"Vestigial Organs"

[wattsr1]

***************************************************************

READ THE BOOK instead of expelling hot gasses through an
orifice (hmmm ... or perhaps that is all that you are able to do).

Jorge

I have a better idea. Why not actually present the argument of the book yourself, then fight for it's truth, rather than running off.

None of us are afraid to present ideas we accept, then stick around to defend them.



Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

I have a better idea. Why not actually present the argument of the book yourself, then fight for it's truth, rather than running off.

None of us are afraid to present ideas we accept, then stick around to defend them.



Regards, Roland

It's not fair Jorge.

You come here to stir things up and soon I have to go to work.



Regards, Roland

[Faid]

***************************************************************

READ THE BOOK instead of expelling hot gasses through an
orifice (hmmm ... or perhaps that is all that you are able to do).

Jorge

SInce you are too much of an intellectual coward to defend this great book of yours, and too cheap to provide me with a copy, I think I'll pass. Whenever you find the guts to try and provide some meaningful argument, instead of blowing squid ink, let us know.

BTW, the book is almost 20 years old. Here's a brief takedown of its flawed themes from (where else?) TalkOrigins.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...ges_criticisms

Jorge, "READ THAT instead of expelling hot gasses through an
orifice (hmmm ... or perhaps that is all that you are able to do)". [smilies etc.]

[Faid]

Please summarize the arguments from the book here Jorge so we may begin our discussion.

- T

Yeah, right.

[rogue06]

****************************************************************************

You may have missed your calling, AS, but if you're young enough
then there's still time for you to pursue a career as a l-a-w-y-e-r.

Jorge

Speaking of having missed their calling...

Attachment 72603

[Tiggy]

Please summarize the arguments from the book here Jorge so we may begin our discussion.

Yeah, right.

If you don't have dreams, you can't have dreams come true.

- T

[wattsr1]

SInce you are too much of an intellectual coward to defend this great book of yours, and too cheap to provide me with a copy, I think I'll pass. Whenever you find the guts to try and provide some meaningful argument, instead of blowing squid ink, let us know.

BTW, the book is almost 20 years old. Here's a brief takedown of its flawed themes from (where else?) TalkOrigins.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...ges_criticisms

Jorge, "READ THAT instead of expelling hot gasses through an
orifice (hmmm ... or perhaps that is all that you are able to do)". [smilies etc.]

We have a bloke on another forum telling us to read the book (Signature of the Cell).

Like Jorge, he does not want to present ideas and defend them. Like Jorge, I wonder if he even understands the ideas.

Rather he simply tells us to get the book or to read the book.


This is getting to be a bit like passing the collection plate around in church.

In YEC land, money is raised via the collection plate.

In ID land, money is raised by not telling anyone the big secrets - they must buy the book.



Regards, Roland

[Ansgar Seraph]

In YEC land, money is raised via the collection plate.

In ID land, money is raised by not telling anyone the big secrets - they must buy the book.

Coincidentally or not, this is also how pyramid schemes are run.

[Wally]

Coincidentally or not, this is also how pyramid schemes are run.

That type of scheme got it's name because one of the early Pharaohs financed his tomb by getting involved with Amway.

It's a fact, Fact FACT!!!!

[Tiggy]

That type of scheme got it's name because one of the early Pharaohs financed his tomb by getting involved with Amway.

It's a fact, Fact FACT!!!!

The Great King Tutan-Ponzi.

- T

[rogue06]

**************************************************************************************

First, what you say above is understood far better than you realize. READ THE BOOK!
Of course, it serves your agenda to keep selling your misrepresentations like cheap socks.


Second, tell us what part of,

If anyone has read this book and wants to comment then please do.
Otherwise, there's really nothing more to say here.

you didn't understand and maybe someone here can spell it out for you ... C - A - T.

Jorge

How does pointing out that it is well known and widely recognized that VESTIGIAL DOESN'T MEAN USELESS misrepresenting anything Jorge?

Apparently Darwin realized that vestigial organs weren’t necessarily useless

“On the Origin of the Species,” Chapter 13, p. 451

"An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose; and remain perfectly efficient for the other."



Source

© source where applicable

While in the opening chapter of his “The Descent of Man” Darwin referred to vestigials as being “useless, or nearly useless” the fact is that he still recognizes that they could have some use.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Everyone to Jorge now, on the count of three...

