A simple and understandable counter to every anti-Evolution argument. , page 2

reply to post by edmc^2

---

Energy came first, which in the early universe became hydrogen. Hydrogen formed the first starts, which formed the heavier elements.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by edmc^2

---

Energy came first, which in the early universe became hydrogen. Hydrogen formed the first starts, which formed the heavier elements.

Not trying to be a pain but just wanting to know how far does this theory of yours will go.

If Energy "came' first then where did this energy came from? Who or what created it?

ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by SG-17

---

I simply ask someone who completely discounts evolution to explain the human appendix.

- Why is it there?
- If we were created solely by a divine act, why would something unnecessary be included in the human body?
- If God is infallable, why did he create us with something that by 99% of expert views is needless? Now there are some who believe that the appendix serves to store "good" bacteria, but there have been no conclusive evidence to prove that, despite the fact that proving it would be extremely simple. Most medical experts side on the notion that the appendix is a remanent of evolution and at one point in our evolutionary history did in fact serve a legitimate and necessary function, but that it no longer does, due to the evolution of the modern gall bladder, endrocine system or some other organ/system in the body.
- If it is divine, what happens if it is removed?

They typically have a tough time answering that simple question. Now some may counter with intelligent design and that there is in fact evolution, and thats fine, but the hard core creationists can not answer the appendix question, at least not in my experience and I've probably asked it 15 times.

I’m quite surprised that you still believe this -sorry to say this - “quackery”. I say quackery because the more knowledge we gain from studying nature – the more it becomes evident that such so called “vestigial” organs actually are not useless organs.
A quick google search will confirm this:

Here’s one that I just googled - from National Geographic News:

The article stated in the Title that:

[size=4] [color=green]Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find [/size][/color]

Maggie Koerth-Baker
for National Geographic News
July 30, 2009
Appendix, tonsils, various redundant veins—they're all vestigial body parts once considered expendable, if not downright useless.
But as technology has advanced, researchers have found that, more often than not, some of these "junk parts" are actually hard at work.
Case in point: the spleen, which a new study shows may be critical in healing damaged hearts (interactive heart guide).
Sure, the spleen—kidney shaped and tucked into the upper left of your abdomen—helps spot infections and filters out red blood cells that are damaged or old. But overall the organ has been seen as nonessential. Cut it out, and people still live.
But the new study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science, has uncovered another, more critical role.
How Do You Mend a Broken Heart?
Researchers studying mice discovered that the spleen stores monocytes, white blood cells essential for immune defense and tissue repair.
Previously, scientists had thought monocytes were made only in bone marrow, like other types of white blood cells, and were "stored" in the bloodstream.
But the new study found that the spleen contains ten times as many monocytes as blood—making it a far more important storehouse. …

Read the rest here: news.nationalgeographic.com...
But you know what though, there’s danger to believe in such a “quack” idea because it’s puts someones life in danger.
Here what the article said:

Dangerous Logic
None of this is surprising to Jeffrey Laitman, director of anatomy and functional morphology at New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and president-elect of the American Association of Anatomists.
History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman said.
"People say, You can remove it and still live. But you have to be careful with that logic," he said. "You could remove your left leg and still live. But whenever a body part is moved or changed, there's a price to pay." [/ex[

So I suggest stop posting something erroneous and even dangerous. Someone might read your post and start to believe you and decides to remove an organ.
In your case though, since you fully subscribe to this quackery – in the name of science, will you volunteer yourself to remove ALL vestigial organs in your body and see what happens?
I hope your smarter than the quacks and not do it.

Ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by SG-17

---

I simply ask someone who completely discounts evolution to explain the human appendix.

- Why is it there?
- If we were created solely by a divine act, why would something unnecessary be included in the human body?
- If God is infallable, why did he create us with something that by 99% of expert views is needless? Now there are some who believe that the appendix serves to store "good" bacteria, but there have been no conclusive evidence to prove that, despite the fact that proving it would be extremely simple. Most medical experts side on the notion that the appendix is a remanent of evolution and at one point in our evolutionary history did in fact serve a legitimate and necessary function, but that it no longer does, due to the evolution of the modern gall bladder, endrocine system or some other organ/system in the body.
- If it is divine, what happens if it is removed?

They typically have a tough time answering that simple question. Now some may counter with intelligent design and that there is in fact evolution, and thats fine, but the hard core creationists can not answer the appendix question, at least not in my experience and I've probably asked it 15 times.

