Celtic Heroes

So um... Still waiting for someone to refute what I have written...

So um... Still waiting for someone to refute what I have written...

The embryonic comparison dont prove anything. Its very annoying; I remember that I learned at one point why most of these these things aren't proof, but I forget the explanation. Maybe Ill possibly look it up. But aggra was right, you try cutting out ur tail bone and see where it gets you. Many other "useless" organs have been found to have a purpose(for instance the appendix). Do embryos look similar? Sure! Does it mean we evolved from each other? No.

Actually magixal, I have looked a couple things up on the Internet, but I guess Im too dumb to understand their explanations either.

Its hard because most sites are biased. Obviously a site about evolution is going to support *gasp* evolution. And the same goes for the other side. Same goes for gun control/abortion. Sites for them speak for them; sites against them speak against them. Blah blah blah.

Im waiting for someone to show me how Catholics/Jehovah witness/Mormons are Christians. And pls don't say "because they say they are". If I say im insane, im not necessarily insane. I cn say im a popsicle and that won't change me(though if I do number 2, number 1 might come true)

Notice that it is only you three arguing with each other. Nothing wrong with that but I find it funny.

I gave up.

I got bored because the only one offering any real evidence rather than resorting to insults is vraelan.

The embryonic comparison dont prove anything. Its very annoying; I remember that I learned at one point why most of these these things aren't proof, but I forget the explanation. Maybe Ill possibly look it up. But aggra was right, you try cutting out ur tail bone and see where it gets you. Many other "useless" organs have been found to have a purpose(for instance the appendix). Do embryos look similar? Sure! Does it mean we evolved from each other? No.

Please do look up the explanation.

I have explained previously that my original statement of "useless" was incorrect and I meant to say it had lost all or most its original purpose. Vestigial structures have rudimentary functions now. So rudimentary in fact that, if we were made in the likeness of perfection, there should be another type of structure there or the tissue could form in a different way to improve our stabilisation of the muscles in that area and the body as a whole. Instead, we have a structure that is in the likeness of a tail and it is the only part of a tail that would continue to serve any function in our modern way of life.

The appendix is a mystery still... We can still only deduce small bits and pieces but we know that it seems to be a safe haven for various "good" bacteria that help out the immune system and digestive process especially in times of diarrhoea or other such illnesses. However, in herbivorous animals there is a very similar but larger structure that hosts types of bacteria capable of breaking down cellulose, which is present in plant cells, and it would be useful for eating leaves. In our early primate form, we would have consumed leaves. Based in its small size and small impact if removed, we can deduce that it must have had a larger function at one point in time.

The similarity in embryos does not indicate that we evolved from each other but rather, we evolved from a common ancestor that existed far back in the past. Now, many religious people would jump to the old "well, that simply means a common creator" but, there is no reason for some of the steps in the developmental process of these embryos other than the fact that development continues so there is no push to change. What is the purpose of the tail? What of the gill arches? Could not a perfect creator design a better develop process?

Its hard because most sites are biased. Obviously a site about evolution is going to support *gasp* evolution. And the same goes for the other side. Same goes for gun control/abortion. Sites for them speak for them; sites against them speak against them. Blah blah blah.

What do you mean by "biased"? If your confusion lies in the scientific ideas of our discussion, look up many sites and compare them to see if there are any differences or find a scientific study. Try to find data based sites. You really should not have a problem with bias as science deals mostly with facts, not opinion.

Go to a site that supports evolution and look out the evidence it uses. And remember, research is not about going to one source. Go from site to site, note the difference, investigate any specific evidence. When you find data, look at the date and the source. If the date is recent and the source reputable, look over the data and see if evolutionary conclusions conform to logic. When you go to a site, use logic and reason, not opinion.

So um... Still waiting for someone to refute what I have written...

The embryonic comparison dont prove anything. Its very annoying; I remember that I learned at one point why most of these these things aren't proof, but I forget the explanation. Maybe Ill possibly look it up. But aggra was right, you try cutting out ur tail bone and see where it gets you. Many other "useless" organs have been found to have a purpose(for instance the appendix). Do embryos look similar? Sure! Does it mean we evolved from each other? No.

Actually magixal, I have looked a couple things up on the Internet, but I guess Im too dumb to understand their explanations either.

Its hard because most sites are biased. Obviously a site about evolution is going to support *gasp* evolution. And the same goes for the other side. Same goes for gun control/abortion. Sites for them speak for them; sites against them speak against them. Blah blah blah.

Im waiting for someone to show me how Catholics/Jehovah witness/Mormons are Christians. And pls don't say "because they say they are". If I say im insane, im not necessarily insane. I cn say im a popsicle and that won't change me(though if I do number 2, number 1 might come true)

Catholics are Christians because that is the label put on them, just as we are labelled human, they are all different flavours of the same ice cream. Just as blacks, Asians and whites are all human, catholics Mormons Protestants and any other are all labelled christian, it makes me laugh when people claim to be the "true Christians" because no such thing exists.

Solumbum there are many factual sources if you know where to look, scientific books are better than the internet because they tend to be less bias (btw guns should be illegal, it works where I live, even cops dont have guns here in the UK)

Last I checked guns don't kill people, people kill people, but that's a different argument entirely.

Last I checked guns don't kill people, people kill people, but that's a different argument entirely.

Well, let us have this argument. I for one wish to see if there is a pattern of support between the religious and non religious.

Why is it that in the UK, there are less gun related deaths and guns are banned? In fact, the US is the only "big" developed country that still has incredibly loose gun control laws and it has the highest gun related death. There is an obvious pattern.

The same type of people, same emotional conditions, etc etc. What is different? A law.

Even police in, for example, the UK have stun guns (tasers) and batons which guarantees the safety of everyone and will not seriously compromise a crime scene.

And before I hear an argument about the sacred constitution, the right to bare arms is taken out of context. At the time when the constitution was written, there was no standing army and thus, the country required local militias. Therefore, the right to bare arms was included to grant them (as they were still the public) the right to use such weapons to defend the country and maintain local order.

The last part of that slogan people like to use follows: Guns do not kill people. People kill people, with guns.