VESTIGIAL DOESN'T MEAN USELESS.

How many times in how many different threads have we gone over this with you Jorge?

First, what you say above is understood far better than you realize. READ THE BOOK!
Of course, it serves your agenda to keep selling your misrepresentations like cheap socks.

Bergman's article on the AiG web site (2000):

"Do any vestigial organs exist in humans?", Bergman, AiG web site. 2000. Accessed 12-7-2009

The most common definition of a vestigial organ throughout the last century was similar to the following: ‘Living creatures, including man, are virtual museums of structures that have no useful function but which represent the remains of organs that once had some use (emphasis mine).’ The authoritative reference The Evolution of Life defines a vestigial organ as one ‘which has lost its function in the course of evolution, and is usually much reduced in size’.

. . .

The claim by creationists that there are no vestigial organs in humans usually refers to the most common definition that has been employed for the past century, not the problematic, newer definition now being used by evolutionists in an attempt to salvage the idea—i.e. organs that have ‘reduced function’ compared to their putative use in some vague, undefined past. According to the revisionists’ definition, a vestigial structure is:

‘Any part of an organism that has diminished in size during its evolution because the function it served decreased in importance or became totally unnecessary. Examples are the human appendix and the wings of the ostrich.’

. . .


If the definition of a vestigial organ is one that is less developed in a modern animal (compared to an ancestor) due to loss mutations, adaptation, etc., all organs in modern humans that were more developed in our alleged ancestors would be vestigial. This means that if macroevolution were true, and if humans evolved from lower animals, one could argue that virtually every structure in modern humans is vestigial because vestigial organs are defined as those that are somewhat less useful today then they were in the past. A rare exception would be the human brain—and even the brain could be claimed to be vestigial in size if we accepted Neandertals as our ancestors.

© source where applicable

Writing in 2000, Bergman most certainly claimed that "rudimentary" or "vestigial" meant "an organ that once was useful in an animal’s evolutionary past, but that now is useless or very close to useless." The book Jorge is announcing was written in 1990.The Creation Research Society promotes Bergman's book in a consistent fashion:

CRS Online Bookstore

Evolutionists still assert that many structures in the bodies of animals and people (and even in plants) are useless remnants, i.e., "vestiges," of organs which functioned only in evolutionary ancestors.

© source where applicable

So, once again, Jorge claims that someone is misrepresenting young-earth creationism for no other reason than that he just dislikes the comment.

—Sam

[The Moonshield]

If anyone has read this book and wants to comment then please do.

Lets say I buy and read the book, and disagree with some/most of it's claims. Is there any guarantee at all that you would actually engage in any kind of discussion, or would all of my (or anyone else who did the same) time and effort be wasted with a dismissive response such as "wow; if you're still not convinced that the VOA/ToE is false after reading this, there's really no hope in prying you away from your steadfast beliefs, so I won't even bother (I don't have that kind of time!)" or the like?

When you say:

After reading the book, I cannot fathom anyone holding on to
the VOA (or to the ToE, for that matter) but, alas, I know that that would be asking for
way too much (it takes a lot to destroy blind belief).

it makes it sound like you think that the book is so incredible that only a blind evolutionary faithful could possibly read it and not come away convinced, and you are no stranger to brushing people aside if you consider them to be as such, so to me it honestly feels like it would be a waste of time to read the book and then come here and attempt to engage in any kind of dialogue with you on the subject.

[wattsr1]

it makes it sound like you think that the book is so incredible that only a blind evolutionary faithful could possibly read it and not come away convinced, and you are no stranger to brushing people aside if you consider them to be as such, so to me it honestly feels like it would be a waste of time to read the book and then come here and attempt to engage in any kind of dialogue with you on the subject.

Where would Christianity be today if the early Christians behaved as Jorge?

"Hey, I have this absolutely wonderful news to help you all out. I'm not going to tell you or show you though. You'll have to read the book".


Regards, Roland

[rogue06]

Where would Christianity be today if the early Christians behaved as Jorge?

"Hey, I have this absolutely wonderful news to help you all out. I'm not going to tell you or show you though. You'll have to read the book".


Regards, Roland

Ever since I've been here Jorge has displayed a particular distaste for answering any questions. The irony is that he says he used to be a teacher. Imagine the joy that learning that was exhibited in those classes