So, every time something challenges your beliefs you are going to shake your head and say, “This Isn’t Happening!” Calm Down. It is pretty Arrogant; at least I looked-up and read all of the information Highwaystar gave me (more that 10 web pages worth) before I commented. I did not tell Highwaystar, “You are wrong cause I THINK so”. I didn’t even quote any scripture. I did not quote all ID people or religious people- I quoted a variety of people. You are being PREJUDICE. You haven’t read my words but you KNOW, what I am going to say? C’mon you know that is arrogance right? You KNOW it is. So, what is up what have I said that is so up setting to you? If you have a response, I will listen to you, I do not believe that ignorance (running) is a solid argument. “Nobody is saying you can't believe in what you believe, but they are tired to argumentation that is based on circular reasoning or even liars paradox.” What is more circular than you implying, “I am right because I am right?” This is a Forum, we discuss, and I was not the 1st to bring this up. Why are you flipping?

LOL, you do not KNOW what I think about God; you just ASSUME that you know (by prejudice). I know many people who serve God that would rather he not exist but follow their god’s because the evidence leads them to do so.

Religiously, speaking there is no guarantee that a god would do anything for you a human. Nor, is there a guarantee that you will see better days by serving a god. Life can sometimes be easier without a God too (depending on how you look at it).

It is not always the “opiate” it is sometimes the “salt” in the wound.

 You make many assumptions about me and you make many assumptions about death. There is no scientific study that can show you what happens after death. You have taken your naturalistic philosophy, called it science, and used it to prove something science cannot prove.

What test can you do to prove the soul? And what test can you do to prove String Theory? As a scientist said in Elegant Universe (a Public Television/ secular documentary about String Theory aka The Theory of Everything aka M-Theory aka Unified Theory) - “If you can’t test it, it is philosophy, not science.”

I know the difference, do you?

ManusJustus

Let me ask you a question MJ did you read the huge post that I gave to HighwayStar?

Now after you basically call me a “stoopid-head” now you want me to read your article.

Which is it? Am I stupid or am I smart enough to understand the article that you gave me? Nevertheless, I thank you for not giving up on me.

Highwaystar, sent me a Web article about the Tailbone (called coccyx); I showed him (by Wikipedia) that even though it looks like a short tail it had many necessary functions in humans’ bodies. Therefore, because it had function it was not a Vestigial Tail.

But I will read your article if you will read me rebuttal and comment on it in an intelligent fashion.

(I will probably read it anyway though as I am not afraid of learning, even things that challenge me). 

ManusJustus

highwaystar101

You said that you were still looking so I will not say much to you – but I can already say that you have started off with a PREJUDICE, and then have started to put words in my writing that I never typed. Please be more scientific.

1 I know that changes occur in science and that Theories are revised. Let us consider Einstein’s correction to Newton’s theories of gravity.

Accepting, Einstein does not mean that Sir Isaac Newton is dumb or that he was wrong on all accounts, it just means we know more than we did.

2 I never said Earth was a closed system. Which is why I began my argument for ID with the creation of the Universe the Big Bang, the talked about the Universe, the Planet Earth, and then the Micro-world and then to animals/ humans.

If Creationist say earth is a closed system, I certainly haven’t.

P.s. I love the Animal Crossing quote.

I never said we evolved from them. But according to Darwinian Evolution, we all have a common ancestor though but what is that ancestor? Every tree regardless how many branches it has, must have a centralized trunk. For every animal that exists, there has to be a map of transitional forms that lead to each stage, which leads to other animals (dead and living. There has to be a connection one-way or the other. The more animals the more links/mutants/ and transitional phases there has to be.

The fossil record does not show this.

There is a thing called the Cambrian Explosion aka the Evolutionary Big Bang that shows most of the current body plans of animal arose in a short period of time.

Before that, we have single-cell organisms and bam all of the other forms of creatures pop into existence, without MISTAKES, WITHOUT TRANSITIONAL FORMS.

This is why theories like Punctuated Equilibrium and Complexity Theory arose to account for the order that they see at the Sub-cellular level and the natural gravitation toward order that all life/ molecules/DNA tend to arrange themselves into. Punctuated Eq. has been disproved, Complexity Theory, is for video games (truthfully, it’s a theory that also gives us great computer graphics). Scientist say that it has no place in the real-world though. 

If we all share common, descent then there has to be connecting points.

5) What the Cambrian Era Says About The Fossil Record - Time and The Transitional Big Bang:

The Cambrian Explosion called the Biological Big Bang- Shows fossils of many body plans in fully evolved, appearing suddenly in rocks dating to the Cambrian Age without transitional forms. 

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in 1995 Reinventing Darwin said:

“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet, that is how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.”

