Evidence for God from Science

i have two questions to dissicussed one

i was think about are vestigal organs(correct me if my spelling is wrong) and i want to know if we didn't evolve (macro-evolutions) then why did God create us with it .

and second if we didn't evolve from animals why do we share the similar DNA

your input would really help

I'll refrain from answering, because my views explicitly use evidence like those two points as reasons supporting evolution (as they can be used for all organisms, not just humans).

goldmoor,

What human organ are you refering to?
Appendix
http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-hum ... t-good-for


Be careful about the human-chimp DNA similarity. It is often said that we are about 99% the same, but this is only in those section that are similar. In other words this is how similar the similar sections are. But, what is more important is how genes are used.
Check out this organization. I'll give a link to some of their information about this subject.
http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/humanchi ... milarities

My only thing to say about the appendix answer is that they kind of talk out both sides of their mouth. First, they say that removing the appendix is good for people, then say that they think it serves a vital purpose in humans....obviously those two explanations are in direct conflict. Their first point is still kind of moot because I can't imagine any purpose for designing something that is better off removed, and the second point is speculation that I can't find any follow-up material on...which likely means the scientists they quote hit a dead-end on that research.

I'll read over the second one more later, but they seem to commit the fallacy of saying that the similarity in DNA is a superficial number. Yes, saying that 99% of the DNA is the same is a logical lapse that is no longer used for evidence for our common ancestry. The genetic evidence is much deeper than that superficial number.

Ivellious wrote:My only thing to say about the appendix answer is that they kind of talk out both sides of their mouth. First, they say that removing the appendix is good for people, then say that they think it serves a vital purpose in humans....obviously those two explanations are in direct conflict. Their first point is still kind of moot because I can't imagine any purpose for designing something that is better off removed, and the second point is speculation that I can't find any follow-up material on...which likely means the scientists they quote hit a dead-end on that research.

I'll read over the second one more later, but they seem to commit the fallacy of saying that the similarity in DNA is a superficial number. Yes, saying that 99% of the DNA is the same is a logical lapse that is no longer used for evidence for our common ancestry. The genetic evidence is much deeper than that superficial number.

The function of the appendix http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-10-10/s ... gan/693946
It is not a useless organ but you can survive without it just like your spleen, gall bladder etc... just because they can be removed does not mean they don't have a function, also we are not better off with it removed unless it has become infected/damaged in a life threatening way. There could be many reason for it becoming infected, maybe diet and life style have an effect or other enviromental factors, I don't know for sure.

Dan

Ivellious,

Here is a 2012 story about the research on the appendix's function.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... your-life/

Yes, saying that 99% of the DNA is the same is a logical lapse that is no longer used for evidence for our common ancestry. The genetic evidence is much deeper than that superficial number.

First, yes it is still used.

Second, are you refering to "junk DNA?"
http://www.reasons.org/Search?q=Junk+DNA

Maybe you are refering to population genetics?
http://www.reasons.org/articles/were-th ... am-and-eve
http://www.reasons.org/articles/orangut ... 99s-origin

Other research that shows that genetic diversity can not tell you what the original population size was.
Genetic diversity greater than expected:
"Genetic diversity in India and the inference of Eurasian population expansion"
http://genomebiology.com/2010/11/11/R113/

"High Genetic Diversity in an Endangered Seabird"
http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bit ... 3182_1.pdf

"Effects of fragmentation on genetic diversity in island populations of the
Aegean wall lizard Podarcis erhardii (Lacertidae, Reptilia")
http://old.biol.uoa.gr/enphysg/pdf/hus.pdf

"A Very Small and Isolated Population of the Green Oak Leaf Roller, Tortrix viridana L., with High Genetic Diversity—How Does This Work?"
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/conten ... sq064.full

"Endangered species in small habitat patches can possess high genetic diversity: the case of the Tana River red colobus and mangabey"
http://web.whittier.edu/tanaproject/Tan ... ek2010.pdf

If you are refering to chromosome 2:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/chromos ... -evolution

"in our image" seems to relate to Father/Son's spiritual image. 10 commandments and latter 2 are for educating your spirit and not your brain which we know gets eaten by worms when you die, unlike your spirit which is now practiced in the 'loving image of the Son' . Your appendix also gets eaten by worms when you die.

