Reverend Al Sharpton Debates Atheist Christopher Hitchens

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
not really....hemmingway was a genius, yet he drank more heavily than even hitchens.

Hemingway was a great writer, no doubt, but there was obviously something wrong with him....

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it's not really, check the references.

Check this out:
Vermiform appendix

ok....i couldn't really find enough in the way of references to substantiate a lot of what this wiki said...and that's how i tend to look at things from wiki.

Alright. It has come down to your link vs. my link. It is true that your link provides a greater number of references (if you take greater references to mean greater truth). However, if you notice, you'll see that most of those references are used to validate data that is already known, and not really supporting their point. Anyhow, despite much of the truth on talkorigins, I'd rather trust an impartial source. But whatever, I can leave this as it is, because it has basically come down to your link vs. my link.

For the record, I have nothing against evolution. If evolution is true, then it is true, but don't drag in religion into this! By espousing evolution to make a point against God or religion, atheists (and the theists who oppose them) are stagnating science. If in a few decades/centuries/generations something comes out to conclusively PROVE (or DISPROVE) evolution, I don't want it to be snuffed out and hidden because the wrong side found it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

What about the money your parents invested in your education?

i don't see anyone's rights there...

What about their hopes for you?

again, not an issue of rights

(I'm assuming) Your parents invested a significant amount of time and money raising you, putting you through college and supporting you. Now I'm sure this doesn't mean (and I'm not saying it does) that once you have the money, you can pay them back and it'll all be over. However, your parents DO have certain rights over you in this regard. If you sat around the house watching TV and collecting unemployment cheques, while your parents may not suffer financially from this, I'd consider it spitting in their face.
Sure, these are not purely legal rights, but I wasn't (and I hope you weren't) talking about purely legal rights, because those vary from country to country, from state to state, and (the decision to enforce/create them) person to person.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Actually, I meant anything from tapping them, to poking them, to punching them in the face.

well...tapping and poking might be playful and fun, that one depends on the situation

punching someone in the face...unless it's in self defense or the context of an organized even in which face punching is kosher (like boxing), is a direct infringement of a person's right to security

And poking them is not? What if they just broke their ribs and you hugged them? What if you jabbed a poke where the fellow just got an injection? What if they really hates physical contact? What if they don't like the sound of your voice? What if they don't WANT to hear about how they'll be 'saved'? So many things.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

What if you engraved some vulgar comment on the back of your head? What if your grandmother is hurt by this?

then she needs to lighten up. my right in this instance overrides her right.

So you'd be willing to emotionally hurt your hypothetical grandmother with your hypothetical haircut because you believe it is your right?


To melatonin: I think you'll find that there is a difference between something having 'no absolute purpose' and 'absolutely no purpose'. The writer is not claiming that vestigial means that something has no purpose. You'll notice that the writer is discussing various theories brought forward by others about the appendix, not his own theories.


As to Hitchens vs. D'Souza, here is some stuff for everyone to check out:
Hitchens vs. D'Souza 1
Hitchens vs. D'Souza 2
Hitchens vs. D'Souza 3
Hitchens vs. D'Souza 4
Hitchens vs. D'Souza 5
Hitchens vs. D'Souza 6
Hitchens vs. D'Souza 7
Hitchens vs. D'Souza 8
Hitchens vs. D'Souza 9
Hitchens vs. D'Souza 10

Now, I went through all of them, and I can see where Hitchens was trying to go with the Al Sharpton interview, although Al Sharpton took it in another direction, which Hitchens didn't follow. However, again, I don't really see where Hitchens was extraordinary at debating (although I did find D'Souza to be more than mildly irritating- I prefered Al Sharpton's approach in that regard).
D'Souza made a lot of easily shoot-downable comments, which I'm surprised Hitchens didn't go after (I guess formal debate rules have something to do with that). I personally don't really see it as an indication to Hitchens' debating prowess, and as far as I can tell, Hitchens just barely made it out above D'Souza.

