Wonderful example of you seeing conspiracy hidden in every nook and crevice.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
The other shoe falls
The other shoe falls
In a previous post I acknowledged 6days’ instrumentality in bringing to my attention a scientific study calling into question the idea that the human appendix was a vestigial organ. In that post I alluded to questions that I felt should not be broached in that post. I turn my attention to those questions now.
6days has, on several occasions, made the claim that science supports creationism. His recent success in pointing to a scientific article on the appendix was, at first glance, a glaring success on his part. If science indeed supports creationism, then science should be viewed as a strong friend and ally of the fundamentalist Christian community. We shall see.
In a recent private communication, 6days indicated that his basic reason for disbelieving in the evolutionary explanation for vestigial organs is because he does not believe in common descent. If common descent is false, then implicitly vestigial organs cannot be explained by evolution.
I am going to turn the focus now to the article 6days pointed to. In fact, what 6days actually referenced was just the transcript (in Scientific American) of a 60-second podcast from 2009 that mentions that the appendix may not be a vestigial organ. Tracing back from the podcast, the full scientific article is found in “The Journal of Evolutionary Biology”, 16 pages long, titled with the ominous title “Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix”.
Let me be forthright in where I am going with this. “Cherry-picking” is when someone extracts just what they see as favorable from an article. For now I offer 3 direct quotes taken from the abstract at the front of the article 6days used. Emphasis is mine:
The other shoe falls
In a previous post I acknowledged 6days’ instrumentality in bringing to my attention a scientific study calling into question the idea that the human appendix was a vestigial organ. In that post I alluded to questions that I felt should not be broached in that post. I turn my attention to those questions now.
6days has, on several occasions, made the claim that science supports creationism. His recent success in pointing to a scientific article on the appendix was, at first glance, a glaring success on his part. If science indeed supports creationism, then science should be viewed as a strong friend and ally of the fundamentalist Christian community. We shall see.
In a recent private communication, 6days indicated that his basic reason for disbelieving in the evolutionary explanation for vestigial organs is because he does not believe in common descent. If common descent is false, then implicitly vestigial organs cannot be explained by evolution.
I am going to turn the focus now to the article 6days pointed to. In fact, what 6days actually referenced was just the transcript (in Scientific American) of a 60-second podcast from 2009 that mentions that the appendix may not be a vestigial organ. Tracing back from the podcast, the full scientific article is found in “The Journal of Evolutionary Biology”, 16 pages long, titled with the ominous title “Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix”.
Let me be forthright in where I am going with this. “Cherry-picking” is when someone extracts just what they see as favorable from an article. For now I offer 3 direct quotes taken from the abstract at the front of the article 6days used. Emphasis is mine:
1) Cladistic analyses indicate that the appendix has evolved independently at least twice
2) … has been maintained in mammalian evolution
3) … for 80 million years or longer.
Now if 6days believes science supports his beliefs, and he found this particular scientific article sound enough to discredit the appendix as a vestigial organ, I hope he will not be found guilty of cherry-picking just the idea he liked. The same scientists, in the very same study and its resultant article, in addition to calling into question the vestigial appendix, concluded that the appendix has EVOLVED at least twice, has been maintained in the EVOLUTION of MAMMALS, and has existed in excess of 80 MILLION years. 6days, you OK with those parts of the article as well as the vestigial appendix part?2) … has been maintained in mammalian evolution
3) … for 80 million years or longer.
Last edited:
No - God is not ok with that either, but good research !
Dear Michael,
You will have to forgive me for not taking the bait you dangle in front of me, but I have an urgent appointment with a mentally impaired homeless drunk who is stoned on cocaine right now. We will probably be discussing advanced theory of the types of quantum fields that might be used for the teleportation of macrobiological systems. I will try to get to you later, probably about when the ice in the earth's core melts.
alwight
New member
As I understand it the appendix is still considered to be vestigial from a time of less than the heathy food we have today.