Not to be rude, but all of you gets eaten by worms when you die, presuming you are buried whole. Everything's function after death (including humans, other animals, plants) is to essentially give your body and its parts back to the world where it can all get cycled back into the ecosystem.

I agree with you on the non-literal "image of our lord" bit though.

Ivellious wrote:Not to be rude, but all of you gets eaten by worms when you die, presuming you are buried whole. Everything's function after death (including humans, other animals, plants) is to essentially give your body and its parts back to the world where it can all get cycled back into the ecosystem.

I agree with you on the non-literal "image of our lord" bit though.

I want to be cremated.

Me too. Though regardless, the smoke carries a great deal of the elements of your body into the atmosphere to be redistributed and your ashes (mostly carbon residue) would presumably eventually get back into the world somehow...regardless, the overlying principle of my comment was that getting eaten by worms is not a legit function of the appendix haha

Ivellious wrote:Me too. Though regardless, the smoke carries a great deal of the elements of your body into the atmosphere to be redistributed and your ashes (mostly carbon residue) would presumably eventually get back into the world somehow...regardless, the overlying principle of my comment was that getting eaten by worms is not a legit function of the appendix haha

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Not to be rude, but all of you gets eaten by worms when you die, presuming you are buried whole. Everything's function after death (including humans, other animals, plants) is to essentially give your body and its parts back to the world where it can all get cycled back into the ecosystem.

I agree with you on the non-literal "image of our lord" bit though.

I want to be cremated.

Why?

Tina wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Not to be rude, but all of you gets eaten by worms when you die, presuming you are buried whole. Everything's function after death (including humans, other animals, plants) is to essentially give your body and its parts back to the world where it can all get cycled back into the ecosystem.

I agree with you on the non-literal "image of our lord" bit though.

I want to be cremated.

Why?

I don't want to take up space after I am gone, I don't want my family in their grief to have the burden of a burial plot etc... and im a tight ass. <---- please excuse the expletive.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Tina wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Not to be rude, but all of you gets eaten by worms when you die, presuming you are buried whole. Everything's function after death (including humans, other animals, plants) is to essentially give your body and its parts back to the world where it can all get cycled back into the ecosystem.

I agree with you on the non-literal "image of our lord" bit though.

I want to be cremated.

Why?

I don't want to take up space after I am gone, I don't want my family in their grief to have the burden of a burial plot etc... and im a tight ***. <---- please excuse the expletive.

Not that I'm attached to my body once rigamortis sets in... but I would prefer cremation too as I don't like the thought of my body rotting away, being eaten by worms, etc.

goldmoor wrote:i have two questions to dissicussed one

i was think about are vestigal organs(correct me if my spelling is wrong) and i want to know if we didn't evolve (macro-evolutions) then why did God create us with it .

What "vestigial organs" are you referring to.. or to put it another way, is there really such a thing?

and second if we didn't evolve from animals why do we share the similar DNA

We also share 50% similarity in DNA with banana's... as much as similarity in DNA points to common descent, it in the exact same way points to a common designer. Remember homology and the like was used as evidence for a common designer before it was used as evidence for evolution.

Think about it.
Certain animals share the exact same features with humans. Head, legs, arms, eyes, nose, mouth, throat, etc, etc. so it only makes sense to utilise the same layout or "plan" from one for the other.

Life's underlying construction mechanism (the DNA instruction set, the nano-machines that read / write / construct that code, and the body plan) is so effective because of it's flexibility and ability to construct almost any living thing.

Also don't forget that evolutionists predicted the exact opposite -- they predicted that cows would have cows molecules, dog's dog molecules, human's human molecules, etc. No doubt because they expected a "path of least resistance", and not the all-in-one complex, coded, read / write, error correction system that does in fact govern all biological life on earth.

Ironically, they of course now use the opposite as proof for evolution...