EDIT:
I got reminded by JiT's post about that comment, and I just wanted to add, that from personal experience , the extra hair DOES help with a little warmth with goosebumps (which I'd say has many other nonbiological uses), and I'm definitely not the only one, considering that I've seen hairier people than myself.
As for ear-waggling, the major reason people can't do that is because their muscles atrophy from lack of use (not that ear muscles are vestigial- children can be taught to do it). Now I suppose that in today's world turning your ears towards the direction of the sound isn't really that important, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that it has no use.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by babloyi]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
Madness you have too many qoutes at once, you got to minimize them alittle please...

...no, that's my style and i'm sticking to it



WELL OF COURSE.

well...if things worked so well, childbearing wouldn't be such a painful and potentially deadly process...
in the past, childbirth was quite high on the list of causes of death in women, the only reason it isn't like that now is modern medicine


WELL MADNESS GOD MADE CHILDBEARING WITH PAINS AS H SAID IN GENESIS BECAUSE OF EVES SINS



what's the function of goosebumps? they're a vestige
we don't have enough body hair for them to be useful

we have ear muscles connected but they don't develop enough to create ear mobility



NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO HAVE A SPECIFIC UE, BUT GOD DID MAKE CERTAIN THINGS VERY EVIDENT. GOOSEBUMPS LET US KNOW W ARE COLD...




because it's not there.
just like that cloud isn't a motorcycle.


NO ITS THERE, MY POST ON BODY PARTS JUST FLEW OVER YOUR HEAD LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE, YOU CANT SEE ANYTHING.



no, i have plenty of deepness, it's how i can tell that it's a cloud instead of a motorcycle, i see past the surface.


NO YOU DONT GIVE ANYTHING A CHANCE, I CAN TELL THAT BY TALKING TO YOU.



the repulsive, bigoted myth is the part that you "know why"
we don't need your deity for morality.

sure, i may prefer a deity-free universe, but i really don't care so long as the truth is provable.
i'd also prefer it if i could fly, but i accept the reality that i can't.


NO YOU DONT GIVE ANYTHING A CHANCE, YOUR COMPLETELY NON OPEN MINDED.




i gave you links to them, they're catholic saints.


I WILL READ ABOUT THEM SOON... BUT KNOW THIS NOBODY IS MADE A SAINT FOR NO REASON.

/quote]

ok..i just showed you two people who were made saints because they were SUPPOSEDLY MARTYRED BY JEWS WHO USED THEM AS BLOOD SACRIFICES

that's a myth...jews don't do that...


YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THE MIRACLES IVE JUST MENTIONED BECAUSE YOUR A CIRCULAR REASONER WHICH MEANS YOU KEEP DENYING THINGS TO FURTHER YOUR ARGUMENT



that's not evidence. evidence would be medical documentation.


OH I HAVE THAT, DO YOU WANT IT? I DONT LIKE TALKING TO STRAGNERS AND GIVING THEM MY PHONE NUMBERS THOUGH. BUT REALIZE I ONT LIKE LYING, IM DEAD SERIOUS, AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT I MEAN AT THE SEAT, I HAVE NO REASON TO LIE TO YOU...



yep, god has been shoved into all kinds of gaps in knowledge
just look at the bible, god is used to explain plenty in there.


NO ITS CALLED REVEALED TRUTH THROUGH MIRACLES PEOPLE SEEN INCLUDING I.... AND ST GEMA AND PADRE PIO AND THE LIST GOES BACK TO NOAH AND FURTHER.....



it's not arrogant, it's evident.


NO ITS ARROGANCE WHICH STEMS FROM NOT GIVING ANYTHING A CHNACE YOUR MIND IS MADE UP.. I CAN SEE THAT



says the person who wouldn't even consider that god might not exist...
i don't know, but i don't assume said being does as their is absolutely no evidence.


THATS BECAUSE HES EVIDENT IN THE DEEPNESS OF CREATION, NOT ONLY THAT BUT I HAVE SEEN COUNTLESS MIRACLES NOT ONLY IN MY LIFE BUT THE SAINTS AND MY FAMILIES......



i call BS as you cannot show anything to back up this statement.