The time allowed for all of the beneficial Genetic Mutations necessary to bring about chordates from a singled cell organism has become shorter from 50 million year to 10 million years (The Cambrian Explosion is about 10 million years in length).

Because of the fact of the Cambrian Explosion theories like Punctuated Equilibrium, a theory in existence since the 70, postulated 2 things:

1 Species go through little observable change

2 When change does happen it is rapid and concentrated in small, isolated populations.

                Now there is Complexity Theory (championed by Straut Kauffman of the Sante Fe Institute) that theorizes that living systems are created by self-organization, the tendency for complex systems to arrange themselves into patterns- not by natural selection. The Theory has few followers as an explanation for the complexity of irreducibly complex living eternal systems.

The theory is actually based on, computer programs and the variations in output generated by variation in the code or in unexpected “mutations”. The thinking that is that perhaps small changes in DNA somehow propagates massive, and coordinated biological changes. Complexity Theory is fine on paper and as a computer program but in the real world, the experiment would meet the same fate a Stanley Miller’s (Origin of Life Theories and the offshoots) See section 6 under “ The WHO or WHAT” below.

Kaufman in Origins of Order (Pub. by Oxford Uni. Press) says:

“Darwin and evolution stand astride us, whatever the mutterings of creation scientist. But is the view right? Better, is it adequate? I believe it is not. It is not that Darwin is wrong, but that he got hold of only part of the truth.”

Evolutionary Biologist Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders says in Beyond Neo-Darwinism- An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution:

“Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutia of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the question which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.”

Aussie Evolutionary Geneticist George Miklos says in The Emergence of Organizational Complexities During the Metazoan Evolution: Perspectives for Micro Biology, Paleontology, and Neo-Darwinism:

“What then does the all-encompassing theory of evolution predict? Given a handful of postulates, such as random mutations, and selection coefficients, it will predict changes in (gene) frequencies over time. Is this what a grand theory of evolution ought to be about?”

Jerry Coyne of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago says in The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment:

“We conclude- unexpectedly- that there is little evidence for the Neo- Darwinian view; its theoretical foundation and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.”

University of California geneticist John Endler ponders in The Process of Evolution: A Newer Synthesis how mutations that are beneficial come about, saying:

“Although much is known about mutation, it is still largely a ‘black box’ relative to evolution. Novel biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis for their origin is virtually unknown.”

Mathematician Shutzenberger (M.P.) in Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution argued that it was not mathematically possible for the amount of mutations to arise needed to create the human-eye:

“ There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology.”

This section is about the new challenge to Macroevolution from the relatively new field of Microbiology.

But in the relatively new field of Micro Biology, it is no longer acceptable to explain evolution along the lines of the overall physical structure of an organism. Why? Because now that we can see the insides of cell and now those we can see molecules and proteins in the body, we now must explain the evolution of every one of those processes as well.

Charles Darwin stated in Origin of the Species in the section that called “Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication” Darwin thought that evolution could not build an organ such as the human eye quickly but had to do it in slow gradual steps. If the human eye appeared rapidly, it, in his opinion; would be a miracle.

He presented a series of eyes:

1 Jelly Fish Eye  (a light sensitive spot)- sensing light

2 A marine Limpets Eye (A cupped eye)- sensing light and the direction from which it comes.

3 Eye of a marine snail (an eye with a lens)- sensitivity to light increased by gelatinous fluid.

He believed that this might show Evolution but it does not, microbiology has shown that flesh is not like matter. So while an eye may have a form likened to a video camera in reality, there is an extremely complex dance of chemicals that must activate, shut-off, and replenish just in order that we may see even a fraction of a second of light.

 http://www.discovery.org/a/54

Darwin also thought that if it could be proven that a system of the body is irreducibly complex (All part of the system are necessary for its function) then his theory is at fault. Things like the Blood Clotting Cascade, the Human Immune System, and Intercellular Transport Systems all show system that are irreducibly complex.

5) What the Cambrian Era Says About The Fossil Record - Time and The Transitional Big Bang:

The Cambrian Explosion called the Biological Big Bang- Shows fossils of many body plans in fully evolved, appearing suddenly in rocks dating to the Cambrian Age without transitional forms. 

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in 1995 Reinventing Darwin said:

“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet, that is how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.”

The time allowed for all of the beneficial Genetic Mutations necessary to bring about chordates from a singled cell organism has become shorter from 50 million year to 10 million years (The Cambrian Explosion is about 10 million years in length).