It perhaps would have shrunk away by now but:
"Ironically, it’s natural selection that keeps the human appendix from shrinking away completely. Because smaller ones are more likely to become infected. And keep your genes out of the pool."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24/
It perhaps would have shrunk away by now but:
"Ironically, it’s natural selection that keeps the human appendix from shrinking away completely. Because smaller ones are more likely to become infected. And keep your genes out of the pool."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/thats-no-vestigial-organ-thats-my-a-09-08-24/
6days
New member
Science supports the truth of God's Word. It's an exciting time for Christians.DavisBJ said:
Creationism and evolutionism are opposing belief systems about the past.
False. Absolutely everything can be explained by either creation or evolution.DavisBJ said:
Cladistic analyses can also indicate that the appendix was created differently in different kinds, to perform slightly differently.DavisBJ said:
Science increasingly makes belief in common ancestry more and more to be just psuedoscience. You say the appendix evolved twice.... Well this article stretches the limits of credulity saying it evolved at least 32 times.
http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2013/02/appendix-evolved-more-30-times
I'm sure you can now see that you are claiming that something being maintained is evidence of common ancestry. You also seem to believe that something not maintained is evidence of common ancestry.DavisBJ said:
*
Again.... beliefs. *Common ancestry beliefs attempt to shoehorn interpretations to fit the data.*DavisBJ said:
DavisBJ said:
No... I don't believe it can dissuade anyone from their belief in common ancestry and vestigial organs. I used that article like I use many others...its like calling a hostile witness to the stand. It shows how evolutionists are confused and often contradicting each other over how to interpret the data.*
Last edited:
Dear 6days,
I got up about 2 hours ago. Thanks so very much for posting this early!! I just love hearing from you because you are very good and very wise in dealing with the people who post here. I love you so much and appreciate your help here. I took a nap last night for an hour, but it ended up being for all night so I woke up at 6a.m. this morning and am on a different sleep schedule. I'll be back on my night owl shift by 2nite. Once I start getting my radiation treatments {for cancer}, I will be getting up at 7a.m. to get there by 8:30a.m. I have to call my doctor this morning and get them to send my PSAs of my prostate area cancer for the radiation doctor {Cancer doctor = Oncologist}. I will have to go for 5 days a week for 8 weeks. 40 times to get rid of the cancer in my prostate gland area. I had a cancerous prostate gland, so they removed it over 2 years ago. Well, they left some cancer cells in me and so now I have cancer again. I don't do chemo. I don't want to be completely bald. Eeeek!! I am partially bald already. That's enough for me. I could grow more hair, but I'd have to see about some new drug they have out there for it. I think it contains testosterone, plus some other new drug. Oh well, I'll quit talking off-topic. Will get going for now. God Be With You Always, Which Is Forever, 6days!!
Michael
:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture: :rapture:
I'm glad to hear that you will be getting treatment Michael, it's the best thing. Stick with it !! Ha you used Poor Richard Font !!!
Dear patrick jane,
I must say that I accidentally saw that you posted on that Urantia Book/Urantia Papers thread and I've got to tell you that they are a bad trap to fall into. You just feed them with your posts to them. It helps keep them on the Board here. So you can refrain from posting to them, or else do whatever else you want to. They try to include everything there. They even mention God and Jesus, but only so Christians will get sucked up into going there. They don't believe as Christians do. They didn't use to until we mentioned it to them. We believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Our Savior, Our Lord, God's Son, born of Mary with an Immaculate Birth from Our Lord God. I don't think they believe all of that at all. They also don't include the Holy Ghost, but if they do, know that they are blaspheming Him, for they should refrain from talking about the Holy Ghost because they may blaspheme the Holy Ghost, which they ought not do, because blasphemy/lies about the Holy Ghost are UNFORGIVABLE!! It's one thing that Jesus does not tolerate. See Matthew 12:31KJV, where it says that blasphemy shall even be forgivable of Jesus or even God, but not against the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit. I try not to even talk about the Holy Ghost so that I don't speak ANY blasphemy/lies/errors against the Holy Ghost. You must be very careful about that, Patrick Jane. Well, I've told you. The rest is in your hands. Be careful!!