I’m quite surprised that you still believe this -sorry to say this - “quackery”. I say quackery because the more knowledge we gain from studying nature – the more it becomes evident that such so called “vestigial” organs actually are not useless organs.
A quick google search will confirm this:

Here’s one that I just googled - from National Geographic News:

The article stated in the Title that:

Vestigial Organs Not So Useless After All, Studies Find

Maggie Koerth-Baker
for National Geographic News
July 30, 2009
Appendix, tonsils, various redundant veins—they're all vestigial body parts once considered expendable, if not downright useless.
But as technology has advanced, researchers have found that, more often than not, some of these "junk parts" are actually hard at work.
Case in point: the spleen, which a new study shows may be critical in healing damaged hearts (interactive heart guide).
Sure, the spleen—kidney shaped and tucked into the upper left of your abdomen—helps spot infections and filters out red blood cells that are damaged or old. But overall the organ has been seen as nonessential. Cut it out, and people still live.
But the new study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Science, has uncovered another, more critical role.
How Do You Mend a Broken Heart?
Researchers studying mice discovered that the spleen stores monocytes, white blood cells essential for immune defense and tissue repair.
Previously, scientists had thought monocytes were made only in bone marrow, like other types of white blood cells, and were "stored" in the bloodstream.
But the new study found that the spleen contains ten times as many monocytes as blood—making it a far more important storehouse. …

Read the rest here: news.nationalgeographic.com...

But you know what though, there’s danger to believe in such “quack” idea because it’s puts someones life in danger.

Here what the article said:

Dangerous Logic
None of this is surprising to Jeffrey Laitman, director of anatomy and functional morphology at New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine and president-elect of the American Association of Anatomists.
History is littered with body parts that were called "useless" simply because medical science had yet to understand them, Laitman said.
"People say, You can remove it and still live. But you have to be careful with that logic," he said. "You could remove your left leg and still live. But whenever a body part is moved or changed, there's a price to pay."

So I suggest stop posting something erroneous and even dangerous. Someone might read your post and start to believe and decides to remove an organ.

In your case though, since you fully subscribe to this quackery – in the name of science, will you volunteer yourself to remove ALL vestigial organs in your body and see what happens?

I hope your smarter than the quacks and not do it.

Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

---

Current physics allows for energy to spontaneously exist from nothing.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by edmc^2

---

Current physics allows for energy to spontaneously exist from nothing.

Please explain.

reply to post by edmc^2

---

There is nothing more to explain. Energy can spontaneously come into existent from nothing when there is nothing.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by edmc^2

---

There is nothing more to explain. Energy can spontaneously come into existent from nothing when there is nothing.

I'm curious - since you're convince that we came from "nothing" - no creator as in God, where does morality fit in your worldview?

That is, if a person has no conscience and commits immorality against his/her fellowman, will you hold that person responsible?

Let's take Hitler or any bad person who had taken lives for example - were they immoral on what they did?

The Bible says any person who goes against God's command is considered a sin. What about you?

ty,
edmc2

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by edmc^2

---

There is nothing more to explain. Energy can spontaneously come into existent from nothing when there is nothing.

I'm curious - since you're convince that we came from "nothing" - no creator as in God, where does morality fit in your worldview?

That is, if a person has no conscience and commits immorality against his/her fellowman, will you hold that person responsible?

Let's take Hitler or any bad person who had taken lives for example - were they immoral on what they did?

The Bible says any person who goes against God's command is considered a sin. What about you?

ty,
edmc2

edit on 1-7-2011 by edmc^2 because: added q

Morality is defined by the culture that you live in. Morality, at its base, comes from the idea of self-preservation. "If I kill this man and take his food I might live another day, but if his family comes after me I might die the day after so maybe I should offer to trade for the food instead." Plus humans are capable of rational thought, basic morality is hardwired into the human brain. More complex morality is, like I said, a product of society.

Let me put it another way too. You accept the idea that the need to protect one's family is basic instinct, yes? Well when humans first left Africa we mostly only traveled in family groups. We wouldn't let harm come to our family members and we wouldn't harm them ourselves. Eventually as people got closer and the population grew, humans began to see other tribes of non-related people more as family than potential enemy.

If a person is determined to be mentally unbalanced, like psychopathic, bipolar, then they are not in full control/have access to their full conscious. Otherwise normal people can act against their conscious and if they break a law in the process, then they should of course be held responsible. Morality only comes into factor when it goes hand in hand with the law. People can commit acts deemed immoral by their society but are not actually immoral (homosexuality comes to mind) or they can commit immoral acts for a greater good.

Hitler was immoral by our standards, but not by Nazi German standards.

The Bible was written over 2000 years ago as an adaption of earlier works (like the Epic of Gilgamesh) for a new culture and as a way to help people, who lived without the modern scientific method, to understand their world. It is in no way a binding or factual account.

reply to post by SG-17

---

a what if? what if you are correct in your cartoons. what if my God had created modern man with a soul and after a great flood, only Gods creation survived? in Genesis, cain was sent out into the world to live among the people. a mark was put on his forehead so no one would kill him. if cain and abel were the first two children to adam and eve, where did the people come from? i am christian, but i dont claim to have the answers other than what is written. this is a question with a possible answer. both theories can be correct....in theory?

How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags

The Genesis Code
  Posted 10 days ago with 4 member flags

Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 11 days ago with 3 member flags

Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 6 days ago with 3 member flags

The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags

A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags

Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 5 days ago with 2 member flags

We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 5 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: