Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you realize that there is no evidence that evolution has occurred?

By the way, I asked Jesus to forgive me for my sins last night. He said no. 🙁

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God could not have been fabricated because there is a plethora of evidence in the world around us that point to the existence of God (i.e. natural laws, morality, conscience, order, design, mathematics, will, complex life, etc).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Tail bone in the sense of a vestigial tail/remnant is a misnomer. The coccyx has a definite purpose; hence, it is not nor ever was a tail.

Do you realize that there is no evidence that evolution has occurred? So how can the tailbone have lost function that it has never been proven to have had in the first place?

Humans born with a tail. It does happen.

http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/tails_in_humans.htm

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Tail bone in the sense of a vestigial tail/remnant is a misnomer. The coccyx has a definite purpose; hence, it is not nor ever was a tail.

Do you realize that there is no evidence that evolution has occurred? So how can the tailbone have lost function that it has never been proven to have had in the first place?

You do realise that your an idiot right?

The coccyx does not have a definite purpose. And there is plenty of evidence that evolution has occurred. Evidence from paleontology, from comparative anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. All of which I have studied at university.
Show me one reliable third party source that says the tail bone is a misnomer.

And please show me a third party source that shows the existence of god.

And again, what is your level of education?

Originally posted by Publius II
All of those except the first and last can be attributed to humanity's ingenuity.

How do you account for natural laws and complex life, two of the strongest examples of evidence that God exists?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How do you account for natural laws and complex life, two of the strongest examples of evidence that God exists?

Complex life does not prove any god.

The universe is unbelievably vast, and within the constraints of the laws of physics anything can happen. The universe is God, but there is not reason to worship it.

Originally posted by Prabhodh
You do realise that your an idiot right?

The coccyx does not have a definite purpose. And there is plenty of evidence that evolution has occurred. Evidence from paleontology, from comparative anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. All of which I have studied at university.
Show me one reliable third party source that says the tail bone is a misnomer.

And please show me a third party source that shows the existence of god.

And again, what is your level of education?

http://www.tailbonedoctor.com/coccyxtailboneimages.html

Many important muscles attach to the coccyx (or tailbone).

Macroevolution has never been proven scientifically.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.tailbonedoctor.com/coccyxtailboneimages.html

Many important muscles attach to the coccyx (or tailbone).

Macroevolution has never been proven scientifically.

Macroevolution is not needed. That division of evolution is a false one.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.tailbonedoctor.com/coccyxtailboneimages.html

Many important muscles attach to the coccyx (or tailbone).

Macroevolution has never been proven scientifically.

Yes, it still has some function, but it has lost its primary function.

Now, you are using the tail bone as a synonym for the coccyx. The website you gave does not say that its a misnomer.

Macroevolution has been proven scientifically.

Now what?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Macroevolution is not needed. That division of evolution is a false one.

No, it isn't.

Originally posted by Prabhodh
No, it isn't.

The idea that macro and micro are somehow distinct things is false. They are ways of looking at evolution. One cannot disprove the other.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The idea that macro and micro are somehow distinct things is false. They are ways of looking at evolution. One cannot disprove the other.

Yep, agreed.

Originally posted by Prabhodh
Yes, it still has some function, but it has lost its primary function.

Now, you are using the tail bone as a synonym for the coccyx. The website you gave does not say that its a misnomer.

Macroevolution has been proven scientifically.

Now what?

You have yet to establish that the coccyx had a primary function other than the function it has currently.

It is what it is.

Saying that something has been proven scientifically does not make it true.

Now you substantiate your claims, yeah?

Originally posted by Prabhodh
Yep, agreed.

There is a macro-size difference between microevolution (which in a sense is what occurs everday among animal and human organisms) and macroevolution.

There is no evidence at all that a single-celled organism came into being from nothing and eventually changed into a fish, amphibian, reptile, and then mammal.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

You have yet to establish that the coccyx had a primary function.

It is what it is.

Saying that something has been proven scientifically does not make it true.

Now you substantiate your claims, yeah?

🤪 You have already shown that you do not believe in the truth. All you believe in is your religion. What religion was that? Oh ya, you are not a member of a church.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

You have yet to establish that the coccyx had a primary function.

It is what it is.

Saying that something has been proven scientifically does not make it true.

Now you substantiate your claims, yeah?

The coccyx did have a primary function. The primary function is now lost due to evolution. And the minor functions that the coccyx serves accounts for it not disintegrating completely. Why would the overwhelming majority of the scientific community try and con you?

I would rather learn from my professors and trust them rather than an uneducated idiot like you.

So i'm done arguing with you.

Believe in what you want, mate. Doesn't really matter to me.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is a macro-size difference between microevolution (which in a sense is what occurs everday among animal and human organisms) and macroevolution.

There is no evidence at all that a single-celled organism came into being from nothing and eventually changed into a fish, amphibian, reptile, and then mammal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are looking for something that isn't needed.

Here is a grayscale. Point out to me all the transitional colors of gray from black to white. How many are there?

Life is not fixed plateaus that stop at one state, and then transition to another. If you want to see transitional life forms, look around you. Everything that is alive right now is a transitional life form from what it used to be to what it will become.

Originally posted by Prabhodh
The coccyx did have a primary function. The primary function is now lost due to evolution. And the minor functions that the coccyx serves accounts for it not disintegrating completely. Why would the overwhelming majority of the scientific community try and con you?

I would rather learn from my professors and trust them rather than an uneducated idiot like you.

So i'm done arguing with you.

Believe in what you want, mate. Doesn't really matter to me.

Again, reiterating an unproven idea does not give it validity it just makes the situation appear more desperate.

Have I ever insulted you? Why must an intelligent, atheist who is confident about his position and belief resort to name calling?

I didn't know that you were arguing.

I believe the Truth, can you handle it?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Again, reiterating an unproven idea does not give it validity it just makes the situation appear more desperate.

Have I ever insulted you? Why must an intelligent, atheist who is confident about his position and belief resort to name calling?

I didn't know that you were arguing.

I believe the Truth, can you handle it?

You do insult me, and greatly annoy me. Also, you insult the thousands of scientists who spent enormous amounts of time doing research. You insult the open-minded who are willing to accept the beliefs of others. You insult the majority of your own religion who want to live in harmony with the world. God and evolution can exist. If only people like you could understand that we could save an enormous amount of time, paper and effort.