OF COURSE YOU DO.. I HAVE EVIDENCE AND THE DOCTOR WHO EXAMINED THIS PERSON AFTER IT WENT AWAY...



well, that's because you need to be more open minded. you don't really tick me off, though you often times say things i whole heartedly think are ignorant and outright wrong.


I AM OPEN MINDED, BUT I KNOW FROM THINGS IVE SEEN THAT HES THE LORD.....




i meant early church, pre-constantinople.


THAT DOESNT MAKE SENSE, MADNESS THE MAJOR COUNCILS STARTED WITH I THINK NICEA, SO BEFORE THAT NO MAJOR COUNCIL WAS HELD TO DECLARE CHURCH DOCTRINE
.


ok...but jesus didn't speak latin. jesus would have known aramaic, hebrew, and probably greek, as it was the trade language of the eastern empire


DOESNT MATTER. PAUL AND PETER TRAVELLED TO ROME AND HELPED CONVERT ROME TO MAKE IT THE STATE RELIGION, AND LATIN WAS CONFIRMED AS THE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE OF THE CHURCH.... BUT IT DOES HAVE OTHER LANGUGES.




and those prayers were added at one point...there was a period in which they didn't exist in the church...


NO THATS NOT TRUE..... THE MASS HAS STAYED THE SAME SINCE AS EARLY BACK AS I THINK 100S, FURTHERMORE THEY WERE DECLARED TO NEVER BE REMOVED BY 1900 YEARS OF POPES... AND V2 REMOVED THEM ON PURPOSE.... TO TAKE THE GRACE OUT OF COMMUNION...



no, it doesn't. you clearly misunderstand the concept of the sacraments.

YOUR WRONG. THE MASS I REPEAT CANNOT BE SAID WITHOUT WORDS, ITS IMPOSSIBLE, AND THE CHURCH HAS ETCHED THIS IN STONE EX CATHEDRA THAT THE WORDS CONSIST OF THE FORM WHICH ARE NEEDED FOR THE SACRAMENT TO TAKE PLACE....... IVE READ THIS STUFF MADNESS.



wow.... just wow


THATS BECAUSE YOU DONT UNDERSAND WHAT COMMUNION IS, AND SAINTS HAVE PROPHECIED THIS FALSE NEW MASS BEING CREATED, SO WOW ALL YOU WANT..



you're being insanely vague


NO THATSFALSE... 40 ANTIPOPES EXISTED AND WERE REMOVED BY THE DISPROVAL OF SAINTS AND HIRARCHY MEMBERS WHO EXPOSED THEIR HERESY



you'd think god would use mass media outlets if he wanted to get his message out....


NO, ITS CALLED HAVING FAITH, HE DOESNT APPEAR TO ANYBODY BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY CAN BEHOLD HIM....HE WILLMAKE HIMSELF KNOWN SOON THOUGH....YOU WILL SEE SHORTLY.




that's not fornication...that's adultery. fornication is premarital sex.
if you had been reading, i clearly stated that adultery, sex that breaks a commitment, is immoral


SO IS PREMARITAL SEX ACCORDING TO GOD...



because it infringes on other people's freedoms.
it's called reasoning


WHAT? WHAT IF I WANT THE FREEDOM TO GO ROB A BANK? YOUR FREEDOMS THAT ARESIN HURT GOD LIK I WOULD ROBBING A BANK HURTING PEOPLES WALLETS...



lastly thats a bunch of balony madness, God never said to keep women as slaves in the new covenant, he said the two will be one flesh and respect each other with dignity thats in scripture.....



peace.

[edit on C:/120214021515America/ChicagoMon, 04 Feb 2008 09:50:15 -060015/Feb by JesusisTruth]

[edit on C:/120214036343America/ChicagoMon, 04 Feb 2008 09:52:43 -060043/Feb by JesusisTruth]

Boy im in for the circular arguments with madness this is going to be a long post.... anyways I did say he had a good point in one of the sentences, so I am open minded, he didnt acknowledge it, but anyways let it continue, good greif..