Much Love To You And Your Loved Ones,
Michael
:angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :rapture:
I can see that you don't even like to mention the Holy Ghost since you just said it 6 times. Be Careful !!!
WOW Patrick Jane,
You are awake and on this site. I'm surprised. You get up early!! I'm up this early by accident. Hey, you have a wonderful Avatar. It looks wonderful dude!! Yep, I held back for about a year about getting radiation. I started it before, and just made one treatment and quit. I didn't like having to go in so early, plus I didn't care about it. But now, my doctor, roommates, family and friends are bummed and want me to go and get it, so whatever.
Hey, I hope you like this font!! God Bless You And Yours!!
Michael
:cloud9: :angel: :rapture: :guitar: :singer: :cloud9: :angel:
You are awake and on this site. I'm surprised. You get up early!! I'm up this early by accident. Hey, you have a wonderful Avatar. It looks wonderful dude!! Yep, I held back for about a year about getting radiation. I started it before, and just made one treatment and quit. I didn't like having to go in so early, plus I didn't care about it. But now, my doctor, roommates, family and friends are bummed and want me to go and get it, so whatever.
Hey, I hope you like this font!! God Bless You And Yours!!
Michael
:cloud9: :angel: :rapture: :guitar: :singer: :cloud9: :angel:
Dear Patrick Jane,
Aha!! You noticed. Well, none of it was a lie, so I am safe. I will be careful. You take care, my twin!!
God Bless Your Heart!!
Michael
:cloud9: :angel: :rapture: :guitar: :singer: :cloud9: :thumb:
Dear alwight,
You're up too, eh? DavisBJ too!! WOW!! Hope you're doing wonderful, alwight!! Everything is going fine here. My roommates are up too! I'm the one who usually doesn't wake up until eleven a.m. or noon. Usually I stay up at night until four or five o'clock in the morning, before the sun comes up. Sometimes, I'm up even after the sun rises, but just for a bit. It depends on how many posts I've got here. Well, I should get to posting to DavisBJ. I will chat with you again 2nite. Then I will call my doctor's office and have them fax my PSA tests to the Oncologist's office before they schedule me for an appt. for radiation therapy. They will also want my x-rays from the Imaging place for my CAT Scan. I had it taken of my lungs to see if it spread to my right lung. I was having pain there too. It comes and goes. Will see what happens. I go to my regular doctor {PCP} on Nov. 4th {in a couple days}, so I will find out how my x-rays turned out. He's the one who ordered the referral for me to go to the Oncologist. I've been getting pains frequently in my prostate gland area, which I had removed since a couple years ago. Oh well, this is off-topic, so I'll be good and not talk about it for now. By the way, we had three earthquakes here in Phoenix last night, while I was sleeping. Only 3.0 or so. But it is extremely rare for Phoenix. Okay, will get going.
Warmest Regards & Cheerio, Matey!!
Michael
You're up too, eh? DavisBJ too!! WOW!! Hope you're doing wonderful, alwight!! Everything is going fine here. My roommates are up too! I'm the one who usually doesn't wake up until eleven a.m. or noon. Usually I stay up at night until four or five o'clock in the morning, before the sun comes up. Sometimes, I'm up even after the sun rises, but just for a bit. It depends on how many posts I've got here. Well, I should get to posting to DavisBJ. I will chat with you again 2nite. Then I will call my doctor's office and have them fax my PSA tests to the Oncologist's office before they schedule me for an appt. for radiation therapy. They will also want my x-rays from the Imaging place for my CAT Scan. I had it taken of my lungs to see if it spread to my right lung. I was having pain there too. It comes and goes. Will see what happens. I go to my regular doctor {PCP} on Nov. 4th {in a couple days}, so I will find out how my x-rays turned out. He's the one who ordered the referral for me to go to the Oncologist. I've been getting pains frequently in my prostate gland area, which I had removed since a couple years ago. Oh well, this is off-topic, so I'll be good and not talk about it for now. By the way, we had three earthquakes here in Phoenix last night, while I was sleeping. Only 3.0 or so. But it is extremely rare for Phoenix. Okay, will get going.
