Author Topic: Scientific Proof?  (Read 13066 times)

big L dawg

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5729
  • i always tell the truth even when i lie...
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #75 on: May 06, 2009, 05:07:20 AM »
The proof for God's existence is all around you. Close your heart and you will never be able to see it.

no...all that is required for belief  in God is a closed mind.
DAWG

Joel_A

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #76 on: May 06, 2009, 05:26:26 AM »
The proof for God's existence is all around you. Close your heart and you will never be able to see it.

replace "God" with "Allah", "Vishnu", "Buddha", or "Zeus"... there is no difference. Personally I would replace it with "Flying Spaghetti Monster."


Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9902
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #77 on: May 06, 2009, 08:09:04 AM »
mcway continually runs in a debate, never answering a direct question and spewing the same rebutted bullshit over and over.

we have already told you why atheists care if there is a god, if there was it would be a huge discovery, however religious people encroach on our rights all the time.

ToxicAvenger

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26516
  • I thawt I taw a twat!
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #78 on: May 10, 2009, 01:31:20 PM »
Joe Montana. 

nuff said.   ;D


what is a joe montana  ???


nuff said  ;)
carpe` vaginum!

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #79 on: May 13, 2009, 09:47:58 AM »

what is a joe montana  ???


nuff said  ;)

I will slap you

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20427
  • loco like a fox
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #80 on: August 24, 2009, 09:51:42 AM »
There isn't much intelligence in intelligent design.  I have an appendix to prove it and a big waste of space in the universe.   :D

Also, there is more unintelligent design then design in the world, look at birth defects, the sun eventually going to supernova killing us all,myopia in the human eye, the appendix etc etc etc....

Just because we don't yet know the purpose of something like the appendix, it does not follow that God doesn't exist, or that God did not design and create everything.

Even if these scientists were to be wrong about the appendix this time, it does not follow that we won't find an important purpose for the appendix in the future.

Scientists may have found appendix’s purpose
Seemingly useless organ may produce, protect good germs for your gut

MSNBC
Oct . 5, 2007


WASHINGTON - Some scientists think they have figured out the real job of the troublesome and seemingly useless appendix: It produces and protects good germs for your gut.

That’s the theory from surgeons and immunologists at Duke University Medical School, published online in a scientific journal this week.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/

The Appendix: Useful and in Fact Promising

Aug 24, 2009

The body's appendix has long been thought of as nothing more than a worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing save a potentially lethal case of inflammation.

Now researchers suggest the appendix is a lot more than a useless remnant. Not only was it recently proposed to actually possess a critical function, but scientists now find it appears in nature a lot more often than before thought. And it's possible some of this organ's ancient uses could be recruited by physicians to help the human body fight disease more effectively.

In a way, the idea that the appendix is an organ whose time has passed has itself become a concept whose time is over.

"Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," said researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"

Slimy sac

The vermiform appendix is a slimy dead-end sac that hangs between the small and large intestines. No less than Charles Darwin first suggested that the appendix was a vestigial organ from an ancestor that ate leaves, theorizing that it was the evolutionary remains of a larger structure, called a cecum, which once was used by now-extinct predecessors for digesting food.

"Everybody likely knows at least one person who had to get their appendix taken out - slightly more than 1 in 20 people do - and they see there are no ill effects, and this suggests that you don't need it," Parker said.

However, Parker and his colleagues recently suggested that the appendix still served as a vital safehouse where good bacteria could lie in wait until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea. Past studies had also found the appendix can help make, direct and train white blood cells.

Now, in the first investigation of the appendix over the ages, Parker explained they discovered that it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected, hinting that it plays a critical function.

"The appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin's ideas about the appendix were correct," Parker said.

Moreover, the appendix appears in nature much more often than previously acknowledged. It has evolved at least twice, once among Australian marsupials such as the wombat and another time among rats, lemmings, meadow voles, Cape dune mole-rats and other rodents, as well as humans and certain primates.

"When species are divided into groups called 'families,' we find that more than 70 percent of all primate and rodent groups contain species with an appendix," Parker said.

Several living species, including several lemurs, certain rodents and the scaly-tailed flying squirrel, still have an appendix attached to a large cecum, which is used in digestion. Darwin had thought appendices appeared in only a small handful of animals.

"We're not saying that Darwin's idea of evolution is wrong - that would be absurd, as we're using his ideas on evolution to do this work," Parker told LiveScience. "It's just that Darwin simply didn't have the information we have now."

He added, "If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution."

What causes appendicitis?

Darwin was also not aware that appendicitis, or a potentially deadly inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation, Parker said.

"Those changes left our immune systems with too little work and too much time their hands - a recipe for trouble," he said. "Darwin had no way of knowing that the function of the appendix could be rendered obsolete by cultural changes that included widespread use of sewer systems and clean drinking water."

Now that scientists are uncovering the normal function of the appendix, Parker notes a critical question to ask is whether anything can be done to prevent appendicitis. He suggests it might be possible to devise ways to incite our immune systems today in much the same manner that they were challenged back in the Stone Age.