Blue soldier...

blue soldier, firstly you made that diagram up for me of the trinity implanted as a mystery on our bodies, did you not recieve anything from that, do you not comprehend what those points mean? we are walking trinities bluesoldier......


" Do you need an imaginary freind in order to keep you from raping people "


firslt hes not imaginary to millions of ssaints which seen him work.... but ill answer you question....

NO. anyways its all Gods grace.. why do you think some people are evil? without heart? without fealings? without a soul?

God is the one who instills love into our souls, without which we would all be evil, this is the truth..

now listen, I dont know HOW clearer I can putthis,

when I was younger I would throw things at my mother, I was lazy, I cursed angrly, I didnt want to work, go to school, nd I didnt have alot of lovein me...


Now, im completely opposite, the fealings in me are completely opposite of back then when I was younger...

a complete 360 turn around because of Gods grace... I have never took medice, no shrink, no nothing but prayer and God......


I grew up with freinds an guess what their fn would be? wehad a gang back then, I was in it....


beating people up 6 on one fr (FUN), throwing rocks at peoples heads....... these kids I grew up with were wcked, I mean wicked, you couldnt imagine......

I never joined them hough I would walk with them,,,,, and I believe thats baptism or a specific grace.....


but what im saying is, (please God let them understand)... is that grace is love, and it comes from God, nd without it you will be like the people I mentioned....


No compassion, no soul, no fealings, nothing without God...


So bakc to the qoute.. No I would not rape a person because of Gods goodness,, and because through conscience he has tuaght me thats its evil....

from him alone he has taught me goodness.

peace.

Oh about the smokinthing... we are in the age of **** yea attitude which people find attractive, some people not me, but people need to put on this cool image to let everybody know they are bad***.

they arent, they dont know what real evil is.... nontheless, if the guy smokes let him do it in private, he doesnt seem any cooler than if he were wearing a micky mouse cap on.....

peace.

Originally posted by babloyi
To melatonin: I think you'll find that there is a difference between something having 'no absolute purpose' and 'absolutely no purpose'. The writer is not claiming that vestigial means that something has no purpose. You'll notice that the writer is discussing various theories brought forward by others about the appendix, not his own theories.

And he is wrong in his interpretation of the position of evolutionary theory on this issue.

I can read what he is saying quite well. I know the article which he uses to claim 'nowadays seen to contradict the explanation of the appendix as a vestige of evolutionary development.'

It is a study that hypothesises an immune function for the appendix. As I said, so what? It doesn't contradict anything in the explanation of the appendix as vestigial. The quote he uses earlier clearly says this. So, therefore, he is wrong.

The webpage that MIMS pointed to earlier clearly points this out. Your response was to claim it was outdated because it didn't have enough on the hypothetical immune function of the appendix. The article states that it doesn't matter. It can still be vestigial. The quote the guy uses early in his piece says exactly the same. But then he ignores it to make erroneous claims.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by melatonin]

why do scientists call it a safehouse for good bacteria melotin? And say it does have a use?

I just dont see how you guys cant see. God made a male private, and a female private,a nd the fact that children come out of the womens private, perfectly fit fo each other, perfectly formed for each other, yet evolution which is nothing can do this good?

You see the ability to see, doesnt come from Xs and Os and scientific theories, It comes from a sincere heart that knows chance cant do this good...


peace.

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
I have seen cancer cured by prayer alone when all hope was lost..... but oh well it will never change...

Without getting to far into the thick of this thread, as I have no wish to debate the veracity of A supreme being. what is the name of this preist, where does he operate, and is he taking new patients?

Edit to add: My mother is very sick and the established medical facility lacks the ability to cure her. We have tried a large number of alternative thearapies and im sure she would be open to such a "for-sure-cure".

[edit on 4-2-2008 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by JesusisTruth
why do scientists call it a safehouse for good bacteria melotin? And say it does have a use?

Because it might be a safehouse for good bacteria?

You're just continuing the same misinterpretations of vestigiality in evolution as the author of that wiki, babyloi, and most creationists.

