Appendix to The Origin: “Darwin Was Wrong” (Darwinism is hazardous to your health)

CEH ^ | August 21, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

August 21, 2009 — The appendix, that lowly dollop of tissue relegated to vestigial organ status by the Darwinians, is alive and well with new respect. Science Daily announced results of the “first-ever study of the appendix through the ages.” Conclusion: “Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant....

[GodGunsGuts]

Ping!

[humblegunner]

I notice at the link that nobody is willing to sign his name to this drivel.

[editor-surveyor]

"I notice at the link that nobody is willing to sign his name to this drivel."

Your name is right under your drivel!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[stormer]

Wow. Scientists doing science. Did you really think that mid 19th century anatomy was the end all and be all? Gee - what other advancements have been made in the last 150 years. Huh - I don't know, but I'm sure they could all be twisted into some kind of support for your fantasies.

[Liberty1970]

Do you actually have some content to your criticism, or just the usual unhappy emoting?

[MEGoody]

I’ve come to believe that “evolutionary remnant” means “We don’t know what it does, but we don’t want to say that we don’t know.”

[Liberty1970]

As scientists continue to learn more about nature, we learn how limited natural mechanisms when it comes to explaining the origins of nature, and how complex the designs of life are. It helps us more fully appreciate the wisdom and the degree of sophistication God employed in the creation of nature.

[sickoflibs]

Are you quoting Darwinists at Science Daily as your source of knowledge (truth) here. So your argument is that ‘Darwinists are right that Darwinsists are wrong ‘ ??

Where’s the Genesis reference on this topic. Now if you could find the flaw in that specific issue in Genesis I would be impressed. The truth is, Noah didnt know anything about the appendix. Someone in his family got a pain from the appendix and they were buried.

[GourmetDan]

"Did you really think that mid 19th century anatomy was the end all and be all?"

So why do you think the mid-19th century theory of evolution is the 'end all and be all'.

[MEGoody]

Not sure who you are saying is spouting drivel. Are you saying the researchers at Duke are spouting drivel?

[xcamel]

To a person who believes ‘original incest’ is the orgin of mankind...

[Liberty1970]

I do think we (creationists) need to insert this caveat into discussions of vestigial organs: The concept itself is NOT anti-creationist. That is, the idea that an organ may once have had a purpose, but no longer does so, is perfectly compatible with the Creation model. The sightless eyes of cave-dwelling creatures would be a safe example, as are the wings of flightless island-dwelling cormorants, etc. The Creation model is that God created the world in a perfect state and that it has been decaying ever since - not that it is static and still in a perfect form (as many evolutionists caricature it.)

Where evolutionists go wrong is that they vastly exaggerated this phenomena, too often assuming, without research, that a given feature was vestigial. We should all learn from this, that ignorance + a bias usually leads to error, corrected by careful research and specific knowledge.

[Liberty1970]

To a person who believes ‘original incest’ is the orgin of mankind...

So what is your objection? In the original creation there was no problem with close inter-marriage since there were no recessive, dysfunctional genes. The Bible only prohibits close inter-marriage at the time of Moses, thousands of years later (by which point this would have presumably become more of a problem).

And if you reject the Bible, then what authority do you have for objecting to incest anyway? You see, you mean your comments to be some kind of argument against GGG's position, but they have no foundation. They are just arbitrary emoting and cannot be supported objectively.

[WOSG]

huh? Did Darwin ever say anything about the appendix? I dont think so.

[Tolsti2]

Are you saying that sight-less fish evolved in 6000 years to be that way?

[stormer]

Ah - the “I don’t understand it so God must have done it” argument. Sorry, it doesn’t wash. Science seeks naturalistic explanations to observed phenomena.

[stormer]

Nope. That’s why creationist arguments get more idiotic as time passes and evolutionary theory becomes more developed.

[xcamel]

So, in one breath you support incest as being the origin of mankind, yet deny that God’s law states that it an abomination?

Interesting..