I never denied this possible explanation. But again, you're not acknowledging the fact if there was no appendix, this problem would not exist in the first place.
I have repeatedly acknowledged and dismissed it because I disagree. It is not a fact because other scientists ALSO disagree. This has nothing to do with religion or "creationist agendas." There is a longstanding opinion of the appendix that, until recently, was unchallenged. This opinion is mistakenly being represented as accepted fact.
That is not the point. There are plenty of ways for a designer to keep beneficial bacteria in reserve without having to hope that it gets trapped in some semi-rotting orifice and doesn't start causing problems.
You are quick to point out alternatives but you don't support them. What are some of these other ways a designer could "more safely" keep bacteria in reserve for the colon? I also think you're exaggerating far too much. "Semi-rotting orifice" is not an accurate description of the appendix. This is your own characterization (opinion) of it.
The authors are also biased because this experiment invalidates their original hypothesis. If they don't know anything about the true function of the appendix, then their quotes on the subject are meaningless. It's the results you look at in a scientific study, even if they don't suggest causality. To say that the authors' speculation (which has already been proven wrong) supports your position is dishonest to say the least.
You're running in circles now. If you claim they are now biased, then their conclusions can't be trusted. Their conclusion was diagnostic bias and this is what you were pointing to as undermining my position. If we discard this and look only at the results, they support my position and are consistent with the second study I provided. That study went on to conclude a likely relationship between appendectomies and Crohn's.
There is nothing dishonest about what I am saying. I'm playing by the rules you put forth and continue to change. Unfortunately, no matter how many times you change them, they still prove to support the points that I am making.
I refuse to acknowledge this "unique" issue because it's brazenly false.
Again, not the point. The bowels are 20 feet long, and yet appendectomy remains one of the most common surgeries. Sure, you're going to get bowel obstruction, but this one tiny segment has caused way more grief for humans than it had a right to.
You don't get to make a bold statement like "a flaw that does not exist in the rest of the GI tract. . . which you refuse to acknowledge" only to brush it aside when I proved it unequivocally false. This is PRECISELY what backpedaling is. You attempted to argue that the appendix is the only part of the GI tract to have this flaw. The flaw being that it could be obstructed. You didn't say "most likely" or "most commonly," you said "does not exist in the rest of the GI tract."
I refuse to let this go. If you are going to accuse me of dishonest and untoward behavior I expect you to maintain the same standards.
To return to your (revised) point, appendectomies are actually on the decline as antibiotic treatment becomes more popular. It has been suggested that, eventually, antibiotics will be the primarily method of treating appendicitis with appendectomies reserved for more severe cases. A whole slew of other cardiovascular diseases are likely to push appendectomies out of the spotlight.
If the appendix wasn't a ticking timebomb, then surgeons wouldn't routinely remove it even during unrelated surgeries. This is a brute fact.
"Brute fact". . . this is a pretty popular term and is used more often to push opinions than it is actual fact. You should read up on the Mitrofanoff procedure. It is becoming less and less likely that the appendix is removed for unrelated surgeries. As I stated earlier, it may eventually stop altogether. That doesn't sound like "ticking" to me. . .
They do the same thing with wisdom teeth. Luckily I still have mine because they never gave me any trouble, but there are plenty of people for which this is not the case.
I am aware of this (I had mine removed after three years of braces), but new dental practices are preventing this from being an issue. My youngest brother (in elementary school) is having his palate widened to make room for all of his teeth. He will not need to have any teeth pulled, including his wisdom teeth. I, on the other hand, had 8 teeth pulled prior to my wisdom teeth. Hopefully that gives you an idea of how much changes in such a short period of time.
You could use this to argue against intelligent design and I'd happily concede the point. Even though we are moving to avoid removing teeth, we have to alter the body in the process. That said, I'm less concerned with the argument of intelligent design than I am you using the appendix as a flag bearer.