"If modern medicine could figure out a way to do that, we would see far fewer cases of allergies, autoimmune disease, and appendicitis," Parker said.

The scientists detailed their findings online August 12 in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/theappendixusefulandinfactpromising

big L dawg

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5729
  • i always tell the truth even when i lie...
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #81 on: August 24, 2009, 11:16:49 AM »
the artical states the appendix has been around for 80 million years.Do you agree with that loco?
DAWG

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20427
  • loco like a fox
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #82 on: August 24, 2009, 11:30:19 AM »
the artical states the appendix has been around for 80 million years.Do you agree with that loco?

I neither agree nor disagree.  I don't know the age of the earth or the age of the universe.  You don't know either.  First they say the appendix is useless, now they say that it is "Useful and in Fact Promising."  So they were wrong before.

My point is that just because we don't yet know the purpose of something like the appendix, it does not follow that God doesn't exist, or that God did not design and create everything.  Bringing up the appendix in these discussions is a terrible argument.

big L dawg

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5729
  • i always tell the truth even when i lie...
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #83 on: August 24, 2009, 11:39:20 AM »
I neither agree nor disagree.  I don't know the age of the earth or the age of the universe.  You don't know either.  First they say the appendix is useless, now they say that it is "Useful and in Fact Promising."  So they were wrong before.

My point is that just because we don't yet know the purpose of something like the appendix, it does not follow that God doesn't exist, or that God did not design and create everything.  Bringing up the appendix in these discussions is a terrible argument.

First off...Who is "they"?....second so why did you even bother posting the article?I mean it seems you posted it to prove something yet you can't answer wether you agree or not with the points that are giving in the article.that the appendix has been around for 80 million years because you say you don't know.Which would be fine as long as when someone asked you about god you reply with the same answer."I don't know"...because you don't know.
DAWG

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20427
  • loco like a fox
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #84 on: August 24, 2009, 12:01:35 PM »
First off...Who is "they"?....second so why did you even bother posting the article?I mean it seems you posted it to prove something yet you can't answer wether you agree or not with the points that are giving in the article.that the appendix has been around for 80 million years because you say you don't know.Which would be fine as long as when someone asked you about god you reply with the same answer."I don't know"...because you don't know.

You did not bother reading my post did you?

Necrosis and OzmO argued that because it is useless, the appendix is proof that we were poorly designed or not designed at all. 

I say if you are going to argue that, the appendix is no proof and it is a poor argument because we don't even know that it is indeed useless.

You are the one getting all hung up on the age issue.

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9902
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #85 on: August 27, 2009, 09:38:06 PM »

it has immunological tissue, this is taught in medical schools, it is a poor "design" , peyers patches and small diverticulum have immunological function. It is not necessary to have a blind diverticulum around the ilealcecal valve, pardon the spelling there, i is drunk. It is not necessary for function and its design makes it somewhat troublesome, it could of been done much better, like the eye.

ToxicAvenger

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26516
  • I thawt I taw a twat!
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #86 on: August 28, 2009, 07:22:10 PM »
I will slap you

does this Joe montana play an international sport?

nope...

we'll talk when he plays a real (international) sport....

globalization is here my friend...get used to it...
he wouldn't last 2 days playing soccer or cricket...the 2 biggest sports on the planet
carpe` vaginum!

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #87 on: August 29, 2009, 08:48:22 AM »
does this Joe montana play an international sport?

nope...

we'll talk when he plays a real (international) sport....

globalization is here my friend...get used to it...
he wouldn't last 2 days playing soccer or cricket...the 2 biggest sports on the planet


Soccer has got to be the most boring sport on the planet next to baseball.  And while the rest of the hooligans beat on each other, all the money is in the NFL.

International sport is just another way of saying not good enough for the NFL.   :D ;D

ToxicAvenger

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26516
  • I thawt I taw a twat!
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #88 on: August 29, 2009, 09:06:54 AM »

 all the money is in the NFL.



NFL players do it for the $  :-\

cricket and soccer players do it mostly for the game  ;)
carpe` vaginum!

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #89 on: August 29, 2009, 09:16:43 AM »
NFL players do it for the $  :-\

cricket and soccer players do it mostly for the game  ;)



You can't into the NFL without "game" and its a passion for that game that gets you that game that gets you into that game. 

The greatest games draw the best competition, the money is only a symptom of a great game.

ToxicAvenger

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26516
  • I thawt I taw a twat!
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #90 on: August 29, 2009, 09:30:06 AM »

You can't into the NFL without "game" and its a passion for that game that gets you that game that gets you into that game. 

The greatest games draw the best competition, the money is only a symptom of a great game.

far more people on this planet watching and more importantly "playing" cricket and soccer than <ahem> football...

most people that watch football on the teli have nevrr played football  :-\
there is a cricket and soccer game being played in every street and backyard in crick and soccer playing countries

http://ezinearticles.com/?Most-Popular-Sports-Around-The-World&id=551180
carpe` vaginum!

