thats a bit of an extreme comic.. although i did have a math teacher who taught in a similar manner. anyway, ignorance ftw.
I am taking this WAY too seriously... but... Whether the tail bones (coccyx) is vestigial is irrelevant, if human did indeed evolve from a species with a tail, it would simply means that we are in the process of optimizing and steam-lining our physiology. Having the tail bone, with its related muscles in the pelvis and back, do not necessarily negate that at one point in time certain ancestor of human may have a tail. It simply means that us the modern human do not need one anymore, and producing the flesh and bone for an organ with no use is an utter waste of resources, thus humans could have developed a more stable pelvic girdle to accommodate the added necessity to balance our bipedism (all the while losing the "tail"). Evolution do not simply entails addition, it entails changes. So the "losing organs" do not necessarily contradicts evolution. Evolution is all about finding a niche which a species can find the most abundant resource and optimize their physiology to accommodate the niche (see Darwin's finches on Galapagos) While some finches gain beak size, other "lose" beak size so that they can find food the competing species with bigger and longer beaks are unable to pick up. The problem with creationist is that it stops asking questions since the answer to every question would be "because God had made it that way", which didn't address the question at all. If anything, consider science trying to find out the logic behind this God, his design decisions. If creationism is true, which may or may not be the case, God is a great programmer with a utter lack of documentation. Human scientists are simply trying to write the documentation from the messy designs he created.
Thanks for sharing Master_g! Weird thing was that my sister and I were talking about this on the way home from school because today's bio lecture dealt with evolution..and how the prof was hardcore evolutionist -__-" and proclaiming it fact... and wondering how we should deal with this "theory of evolution". and when i got home and logged on to pa, i saw your thread! exactly what we were talking about! too bad we weren't as knowledged as the boy in the comic~ thanks!
Hey, no probs, im glad you liked it, yes there are sooo many flaws in this theory and if we knew just a little we would be able to stand stronger against people who use it. take a look at the link, this is a good book to get. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dismantling...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196120971&sr=8-1 Good luck and God bless hkm91450
lol i love how the comic infers that because the protons in center of a molecule have a positive charge everything should just fly apart. thats not at all how intramolecular bonding forces work hahaha, its true that on a macromolecular scale like charges do repel, but when you get down to sub atomic particles, the bonding physics are entirely different. the professor character is entirely correct when he alludes to gluons as the binding nuclear force, or atleast as correct as an individual can be when referring to a theory. protons stay together through the affect of 'strong nuclear force', a theory which postulates that the bonding effect of protons on one another when at extremely close range, due to meson exchange, is stronger than the forces of electromagnetic repulsion. Because of the minuscule size of the subatomic particle that is a proton and the immense pressure present in the nucleus, two protons have the ability to come extremely close to one another to the point where they are within each other's respective electromagnetic fields. At this point they can bond together by exchanging mesons without being affected by like-like repulsion. of course this is just a theory, one likely developed by an individual scientist who had devoted his life to the understanding of sub atomic particles. Yet like all scientific theory there is no doubt that is was constructed from factual observation, and a hypothetical conclusion was drawn from these observations. Its true that there is no possible way that the scientist could have actually seen the mesons that he concluded must be holding atomic nuclei together, but counter to that, how many individual catholics have actually seen christ, or an angel... besides their occasional appearance in a piece of toast, or perhaps outlined in mold on a block of cheese. Scientists will make occasional leaps of faith based on reason, but when those of religion make their leaps of faith they are based entirely on emotion and subjective opinion. Religious dogmatists find their conclusions in thousand year old books and manuscripts then look at daily life and attempt to derive facts that support those conclusion. Scientists find facts, compile them, and then determine hypothetical conclusions from their experimentation.
that is unfair and unreasonable point of view. how do you know that my or ANYONE else's views and understanding of Christianity is based "entirely" on emotional and subjective opinions? tell me. have you evidence to prove, let alone Christianity, religion in general to be rid entirely of reason and logic? a very ignorant thing to say, fearless_fx. i agree to some extent what hiake has addressed in her post. i believe that God made us all and everything that the Bible states. however, that does not mean i must renounce or rebuke the role of science in my life like if it is the devil. no, science can be used and has been used to further confirm and justify the reasons of believing in Christianity. now, of course, there will be some that will disagree with this point of view. however, personally, i'm not satisfied with just sitting back and stating, "Because God did it; let's leave it alone." it would be distasteful and somewhat irresponsible of us to do such a thing. so, taking it step-by-step, we can use those scientific methods that are truthful and filled with facts (and possibly the role evolution will come clearer in the future; however for the most part, it is not a concrete scientific fact to be used). Because, I believe that science can, like faith can, prove the existence of a loving God for us all.
