Do creationists accept biology?

[YoursTrue]

Yes, if one has to go to extremes then yes, those are necessary. Countless people have had their tonsils and appendixes removed with little in the way of negative effects.

Again, necessary for what? And again, people get cancer and can have kidney removed or a lung removed and keep living. You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that if a person goes on living without difficulty when an organ is removed it is not necessary. That argument doesn't make sense to me. Because large portions of skin can be removed and the person can go on living without difficulty after a while. Does that mean the skin was not necessary?
But I was thinking about something else. When it seems you say I quote from sources you disagree with, please cite what sources you agree with. Thank you and again, good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But that is the claim. Do they know what the original use of the appendix and supposedly things like tonsils are?

What part of I am not sure did you not understand? And why did you ignore the examples of clear vestigial organs that I gave to you?

So he manufactured (like the fish gills) what he thought might have-should have been.

What? No, those were not manufactured. That was a correct observation of his. This is what happens when you use lying resources. Haeckel's observations were fairly accurate. The one thing he did wrong was to use the same drawings a couple of times in an early edition for one of his books and he had an incorrect conclusion. Again, stop using sources that lie to you.

Obviously one should or must take things in context.
I didn't say Haeckel was a villain. But surely making some things up. And taught for a long time as true in textbooks. Further, Stephen Gould said what he said about some of Haeckel's fictional pictures, taught as truth for a long time. And still being shown in some textbooks as -- truth.
So let's see what you think about this about the tailbone (coccyx) from Medscape:
"In humans, the coccyx serves important functions, including as an attachment site for various muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Physicians and patients should remember the importance of these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx."
Serves "important functions." Necessary? Useful? Important? Which? (Junk science to say the coccyx serves important functions?)

Sorry, but that is a lie. Your resources are lying to you again. He is largely responsible for embryology, and that is still studied and applied to evolution today. But his "ontogeny recapitulates physiology" was refuted rather early and was not part of textbooks. And you screwed up on the coccyx and demonstrated that you do not understand what vestigial means. Is it a tail?. Can you hang from a tree with it? If you answered no then it is vestigial. Vestigial does not mean useless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So far let me put it this way: many things said to have been true with regard to evolution have been overturned. Further, remember the topic here. It is do creationists accept biology. And surely many who believe that God created the heavens and the earth as demonstrated in the Bible do. Now again it is late and therefore my human body and brain is telling me I must sign off. Good night.
Oh, yes, my brain so far is connected to my body, I want to make that clear so there is no misunderstanding about what I said.

What has been overturned? All you have demonstrated is a lack of understanding. And if one does not accept evolution one cannot accept biology anymore than if if one did not accept inertia one could not accept physics. The two are too closely intertwined.

In fact if God cannot or does not lie then evolution is a fact and the Bible cannot be read literally. Those that interpret Genesis literally are calling their God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, necessary for what? And again, people get cancer and can have kidney removed or a lung removed and keep living. You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that if a person goes on living without difficulty when an organ is removed it is not necessary. That argument doesn't make sense to me. Because large portions of skin can be removed and the person can go on living without difficulty after a while. Does that mean the skin was not necessary?
But I was thinking about something else. When it seems you say I quote from sources you disagree with, please cite what sources you agree with. Thank you and again, good night.

Just drop it. You lost this one a ling time ago.

 

[dad]

I mean the observations, findings etc that are not explicitly within the field of evolution?

Yes they do. They accept them for what they are!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes they do. They accept them for what they are!

What? Since when did a creationist admit that a human was an ape?

 

[dad]

What? Since when did a creationist admit that a human was an ape?

For some folks, I almost might admit that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For some folks, I almost might admit that.

You should not put yourself down that way. The fact hat you are an ape is not an insult anymore than the fact that you are a mammal. Tell me, do you get insulted when people call you a mammal? If not then why would you be insulted when they call you an ape? You are not being logically consistent.

 

[dad]

You should not put yourself down that way. The fact hat you are an ape is not an insult anymore than the fact that you are a mammal. Tell me, do you get insulted when people call you a mammal? If not then why would you be insulted when they call you an ape? You are not being logically consistent.

Believe you are kin to worms all you like. That is not biology, it is horror fiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Believe you are kin to worms all you like. That is not biology, it is horror fiction.

dad, I know that you are related to worms. Your inability to understand the sciences does not make them fiction. You unfortunately do believe the clear fiction of the Bible.

 

[dad]

I know that you are related to worms. .

I know the reasons you believe that nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know the reasons you believe that nonsense.

Because I have a fully functioning brain.

Why do you believe that God is a liar?