Warmest Regards & Cheerio, Matey!!
Michael
Dear DavisBJ,
Thanks for the message, DavisBJ. I know you are being sarcastic, so it's okay. I do hope you are doing very well, and that you are joyful. I will be answering your previous posts shortly. I have to read them.
I only got to this one because I am answering posts to me. There was nothing in this post to reply to you about, but I want to make sure you know that I will answer every post you write to me. I try. I'm behind a page or so. I love you and you take good care!!
Best Wishes, Dear Friend!!
Michael
Dear Interplanner,
Some wonderful posts you're making here!! Thanks so much for your input!! Very interesting, dude!! Good work!! It's good to have you here. Adding some much-needed wisdom on your part!! Thank you!! Well, I know that if you read my following posts, you will catch up on what's happening with me. Yes, rapid deposit would indicate a Great Flood, of course. I know they did work here in the Grand Canyon, also. That's all I could remember from the article I read about geologists finding proof of a Global Flood. They had checked other sites in the Earth, but I couldn't remember where, so all I had to offer was the Grand Canyon. I live in Phoenix, AZ, so I do know about the Grand Canyon. I think we have the Meteor Crater here also, but it might be too new to indicate a Great Flood. I am limited on the subject. But I see you are not!! COOL!! Will check back with you soon. Take good care of yourself.
God Bless You And All Of Your Loved Ones, Abundantly!!
Michael
:cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel:
Dear DavisBJ,
For myself, I don't believe it existed 80 million years ago, because I don't believe that creatures or man were on Earth then. I don't even believe that the Earth was here that long ago. So that is my take on the whole subject. I think my appendix plays a part in my intestinal tract and I think it plays a role in my digestive process, but I could also live without it. They can remove one kidney and you can still live a normal life just fine. I suppose this is possible even if they removed one lung or ear, or eye, etc. You only see what you want to see, DavisBJ. But that is okay, because you deserve to have your opinion too!! We just believe differently. I would hate to lose your friendship just because we believe differently. I do care about you and I love it when you post here. I do love you, so that goes without saying, but then I figure saying it is better. You take good care of yourself and your loved ones. I hope that you had a wonderful Halloween!! We're stuck with candy bars to eat. We only had 4 children visit us. All of those candy bars for us!! Yippee!! Will chat with you later!!
Much Love And Good Wishes,
Michael
alwight
New member
Hi Michael, yes I'm up, but then I usually am by mid afternoon.
I sincerely do hope everything goes well for you medically.
I posted that because I have noticed you seem to like sciency-sounding silliness - you have given us a number of long posts in the past couple months just loaded with lists of such gobbledygook. I figured you would appreciate more of it.
Bing Cherries
Bing Cherries
For the second time in recent days I find myself indebted to 6days for his posts. The first time was when he made me aware of an important scientific study I had not known about. And now, he provides a sterling example of what I spoke about in my last post to him – cherry picking.
As regards the idea that they are both belief systems “about the past”, that may be true for creationism, but evolution (which certainly deals with a rich historical “past”) is a vibrant active field of study today. If it were not, we would never have to develop new strains of flu vaccines each year.
In my last post to 6days I said:
When I examine evolution, particularly since Darwin, I see progress, disputes, theories proposed, backtracking, research, theories modified, arguments (sometimes acrimonious) – anything but a simplistic answer to the details of how life diversified. Actually, it’s kinda like most science, instead of having a “Bible” that is revered as the ultimate guide, it takes a whole lot of hard work to finally distill out the important underlying factors. The one thing I do not see is any pretense – contrary to 6days’ hyperbole – that evolution has all the answers. In fact, I would really like 6day to explain how, in the absence of common descent, evolution could be used to explain vestigiality.