It doesn't matter if it has some other function. The claim of vestigiality is based on the loss of one particular function during evolution.

For example, the wings of an ostrich are vestigial. They are no longer used for flight. However, they are used for balance/movement on the ground and sexual display (and other things). It doesn't matter that they still have some other function, vestigial doesn't mean they are non-functional.

Melatonin, I'm not sure if you realise, but that article I quoted wasn't putting forward a specific 'interpretation'. It was explaining the appendix, and the various theories as to it's use. Let me quote here the part that you took offense to:

The most common explanation is that the appendix is a vestigial structure with no absolute purpose. In The Story of Evolution, Joseph McCabe argued thus:

The vermiform appendage—in which some recent medical writers have vainly endeavoured to find a utility—is the shrunken remainder of a large and normal intestine of a remote ancestor. This interpretation of it would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost.

First, the author says that the most common explanation is that the appendix is a vestigial structure (it doesn't have a set, specific purpose, and any purpose found is incidental, or secondary). Then he goes on to quote Joseph McCabe on it (Joseph McCabe being a writer and speaker on freethought, originally being a priest, then an agnostic, then an atheist, going on to join the National Secular Society). Joseph McCabe said that it doesn't matter if a utility for the vermiform appendage is found, because that doesn't nullify the interpretation that it is vestigial.

What exactly in this passage is contradictory? When he goes on to discuss other viewpoints, he says that this theory is contradicted by modern thought (which someone changed to 'other researchers', but I digress), based on the fact that few other mammals (herbivores or not) have an appendix, and this (nothing hypothetical about it, just a question if whether it is the main function, or an incidental function of a vestigial organ) immune function may be the main function of the appendix.

Nobody is arguing about the meaning of the word vestigial. Please don't tack on my argument to such a silly point and then go on about attacking it.

Hahahaha....I see someone has edited the wiki because they had the same misconception as you...that the meaning of vestigiality was misunderstood. What can you do? The truth is the truth, and besides, it isn't that hard to go and look at the history of the page.

BTW, I'd be really curious to see some proof on exactly how the assumption that the appendix is a vestigial organ came about. The article doesn't really go into that. It goes on and on about the validity and the misconception of 'vestigiality'. Do we have the fossilised remains of an early mans digestive system? Do was have some fossilised early man feces that are significantly different from how our feces would look if we munched on grass? Are early man's teeth missing some vital carnivorous power?

[edit on 4-2-2008 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi
Melatonin, I'm not sure if you realise, but that article I quoted wasn't putting forward a specific 'interpretation'. It was explaining the appendix, and the various theories as to it's use. Let me quote here the part that you took offense to:

I don't like that first part becuase it is easily misinterpreted. The big issue is the later part.

Here the page says said that because an article proposes a hypothetical immune function for the appendix, that this 'contradicts' the evolutionary interpretation of vestigiality.

It doesn't. So it was wrong. So it needed correcting

I wasn't the only wiki user to note this misinterpretation. I put links in the discussion section to support my edit.

Joseph McCabe said that it doesn't matter if a utility for the vermiform appendage is found, because that doesn't nullify the interpretation that it is vestigial.

Great. So you agree with me? The article notes McCabe's musings, then completely ignores them later by saying that proposing a function contradicts vestigiality. That's why it needed fixing. Wouldn't want this error to keep bouncing round the intertubz.

BTW, I'd be really curious to see some proof on exactly how the assumption that the appendix is a vestigial organ came about. The article doesn't really go into that. It goes on and on about the validity and the misconception of 'vestigiality'.

The article MIMS posted contains what you need.

www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by melatonin
Here the page says said that because an article proposes a hypothetical immune function for the appendix, that this 'contradicts' the evolutionary interpretation of vestigiality.

But it is not hypothetical. Calling it such won't change that. And if the immune function turns out to be the main function of the appendix (as opposed to an incidental function, coming much after it's original use was finished), then (along with the other reasons cited), this WOULD contradict the idea that it is vestigial.

