't account for the weight of the books.

 

[geauxtohell]

THE DANGERS OF EVOLUTION (SEMINAR PART 5)
The Dangers of Evolution (Seminar Part 5) | Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Apologetics, Evangelism

DINOSAURS AND THE BIBLE (SEMINAR PART 3)
Dinosaurs and the Bible (Seminar Part 3) | Creation Science Evangelism - Creation, Apologetics, Evangelism

Does the human fetus temporarily develop gills, a tail, and a yolk sac?

You realize that Kent Hovind "Dr. Dino" is a convicted felon that is now sitting behind bars, correct?

Apparently Kent used the bible not only to refute evolution but also to refute the notion that he had to pay his taxes.

 

[geauxtohell]

The Bible also gives specifics on the size of the ship though, which is an impossibility based on everything the Bible claims the ship was carrying.

Saying it was a magical ship that could carry more than what's physically possible would make more sense than saying a 450 foot boat could carry 2 of every animal with all the food and water to keep them alive and ample space to keep them separate from killing each other.

That's roughly the size of a football field (Including the endzones) for perspective.

Yep and he said 2 of every animal god had created, so if you believe god created everything than you believe all the massive dinosaurs were on there too.

The OP is just spinning the Bible to fit science by saying only camels and sand lizards were on there despite the Bible not saying anything remotely like that.

And then, where did all that water go?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

And therein lies the rub between science and the "faith based" movement of people who want to put theology into the scientific method.

With a lack of a logical or scientific explanation to explain the virtually impossible (how a crude wooden ship that would have to be larger than a modern aircraft carrier to accommodate two of every kind to include food could be constructed by a small family who also had to round up the animals and then (a common problem with the old testament) if that ship was sea worthy, how offspring that virtually genetically identical could perpetuate the species.) - you operate off the "God did it" assumption.

That is fine as a personal belief. It just flies in the face of science. "God in the gaps" is an anathema to scientific thought.

All you're really saying is that God doesn't exist. You're making a theological argument, and why do you assume the project was carried out by only a small handful of people? I expect that the domestic animals consisted of more than two of each kind. Surely that was the case. As for the rest, who knows? The account may be partially allegorical.

I don't have all the answers, but I believe it to be an historical occurance.