Because of the fact of the Cambrian Explosion theories like Punctuated Equilibrium, a theory in existence since the 70, postulated 2 things:

1 Species go through little observable change

2 When change does happen it is rapid and concentrated in small, isolated populations.

                Now there is Complexity Theory (championed by Straut Kauffman of the Sante Fe Institute) that theorizes that living systems are created by self-organization, the tendency for complex systems to arrange themselves into patterns- not by natural selection. The Theory has few followers as an explanation for the complexity of irreducibly complex living eternal systems.

The theory is actually based on, computer programs and the variations in output generated by variation in the code or in unexpected “mutations”. The thinking that is that perhaps small changes in DNA somehow propagates massive, and coordinated biological changes. Complexity Theory is fine on paper and as a computer program but in the real world, the experiment would meet the same fate a Stanley Miller’s (Origin of Life Theories and the offshoots) See section 6 under “ The WHO or WHAT” below.

Kaufman in Origins of Order (Pub. by Oxford Uni. Press) says:

“Darwin and evolution stand astride us, whatever the mutterings of creation scientist. But is the view right? Better, is it adequate? I believe it is not. It is not that Darwin is wrong, but that he got hold of only part of the truth.”

Evolutionary Biologist Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders says in Beyond Neo-Darwinism- An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution:

“Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the minutia of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the question which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.”

Aussie Evolutionary Geneticist George Miklos says in The Emergence of Organizational Complexities During the Metazoan Evolution: Perspectives for Micro Biology, Paleontology, and Neo-Darwinism:

“What then does the all-encompassing theory of evolution predict? Given a handful of postulates, such as random mutations, and selection coefficients, it will predict changes in (gene) frequencies over time. Is this what a grand theory of evolution ought to be about?”

Jerry Coyne of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago says in The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment:

“We conclude- unexpectedly- that there is little evidence for the Neo- Darwinian view; its theoretical foundation and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak.”

University of California geneticist John Endler ponders in The Process of Evolution: A Newer Synthesis how mutations that are beneficial come about, saying:

“Although much is known about mutation, it is still largely a ‘black box’ relative to evolution. Novel biochemical functions seem to be rare in evolution, and the basis for their origin is virtually unknown.”

Mathematician Shutzenberger (M.P.) in Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution argued that it was not mathematically possible for the amount of mutations to arise needed to create the human-eye:

“ There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology.”

[edit] Function

In humans and other tailless primates (e.g. great apes) since Nakalipithecus (a Miocene hominoid)^[2], the coccyx is the remnant of a vestigial tail, but still not entirely useless;^[3] it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments  — which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx.^[1] Additionally, it is also part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which act as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.^[1]

The anterior side of the coccyx serves for the attachment of a group of muscles important for many functions of the pelvic floor (i.e. defecation, continence, etc): The levator ani muscle, which include coccygeus, iliococcygeus, and pubococcygeus. Through the anococcygeal raphé, the coccyx supports the position of the anus. Attached to the posterior side is gluteus maximus which extend the thigh during ambulation.^[1]

Many important ligaments attach to the coccyx: The anterior and posterior sacrococcygeal ligaments are the continuations of the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments that stretches along the entire spine.^[1] Additionally, the lateral sacrococcygeal ligaments complete the foramina for the last sacral nerve.^[4] And, lastly, some fibers of the sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments (arising from the spine of the ischium and the ischial tuberosity respectively) also attach to the coccyx.^[1]

^{I already posted this on the Thread but I will do it again to make it easy for you.}

well i'd have to say evolution because sokmething just isn't believeable about a god....

also the bible i mean WTH its a book we found in the ground come on!

Fossils:

Have you looked at the fossil record?  You think that a species is created, then goes extinct, then a new species replaces it.  That is wrong, the entire fossil record is a 'transitonal' phase.

What do you think happens then?  God is involved in a endless cycle of killing species and replacing them with new ones.  What about the early homo species that we have found?  Did God create humans, kill them off, and create new humans that were a little different each time until he got to us?

The only thing more ridiculous than denying evolution theory is the theory that is made up in its place.

Useless Organs:

You mention the coccyx which, even though the body would work fine without it and occasionaly develops into a tail, has more uses than many other examples of vestigial body parts.  But what about a man's ability to produce milk, or the appendix, or various muscles that much of the population doesnt have?

Answer this:  Why do flightless birds have wings and whales have hind legs?

Your Methods:

It is very difficult to read your posts.  Your last post consisted of two large copy and pastes whose readibility suffers in its new format.  Furthermore, your main source is the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank whose stated goal is to "turn away from a materialistic worldview and replace it with a worldview with Christian and theistic convictions."

The goal of science is not to create worldview opposed to religion, it is only to reveal truths about our world.  Science would lead us to intelligent design and other 'religiously inspired' ideas if they were true, but since science seeks truth it is often at odds with these religious ideas.