Originally posted by melatonin

Joseph McCabe said that it doesn't matter if a utility for the vermiform appendage is found, because that doesn't nullify the interpretation that it is vestigial.

Great. So you agree with me? The article notes McCabe's musings, then completely ignores them later by saying that proposing a function contradicts vestigiality. That's why it needed fixing. Wouldn't want this error to keep bouncing round the intertubz.

No, what I believe is irrelevant. I was talking about what Joseph McCabe said. And as I mentioned before, the article isn't (or wasn't) putting forward one view (either Joseph McCabes, or anyone other person). The article doesn't (or didn't) 'ignore' anything. It had several perspectives. This doesn't mean it was contradictory.

Originally posted by melatonin
The article MIMS posted contains what you need.

www.talkorigins.org...

No, it doesn't, really. which is what I said. It goes into a great amount of detail about the vestigiality of the appendix, which really isn't what I'm talking about (but you seem to be repeatedly bringing up). It attempts to connect the function of the caecum of various animals with the original function of the appendix. I do not see info on these early humans.

But hey, whatever. You can ignore modern science to stuff that fits your beliefs. Theists do that everyday. I have a textbook, you have a textbook, and those aren't as easily changed as a wiki.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by babloyi]

Originally posted by babloyi
But it is not hypothetical. Calling it such won't change that. And if the immune function turns out to be the main function of the appendix (as opposed to an incidental function, coming much after it's original use was finished), then (along with the other reasons cited), this WOULD contradict the idea that it is vestigial.

The article that the wiki used is actually a theoretical paper, not an empirical paper. It's a hypothesis at this point.

But even if it is eventually well supported, it wouldn't contradict vestigiality at all. Again, just a misunderstanding of what vestigial is. The incidental functions will be the main function now. What are the main functions of Ostrich wings? Balance and sexual display. But it's still a vestigial wing.

No, what I believe is irrelevant. I was talking about what Joseph McCabe said. And as I mentioned before, the article isn't (or wasn't) putting forward one view (either Joseph McCabes, or anyone other person). The article doesn't (or didn't) 'ignore' anything. It had several perspectives. This doesn't mean it was contradictory.

I really can't believe you just said that. McCabe is presenting the evolutionary position. Thus, showing a function doesn't contradict it. Earlier:

Joseph McCabe said that it doesn't matter if a utility for the vermiform appendage is found, because that doesn't nullify the interpretation that it is vestigial.

And that's the evolutionary position. Therefore to say that the appendix does have some function is neither here nor there to the idea the appendix is vestigial.

At this point, goalposts are being dragged furiously.

No, it doesn't, really. which is what I said. It goes into a great amount of detail about the vestigiality of the appendix, which really isn't what I'm talking about (but you seem to be repeatedly bringing up). It attempts to connect the function of the caecum of various animals with the original function of the appendix. I do not see info on these early humans.

You've just said you want info showing that the appendix is vestigial! Earlier:

BTW, I'd be really curious to see some proof on exactly how the assumption that the appendix is a vestigial organ came about. The article doesn't really go into that. It goes on and on about the validity and the misconception of 'vestigiality'.

So would you expect it to not say anything about it? This is what the article contains:

Introduction
The vermiform appendix: background information
The caecum
The caecal apex and the appendix are homologous
Intermediates between the caecum and the appendix
Possible functions of the appendix
The appendix is a suboptimal design
Evolutionary misconceptions in the medical literature
How to disprove that the appendix is a vestige
Conclusion

What's wrong with that? It explains why the appendix is considered vestigial.

But hey, whatever. You can ignore modern science to stuff that fits your beliefs. Theists do that everyday. I have a textbook, you have a textbook, and those aren't as easily changed as a wiki.

Ha! Cheek. I've read the scientific article the wiki uses for the hypothesis of immune function. You've just read a wiki which contained misinformation. Well done you!