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #91 on: August 29, 2009, 04:23:37 PM »
far more people on this planet watching and more importantly "playing" cricket and soccer than <ahem> football...

most people that watch football on the teli have nevrr played football  :-\
there is a cricket and soccer game being played in every street and backyard in crick and soccer playing countries

http://ezinearticles.com/?Most-Popular-Sports-Around-The-World&id=551180



More the evidence the world is mis-guided and in the dark.    8)

ToxicAvenger

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26516
  • I thawt I taw a twat!
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #92 on: August 29, 2009, 06:27:54 PM »

More the evidence the world is mis-guided and in the dark.    8)

so said the fox about the grapes  ;D
carpe` vaginum!

liberalismo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #93 on: September 23, 2009, 05:30:13 AM »
The Appendix: Useful and in Fact Promising

Aug 24, 2009

The body's appendix has long been thought of as nothing more than a worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing save a potentially lethal case of inflammation.

Now researchers suggest the appendix is a lot more than a useless remnant. Not only was it recently proposed to actually possess a critical function, but scientists now find it appears in nature a lot more often than before thought. And it's possible some of this organ's ancient uses could be recruited by physicians to help the human body fight disease more effectively.

In a way, the idea that the appendix is an organ whose time has passed has itself become a concept whose time is over.

"Maybe it's time to correct the textbooks," said researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. "Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a 'vestigial organ.'"

Slimy sac

The vermiform appendix is a slimy dead-end sac that hangs between the small and large intestines. No less than Charles Darwin first suggested that the appendix was a vestigial organ from an ancestor that ate leaves, theorizing that it was the evolutionary remains of a larger structure, called a cecum, which once was used by now-extinct predecessors for digesting food.

"Everybody likely knows at least one person who had to get their appendix taken out - slightly more than 1 in 20 people do - and they see there are no ill effects, and this suggests that you don't need it," Parker said.

However, Parker and his colleagues recently suggested that the appendix still served as a vital safehouse where good bacteria could lie in wait until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea. Past studies had also found the appendix can help make, direct and train white blood cells.

Now, in the first investigation of the appendix over the ages, Parker explained they discovered that it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected, hinting that it plays a critical function.

"The appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin's ideas about the appendix were correct," Parker said.

Moreover, the appendix appears in nature much more often than previously acknowledged. It has evolved at least twice, once among Australian marsupials such as the wombat and another time among rats, lemmings, meadow voles, Cape dune mole-rats and other rodents, as well as humans and certain primates.

"When species are divided into groups called 'families,' we find that more than 70 percent of all primate and rodent groups contain species with an appendix," Parker said.

Several living species, including several lemurs, certain rodents and the scaly-tailed flying squirrel, still have an appendix attached to a large cecum, which is used in digestion. Darwin had thought appendices appeared in only a small handful of animals.

"We're not saying that Darwin's idea of evolution is wrong - that would be absurd, as we're using his ideas on evolution to do this work," Parker told LiveScience. "It's just that Darwin simply didn't have the information we have now."

He added, "If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution."

What causes appendicitis?

Darwin was also not aware that appendicitis, or a potentially deadly inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation, Parker said.

"Those changes left our immune systems with too little work and too much time their hands - a recipe for trouble," he said. "Darwin had no way of knowing that the function of the appendix could be rendered obsolete by cultural changes that included widespread use of sewer systems and clean drinking water."

Now that scientists are uncovering the normal function of the appendix, Parker notes a critical question to ask is whether anything can be done to prevent appendicitis. He suggests it might be possible to devise ways to incite our immune systems today in much the same manner that they were challenged back in the Stone Age.

"If modern medicine could figure out a way to do that, we would see far fewer cases of allergies, autoimmune disease, and appendicitis," Parker said.

The scientists detailed their findings online August 12 in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090824/sc_livescience/theappendixusefulandinfactpromising




Scientists do NOT say that the appendix "has no purpose". The article is mis-stating scientists.

The appendix "does something", but this is a side effect of its placing in the body. Its production of beneficial bacteria was NOT its original purpose and is not its purpose in any other animals. The appendix does not do what it USED to do, and thus is a vestigial organ.

Statistically, Humans are MUCH SAFER without an appendix than with having one in nature. The risk of infection is too great, and when it is removed there is no noticeable differences. In fact, other organs take up the job of producing the bacteria once the appendix is removed, or was never there.

liberalismo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #94 on: September 23, 2009, 05:30:55 AM »
I neither agree nor disagree.  I don't know the age of the earth or the age of the universe.  You don't know either.  First they say the appendix is useless, now they say that it is "Useful and in Fact Promising."  So they were wrong before.

My point is that just because we don't yet know the purpose of something like the appendix, it does not follow that God doesn't exist, or that God did not design and create everything.  Bringing up the appendix in these discussions is a terrible argument.


I know how old the earth is.

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #95 on: September 24, 2009, 05:47:14 PM »

I know how old the earth is.

13k right?   ;)

liberalismo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #96 on: September 25, 2009, 08:32:25 PM »
13k right?   ;)

 + 4.5 billion years.

GRACIE JIU-JITSU

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3476
  • HAIL SATAN. I'm a bad ass...You're just an ass.
Re: Scientific Proof?
« Reply #97 on: October 08, 2009, 09:01:29 AM »
  True.

 8)

Gracie Rules