I quoted this from the abstract provided by the author that summarizes the article 6days pointed to:
I offered another quote from the abstract:
This next is interesting. I said:
I can’t help but contrast that with the way I have always been told religion is validated – by faith. Not by impartial evidence, not by a comprehensive in-depth comparison with competing religious doctrines, but by reading and praying and listening for the confirming answer to those prayers.
Years back, here at TOL in a thread the claim was made that there have been hundreds of variants of just Christianity. One poster challenged that figure. A bit of research turned up a book itemizing over 30,000 identifiably distinct Christian sects. And you find fault when scientists are “confused and often contradicting each other”?
Bing Cherries
For the second time in recent days I find myself indebted to 6days for his posts. The first time was when he made me aware of an important scientific study I had not known about. And now, he provides a sterling example of what I spoke about in my last post to him – cherry picking.
I don’t know what this is about. In my prior post I pointed out that 6days makes this claim. Maybe he thinks regular repetition of this claim will somehow make it true.
The fundamentalist version of creationism is pretty much opposed to Darwinian evolution, but many Christians holding a more open view of the scriptures do not join in that view. As to evolution itself, 6days has a pretty strong antipathy towards it that dictates that he not dignify it as simply science. Instead he demotes it to just a “belief system”, and then juxtaposes creationism right alongside as also a “belief system”. I guess I will have to let 6days' choice of words carry their own message as to how creationism is apparently something you simply believe in.
As regards the idea that they are both belief systems “about the past”, that may be true for creationism, but evolution (which certainly deals with a rich historical “past”) is a vibrant active field of study today. If it were not, we would never have to develop new strains of flu vaccines each year.
In my last post to 6days I said:
Surprisingly, 6days responded:
I won’t deign to speak to what creationists feel can be explained under the umbrella of creationism. If indeed, “everything can be explained” that way, then that sounds just like a deck of cards that has nothing but jokers in it – all sensible rules become irrelevant.
When I examine evolution, particularly since Darwin, I see progress, disputes, theories proposed, backtracking, research, theories modified, arguments (sometimes acrimonious) – anything but a simplistic answer to the details of how life diversified. Actually, it’s kinda like most science, instead of having a “Bible” that is revered as the ultimate guide, it takes a whole lot of hard work to finally distill out the important underlying factors. The one thing I do not see is any pretense – contrary to 6days’ hyperbole – that evolution has all the answers. In fact, I would really like 6day to explain how, in the absence of common descent, evolution could be used to explain vestigiality.
I quoted this from the abstract provided by the author that summarizes the article 6days pointed to:
6day’s response:
I will simply point out that the quote I provided was in the form of a declarative – “analyses indicate” – not a hypothetical like 6days offers - “analyses can also”. The authors of the study did the work and ran the data and came up with “analyses indicate”. When your creation scientists do likewise – actually do the work, run the data, and then are willing to declare in a scientific forum that “analyses also” (no “can”), then come back and we will talk.
6days, you make the claim. Now, can you back it? I invite you to actually list those current or recent scientific articles that portray common ancestry as pseudoscience. In opposition I make the claim that the current published scientific literature is almost totally devoid of articles supporting what you just claimed. If you want the articles supporting common ancestry, and I supply them, then I would expect that if you are honest, you would publically retract your assertion.
You make cherry-picking into an art form. You liked the article you gave me where it spoke about the appendix not being vestigial, but when it is pointed out to you that the same study concludes the appendix evolved twice, you run to a completely different part of the cherry orchard to see if you can find something disconfirming. If you think the article you gave me was wacko on that issue, why did you use it to show the appendix was not vestigial? Do have even a vague notion of what cherry-picking is?
