Scientific paper says the human hand was designed by a 'Creator'!
- Thread starter carolinajazz
- Start date
Nephew, technically.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
...sorry if I didn't "comprehend" the overall significance of this picture, but maybe you guys can clue me in?
Picture? It's a video, you buffoon. Watch it and it'll explain everything. It's comical that you're so sure of what "you know" that watching a simple video scares you. Have you thought about changing your username to charlatanjazz? It might be more fitting. Just a suggestion. I also find it ironic that you and the people of your ilk are slowly dying off...just like the dinosaurs.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
I finally realized it was a video...sometimes my computer skills are not up to par with the geeks on this board! (I'm still hanging on to Windows XP by the way!) However, after watching the video....nothing has changed in favor of evolution one iota! As far as so-called "vestigial" organs are concerned:
w55 11/1 p. 644 “And as for man’s being just full of vestigial organs, there was a time when physiologists held that there were some 180 vestigial organs in the human body but today only a handful are mentioned, and many doctors now refuse to term any organs vestigial. Just because man does not know the function of an organ does not make it vestigial. As one professor expressed it: “He would be a rash man indeed who would now assert that any part of the human body is useless.”
In 1981, Canadian biologist Steven Scadding argued that although he had no objection to Darwinism, "vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory." The primarily reason is that "it is difficult, if not impossible, to unambiguously identify organs totally lacking in function." Scadding cited the human appendix as an organ previously thought to be vestigial but now known to have a function.
S. R. Scadding, an evolutionist himself, concurred with this fact in his article "Can vestigial organs constitute evidence for evolution?" published in the journal Evolutionary Theory: Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that 'vestigial organs' provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution.
Simply put, the scenario of vestigial organs put forward by evolutionists contains a number of serious logical flaws, and has in any case been proven to be scientifically untrue. There exists not one inherited vestigial organ in the human body.
....and the baby hanging on the bar demonstrates it's "inner Monkey?" PLEASE!
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
I just have to include some other info on "vestigial" organs that shoot down what's ever left of that "buffoonery" idea!
A vestigial organ, by evolutionary definition, is an organ that was once useful during a previous stage of your evolution for a supposed ancestor, but in the course of time, that organ was no longer needed, but continued to remain in the body.
"If vestgial organs would prove anything, they prove devolution, NOT evolution ! Darwinists claim that some of our organs are falling into disuse. Yet, in contrast, they provide us with no one NEW, developing organ. The "vestigial organs" idea, if it could be true, would only prove the opposite: devolution!"
"Not all organs are necessary for survival,this doesn't mean they are useless! You have 2 lungs, you need one to survive. You have 2 kidneys, you need 1/10 for survival. No one claimed the other lung may be 'just for fun'.
you will survive if your eyes and arms are cut out, and they are not "vestigial," or useless organs."
"People have far more problems with their lungs, hearts and stomachs, than they have with 'vestigial' organs. Almost any organ in your body can kill you if is it sufficiently diseased. How many people die of heart attacks vs. appendicitis? The heart, the physical or the spiritual one, is far more troublesome. If your lungs become infected, you can die but no one suggests removing the lungs as a preventive measure during surgery for another reason."
"It strongly appears that the true "vestigial organ" in earlier times, was an ignorant mind; a mind that did not know why organs were in the body, and was too impatient and lazy to do the laborious work needed to identify functions. But we should not want to call ignorance a proof of evolution."
"One study done by Dr. Howard R. Bierman on hundreds of patients with leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries showed that 84% of these patients had their appendix removed, while in a healthy control group only 25% had it removed. [Bergman and Howe, p. 45] This is a positive correlation, indicating a possible role of the appendix in preventing these diseases."
“Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks,” said researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC “Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.”
https://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/can-so-called-vestigial-organs-be-proof.html
A vestigial organ, by evolutionary definition, is an organ that was once useful during a previous stage of your evolution for a supposed ancestor, but in the course of time, that organ was no longer needed, but continued to remain in the body.
"If vestgial organs would prove anything, they prove devolution, NOT evolution ! Darwinists claim that some of our organs are falling into disuse. Yet, in contrast, they provide us with no one NEW, developing organ. The "vestigial organs" idea, if it could be true, would only prove the opposite: devolution!"
"Not all organs are necessary for survival,this doesn't mean they are useless! You have 2 lungs, you need one to survive. You have 2 kidneys, you need 1/10 for survival. No one claimed the other lung may be 'just for fun'.
you will survive if your eyes and arms are cut out, and they are not "vestigial," or useless organs."
"People have far more problems with their lungs, hearts and stomachs, than they have with 'vestigial' organs. Almost any organ in your body can kill you if is it sufficiently diseased. How many people die of heart attacks vs. appendicitis? The heart, the physical or the spiritual one, is far more troublesome. If your lungs become infected, you can die but no one suggests removing the lungs as a preventive measure during surgery for another reason."
"It strongly appears that the true "vestigial organ" in earlier times, was an ignorant mind; a mind that did not know why organs were in the body, and was too impatient and lazy to do the laborious work needed to identify functions. But we should not want to call ignorance a proof of evolution."