 

[Milton Platt]

Hallelujah. I am really tired of the false dichotomy that some non-believers (read, atheists) seem to put people into....anybody believing in a Creator MUST be a young earth literal 7-24 hour day creationist and all the arguments and criticisms are assuming that....OR, if the person they speak to actually figures that the earth is 4 billion (or thereabouts) years old and evolution is real, MUST be an atheist; no god involved.

At least, those who talk to ME seem to do that.

There are those....MOST Christians, actually...who do believe that "God is Who, evolution is how".

For crying out loud, the Catholic church accepts evolution as 'how,' officially...and since it was a Catholic monk who did the definitive work on inherited characteristics (heard of Gregor Mendel? BTW, he was not only NOT criticized for his work, he was made an Abbot).

Ah, well.

Yes, they do, since 1950. What is their stance on abiogenesis, though?

 

[YoursTrue]

What part of I am not sure did you not understand? And why did you ignore the examples of clear vestigial organs that I gave to you?



What? No, those were not manufactured. That was a correct observation of his. This is what happens when you use lying resources. Haeckel's observations were fairly accurate. The one thing he did wrong was to use the same drawings a couple of times in an early edition for one of his books and he had an incorrect conclusion. Again, stop using sources that lie to you.



Sorry, but that is a lie. Your resources are lying to you again. He is largely responsible for embryology, and that is still studied and applied to evolution today. But his "ontogeny recapitulates physiology" was refuted rather early and was not part of textbooks. And you screwed up on the coccyx and demonstrated that you do not understand what vestigial means. Is it a tail?. Can you hang from a tree with it? If you answered no then it is vestigial. Vestigial does not mean useless.

You can live without legs and arms, too. The ontogeny recapitulates physiology theory was not debunked early on, it was taught in school as truth for years. You can live without ears. You can live without eyes. Without toes. So sorry, but because you cannot hang from a tree with your coccyx does not mean that it is vestigial. Sorry bout that. You may feel it is, but I do not. And because one cannot hang from tree with their coccyx does not mean that it is vestigial OR useless. Anyway, have a nice day. It has been interesting, very interesting, for me to discuss this with you. Tell me what information about Haeckel's drawings are not true? You make assertions but that's about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can live without legs and arms, too. The ontogeny recapitulates physiology theory was not debunked early on, it was taught in school as truth for years. You can live without ears. You can live without eyes. Without toes. So sorry, but because you cannot hang from a tree with your coccyx does not mean that it is vestigial. Sorry bout that. You may feel it is, but I do not. And because one cannot hang from tree with their coccyx does not mean that it is vestigial OR useless. Anyway, have a nice day. It has been interesting, very interesting, for me to discuss this with you. Tell me what information about Haeckel's drawings are not true? You make assertions but that's about it.

It is amazing. You refuse to learn from your errors.

 

[YoursTrue]

You should not put yourself down that way. The fact hat you are an ape is not an insult anymore than the fact that you are a mammal. Tell me, do you get insulted when people call you a mammal? If not then why would you be insulted when they call you an ape? You are not being logically consistent.

Those humans (homo sapiens to you) that are said to be like (act like or behave like) apes are usually not held in the highest concept. Besides I could go on. Such as homo sapiens came AFTER apes.
Similarly, if someone is called a pig, it is not usually a compliment or equal assessment of behavior.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is amazing. You refuse to learn from your errors.

Anyway, it's ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, not ontogeny recapitulates physiology. (Is it? )

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those humans (homo sapiens to you) that are said to be like (act like or behave like) apes are usually not held in the highest concept. Besides I could go on. Such as homo sapiens came AFTER apes.
Similarly, if someone is called a pig, it is not usually a compliment or equal assessment of behavior.

This makes no sense. You are an ape so you "act like an ape". One should not be offended by reality.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is amazing. You refuse to learn from your errors.

Not true. You say there's evidence for evolution, macro or micro. I say that the conclusion from whatever evidence is said to be there, is manufactured, and by that I mean, made up in the human (not non-human <g>) mind. Pigs and the greater ape links other than said humans are not talking about these things. Fossils are there. Bacteria are there. Worms are there. Humans are there. That is pretty solid material. Evolution is conjecture. I haven't really checked out if one can get along without a coccyx. Maybe they can. Maybe it's not necessary -- for -- ??? what? decent function?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyway, it's ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, not ontogeny recapitulates physiology. (Is it? )

Yes,my bad. Typing too fast.

Creationists must see the clear evidence of embryology so they tilt at an idea that does not exist any longer. Haeckel's idea was wrong, but embryology still supports evolution. That Haeckel was wrong does not get rid of the evidence.