I offered another quote from the abstract:
To which 6days responded:
First, it is not me that is making the claim, it is the authors you relied on for your information about the appendix. Secondly, the claim is a declarative – “has been maintained in mammalian evolution”. That is a conclusion the authors came to based on their research. As to your desire to portray this as a contradictory claim (“maintained” and “not maintained”), you are misconstruing the relationship between vestigial and evolution. If you are willing to pretend to respect science enough to honestly evaluate ideas that are not in agreement with what you currently believe, then:
1) Assume evolution is true (just as a basis for seeing if it is logical) - would it be expected that life forms with a close evolutionary connection would have some (or even many) similar organs?
2) Assume evolution is true (just as a basis for seeing if it is logical) - would it be expected that, in life forms with a close evolutionary connection, organs which were essential to the early forms, but serve a minor role in later forms might atrophy?
2) Assume evolution is true (just as a basis for seeing if it is logical) - would it be expected that, in life forms with a close evolutionary connection, organs which were essential to the early forms, but serve a minor role in later forms might atrophy?
You rely on this cheap canard so often that I am not going to keep wasting my time on it.
This next is interesting. I said:
Whence 6days replied:
Duhhh. Both science, and this article in particular, strongly support common ancestry, so it would be ludicrous to expect either of them to dissuade anyone away from evolution.
I think your describing your use of the article in that way is quite accurate. I asked for scientific backing for the idea the appendix is not vestigial, and in response you pointed to testimony (in written form) from scientific experts. But the confusing part to me is that at the beginning of your post, and many others, you claim that “Science supports the truth of God's Word.” If that is true, then you should implicitly view scientists as friendly witnesses, not adversarial. It appears that in what was probably an unguarded moment of truthfulness, you describe the science that says the appendix is not vestigial as coming from adversaries. And further, once a witness is called to testify, it becomes the prerogative of the opposing counsel to cross-examine the witness. Only when I, who without pretense views those scientists as friendly, brought out that their expertise led to conclusions you disfavor, did you resort to trying to discredit that portion of their testimony. We have seen enough cherry picking here for a cherry pie.
More than that, I have seen many novel ideas in numerous branches of science that were hotly disputed by scientists for many years. That is part of the beauty of science – once a scientific idea finally emerges victorious, it wears the battle scars of merciless attacks from backers of the now-defeated ideas. It has been subjected to intensive examination, and only then is it awarded the status of a scientific theory.
I can’t help but contrast that with the way I have always been told religion is validated – by faith. Not by impartial evidence, not by a comprehensive in-depth comparison with competing religious doctrines, but by reading and praying and listening for the confirming answer to those prayers.
Years back, here at TOL in a thread the claim was made that there have been hundreds of variants of just Christianity. One poster challenged that figure. A bit of research turned up a book itemizing over 30,000 identifiably distinct Christian sects. And you find fault when scientists are “confused and often contradicting each other”?
Last edited:
Hi Michael, yes I'm up, but then I usually am by mid afternoon.
I sincerely do hope everything goes well for you medically.
Dear alwight,
You are so kind!! Thanks for thinking of me. The day after 2morrow, I go in to see my PCP {Primary Care Physician}. He will tell me the update on my PSA score and also I will find out about my lung x-ray. I think the CAT Scan {x-ray} of my lungs will be okay. My PCP thought he saw a nodule on my right lung. I hope it's not there in the CAT Scan. My PCP is my regular doctor. I've been with him for years!! Over 20, I know that much!! He is the best!! That's why I've kept him so long. I have to drive clear across town to see him, but what can you do? He takes care of me a lot by phone.
Sabrina, his assistant is a liaison between me and my doctor. Whenever I need a prescription, they just call it in and I don't have to go there to do it. Cool, eh? I have plantar faciitis, so I cannot be on my feet long. They gave me a handicapped placard for my car. I used to have to go across Walmart by taking three times of rest on my trip across. Well, alwight, will let you go for now. This is getting long. Will chat with you again a bit later.
Warmest Regards,
Michael
- Status