I think we'll let the discussion carry on about Sharpton and Hitchens. On topic, Hitchens is like a demolition machine in debate. Although, I don't agree with him on many things.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by melatonin]

Having Al Sharpton as the spokesman for Christianity in a religious debate is like having Ron Wyatt serving as the spokesman for archaeological finds in support of the Bible. That debate bored me to tears. Both sides appeared to do horribly. For some reason (and this is me being picky) sitting around in chairs didn't add a lot of authority or energy to their arguments. It looked like two guy friends sitting at an after hours bar talking about the meaning of life. Neither of them really handled it like an official debate but simply a back and forth of ideas without anything to really back up what they were saying. I also noticed both of them got several things wrong in the points they were making. Oh well.

reply to post by AshleyD


I agree with that. I don't think either of them were appropriate candidates.

[edit on 4-2-2008 by thehumbleone]

reply to post by JesusisTruth


You have to understand it like this. Lets say it rains, and theres a puddle that forms. Lets say in some odd stroke of hyperbole, that puddle gains intelligence, on that day. It looks around, and see's its world as perfect. It's able to live within a pothole that seems to be made perfectly for him. After all, it entirely encompasses the pothole, it's as though god made it just for him.

We're like that. What your seeing, the male and female privates compatibility, the Earth being exactly the right axis tilt to support life, the way our entire eco-system balances itself out, is an effect of our environments, not the cause of our environments.

The male and female privates are the way they are because over time it became a better evolutionary defense trait to have internal eggs instead of laying eggs. And the penis became larger and able to go within the vagina, so it may fertilize the eggs in the safety of the womb, to protect against predators feasting on eggs laid upon the ground. These are small evolutionary traits leading up to what we are today. All in the effort to help our species (and all species) survive.

We're just a puddle in a pothole.

Melotin.... Macro evolution has not been proven true by science. The ostrage were born that way and Go made them that way for a reason..

another point, is if the world is billions years old, how come we only have 6 billion? That woul only equal to having 6 people born every day...

where are all the people? We have went from 1 billion I think in the 1800s or so to 6 billion today, so how acna that 6 times itself in one century compared to billion year old planet?

Its because the flood was around 4,400 years ago...




Now Wolfawar. Wow good to see you, we go way back, remmeber I used to be Truth along time ago??

Now, I dont agre with you. The privates were made that way for each other. Some people naturally hae small penises and large, but this is just one of the many things to prove God in the body..

The female breast...How does evolution know how to creat a shelter for holding natural milk in a women? I made a post about this a couple weeks ago, there are just too many things for this to be the doings of chance.....

I dont agree wih you.

peace.

Originally posted by melatonin
The article that the wiki used is actually a theoretical paper, not an empirical paper. It's a hypothesis at this point.

Since you claim to have read this paper, please show me. All I could find was a link to an outdated article on the wiki's discuss page.

Originally posted by melatonin
But even if it is eventually well supported, it wouldn't contradict vestigiality at all. Again, just a misunderstanding of what vestigial is. The incidental functions will be the main function now. What are the main functions of Ostrich wings? Balance and sexual display. But it's still a vestigial wing.

You seem to be under the impression that the vestigial nature of the appendix is being attacked (due to some misconception of the term vestigial) by showing that the appendix has functions. And you keep going on and on and on and on and on and on about it (like in your previous post). If you'll notice, the article didn't just say that 'since the appendix has these functions, it isn't vestigial'.

The wiki said (which was removed, even though it didn't rely on any imagined misconception of the term 'vestigial') that:
Few mammals other than humans have an appendix, and evidence based on comparative primate anatomy is nowadays seen to contradict the explanation of the appendix as a vestige of evolutionary development.

Originally posted by melatonin
And that's the evolutionary position. Therefore to say that the appendix does have some function is neither here nor there to the idea the appendix is vestigial.

I don't really care about the evolutionary position, I'm more interested in the objective, scientific postion. Mixing of politics with science can't be good, as seen here.

Originally posted by melatonin
You've just said you want info showing that the appendix is vestigial! Earlier:

I apologise. I suppose I wasn't being clear. I wanted some info to show why it is assumed that the original function of the appendix in humans was to assist in digestion of plant-material. Comparing the appendix to an organ in other animals isn't really helping. Possum's eat plants, zebras eat plants, wombats eat plants, why aren't their 'appendix' more developed (as it should have been originally if such a position was true)? In humans, as part of the lymphatic system, we have lacteals that transport the fatty acids from our small intestines, but then there are also a great many lymphatic channels in the appendix. What are these for? For the immune system!

Now let me clarify some words for you, that I may have used or referred to:

vestigial organ: an organ where the original/main function was lost due to lack of need. The organ can have no current function or an unknown current function, or a discovered incidental function.

main function: the function that the organ was originally for, what it does.

incidental function: a function that came about due to no other function, or as a side to the real function. Ostrich's (as you mentioned) may use their wings for sexual display, but the ostriches wouldn't die out if they didn't have wings- they'd probably develop some other method of sexual display. The wings of the ostrich did not develop some 'new functionality' or there isn't some 'direct physical/biological connection' that developed between the wings and the reproductive system of the ostrich.

In this case, I'm saying (and modern science agrees with me) that no, immunity isn't an incidental function of the appendix, it is the main function (as shown by comparison with other animals, as well as the specialisation with immunity due to the lymphatic channels, as well as its own blood supply, as well as having it's own mesentary).

Originally posted by melatonin
Ha! Cheek. I've read the scientific article the wiki uses for the hypothesis of immune function. You've just read a wiki which contained misinformation. Well done you!

No, I didn't just read the wiki- those are pretty distrustful (as can be seen). The problem here is, as interesting as this debate could get, I don't think it warrants me going over all my storage boxes looking for a certain text I read.

Originally posted by melatonin
I think we'll let the discussion carry on about Sharpton and Hitchens. On topic, Hitchens is like a demolition machine in debate. Although, I don't agree with him on many things.

Sorry for the off-tangent (again!), I just wanted to clarify some things.

About the debate, Hitchens might have been like a demolition machine, but he was swinging his ball in empty air. As I said, they didn't seem to be debating the same thing. Hitchens was attacking many things that Sharpton wasn't even discussing or defending or debating.


[edit on 5-2-2008 by babloyi]

In spite of... It would be hard to find this preist, ill explain.. My aunt was living next to a nun, and tis nun knew the preist so that how we knew about the presit, hes an underground soul that hides his gifts.... Now we have not seen this nun for some time since my aunt moved out of the apartments.... I will absolutey try to find out where she is....


Inspite of, do you believe God can do all things? God can cure your mother, but you have to believe, please give me her name, if not public u2u me.... if he cues her tell everybody in here since this place is so faithless.

please give me her name in u2u and some backround, what she believes ect.... I beg of you....

God bless you..



[edit on C:/120221536444America/ChicagoTue, 05 Feb 2008 06:42:44 -060044/Feb by JesusisTruth]

reply to post by JesusisTruth


Forgive my crass additude, but thats typical. In 4 years of hearing about all the miracle cures, faith healers, balancing energy levels, pray to god, blah blah blah, not one single thing has worked.

Do I believe in god? As in a supreme overlord demanding I follow a set of regulation in order to get into heaven? No, i dont.

I do however believe in a collective conciousness that has the power to create and destroy.

U2U you my mothers name? Why? She has an entire network of peopel praying for her and doing energy work for her, she has faith that her faith in spiritualism will heal her, but no faith in a supreme leader.

Your forgiven inspite of..

" with a set of regulations"

Its called commandments, and they are simple rules like my Father gave to me until I was about 18, and if he wouldnt I would of been a hellion...No difference...


" She believes her spiritualism will heal her "

It wont, because she needs to know who to identify that spiritualism with..



" pray to God blah blah blah "

You see this is why God doesnt heal anybody, its the blah attitude that God dislikes and he only works through faith...


Now listen to me son, I have read about countless saints who had the stigmata, worked miracles, raised the dead.... I have not only seen this cancer cured but many other things I have not mentioned in here...

Please would you pleae grant me her name?

also whos this network praying for her if I may ask?

peace.