"One study done by Dr. Howard R. Bierman on hundreds of patients with leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries showed that 84% of these patients had their appendix removed, while in a healthy control group only 25% had it removed. [Bergman and Howe, p. 45] This is a positive correlation, indicating a possible role of the appendix in preventing these diseases."
“Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks,” said researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC “Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.”
https://evolutionfactormyth.blogspot.com/2013/03/can-so-called-vestigial-organs-be-proof.html
Please advise on my inquiry into changing your username...
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Another "myth" expressed in that video is refuted very easily by this clear cut reasoning:
It is a staple of almost every biology book on the market: drawings of colored bones that show how evolution left its fingerprints on animals of common descent. These drawings point out how similar structure proves that we all come from one ancestor. The proof, they say, is as plain as the hand in front of our face.
Objectively, however, similar design and function can prove nothing. An iPod and an iPhone may have very similar parts, for example, but that certainly doesn’t mean the iPhone evolved from the iPod because of hardware glitches. Instead, because we have objective knowledge of history, we know that the same company designed both, which accounts for the similar design.
In the same way, similar structures in animals are just as strong an evidence for a common Designer leaving His mark on the works of His hand. Human designers often use similar solutions across a wide range of products. Why would we expect the Creator not to do the same?
"In many cases what are called homologous organs are produced by the action of different genes. For example, you could change by mutation the gene that governed the development of the alleged ancestral vertebrate forelimb a million times and never produce, say, a seal’s flipper or man’s arm. Their development is controlled by different genes."
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evidence/similarities-dont-prove-evolution/
It is a staple of almost every biology book on the market: drawings of colored bones that show how evolution left its fingerprints on animals of common descent. These drawings point out how similar structure proves that we all come from one ancestor. The proof, they say, is as plain as the hand in front of our face.
Objectively, however, similar design and function can prove nothing. An iPod and an iPhone may have very similar parts, for example, but that certainly doesn’t mean the iPhone evolved from the iPod because of hardware glitches. Instead, because we have objective knowledge of history, we know that the same company designed both, which accounts for the similar design.
In the same way, similar structures in animals are just as strong an evidence for a common Designer leaving His mark on the works of His hand. Human designers often use similar solutions across a wide range of products. Why would we expect the Creator not to do the same?
"In many cases what are called homologous organs are produced by the action of different genes. For example, you could change by mutation the gene that governed the development of the alleged ancestral vertebrate forelimb a million times and never produce, say, a seal’s flipper or man’s arm. Their development is controlled by different genes."
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evidence/similarities-dont-prove-evolution/
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
The frightening thing is I don't think you are putting on an act. Wow!
And regarding your continuing plagerism, it is a step in the right direction that you include quotation marks and a page number (so that it doesn't appear as if you're trying to take credit for these words), but how could it possibly not occur to you not to tell us what book this came from or who the author is? My elementary school aged daughters can do this every time with no problem and they know why it's important, but you simply cannot figure it out.
Red
Well-Known Member
Human embryo link to fish ancestors:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13280665
Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-13278255
The video mentioned at the second link is available in the first link above.....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13280665
Anatomical clues to human evolution from fish:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-13278255
The video mentioned at the second link is available in the first link above.....
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Why concentrate on the source of my material and not the question or issue at hand? Because the arguments for the evolution theory are so pathetically flawed...that you have no choice but to change the subject and avoid the embarrassment of supporting the greatest hoax in human history!
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Oh God, you guys are still debating this clown on evolution? Why not just bang your head on the toilet seat and get it over with; that'll be as pleasurable and inflict less damage to your brain. Plus, the toilet seat doesn't cite crank scientists or discredited intelligent design websites.
While you're at it CJ, why don't you please explain to us how Noah got all the world's animals onto the ark from the four corners of the earth, or what the carnivorous animals ate after the flood waters resided and they were let off the ark? Maybe the same credible 'Christian scientists you cite have a website about that too. While you're at it, perhaps one of your "Christian Scientists" can expound for us just how much animal shiite Noah and his small band of merry ark occupants had to shovel every day?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
On one side we have a difficult to interpret book of stories passed down through the millenea and then eventually compiled into a holy document by a power hungry ruler who created and modified it for the purpose of helping his armies conquer the world. On the other side we have volumes upon volumes of authenticated scientific evidence, including first hand experience watching evolution in action. Which one of these two cases are you calling the greatest hoax in human history?
I asked my dad this question when I was a kid. He said Noah probably had their genomes sequenced and then recreated them after the flood.
I'm not kidding.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Let's say Noah somehow managed to get marsupials on his ark ( Shipped them with Fedex?). The problem then is how did they all made back to Australia without leaving a single fossil on the way back in Asia, Indonesia and Malaysia? I guess almighty god gave a hand and airlifted them all back to safety?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Obviously Santa did it. Srsly sometimes you can be a real dumbass. Also, before you go off on the virgin birth I'll fill you in. That was Santa too. Santa gave Mary the worlds first Easy Bake Oven which she used to make Jesus. The translators got the story wrong. It wasn't immaculate conception it was immaculate convection!