Humanity had god-awful hygiene for the vast majority (100k+ years) of its existence. Are you acknowledging then that appendicitis killed off way more than its fair share of people in ancient times? Wouldn't an omnipotent creator have accounted for this?
You should read my reply to Eiviyn. I address this specifically. You're warping a lot of points here to imply that God or space magic or a designer should have known we'd treat our bodies like crap. Religion believes we've been given instructions on how to care for our bodies, but many choose to ignore it.
Only a small percentage of cases of appendicitis aren't caused by any actual obstruction. In these cases, it has nothing to do with diet or the appendix filtering "toxins", it has to do with an infection that spread throughout the GI tract until it got to the weakest part: the appendix.
Nice try. I even provided the proper context in which you are clearly stating that diet has nothing to do with infections that lead to appendicitis. I state this exact sentiment in my quote, which you are now attempting to side-step.
Ugh. You can't give me an article that you link as "increased risk of Crohn's disease following an appendectomy" when the article demonstrates that this is actually a myth. I realize that you may be on the defensive here, but there is no saving face from this and I didn't think that you would actually try to play it off like you meant to do it all along. It's not a big deal, I know you don't have time to read every giant article, but it looks a tad hypocritical when you accuse me of not reading.
Except that it doesn't and the new "rules" you lay out dictate we ignore their conclusions. As mentioned above, removing the conclusion removes the idea of diagnostic bias. This causes the article to correlate with the other studies I provided. I'm definitely not on the defensive. If anything, you're defending my point for me by failing to properly assess your points before you make them. I did not, originally, expect to follow up because I didn't think you would fail to understand the article. I did, however, prepare such support and, upon realizing the angle you were taking, hoped you'd allow me to do so. There's nothing hypocritical about being able to consistently point out the flaws in your arguments.
You really have no idea what kind of person I am. I believe in the philosophy that "how you do anything is how you do everything." If I don't have the time or knowledge to discuss a topic, I don't. This is why I've stayed out of most of the subjects in this thread because I didn't feel comfortable arguing points I lack a communicable understanding of. Most specifically, a lot of the theoretical sciences (of reality) being discussed are beyond me because I haven't taken the time to investigate them. I am aware of membrane theory, but I couldn't hope to use it in arguing for or against anything.
When I DO decide to participate, I do so with great care. I do not make a point unless I can support it with other points. I am careful to avoid making polarizing claims such as "always, never, 100%" because generalizations are always poor tools for debate. If my points are false, I will admit them. I check and recheck everything I type before I post it and I read everything to avoid this. I am an avid reader, I read very quickly and I enjoy it. If the detail and organization of my posts (and mapping tutorials of old) are not indicative of this fact, you will probably never understand this about me.
I argue to be accurate, I don't argue to be right (win).
There are some animals that don't have an appendix. . . Cows don't have an appendix but a fully functional cecum, and that's because they still eat leaves like our ancestors used to.
You raise a good point with regards to the caecum in other animals, but I'd argue this has to do with the fact that humans can be omnivorous while cows are herbivores. I happen to think (this is definitely theorycrafting) that the appendix is important in balancing the relationship between herbivorous and carnivorous diets in omnivores. Specifically, that it protects herbivorous bacteria when meats are in the colon. I don't have solid evidence to support this though.
But I suppose you'll tell me how this link only serves to prove your point.
No, it doesn't prove either point. It simply shows that what we're talking about is a real problem. It even admits the appendix is "one of the most disputed" vestigial organs. What this article DOES do is clarify what, specifically, the appendix is useless at: digesting cellulose like a caecum. I don't find this statement unreasonable because it is very specific and accurate.
It also suggests the appendix is designed poorly but ignores important details by focusing on ulcerative colitis. I've already pointed out (the linked studies do as well) that an appendectomy is not a risk factor of ulcerative colitis. Several studies (as this article mentions) do, indeed, suggest appendectomies lower the risk of ulcerative colitis. However, smoking lowers the risk of ulcerative colitis as well, but I don't consider that a good reason to start smoking. Chemotherapy is a method of treating cancer, but it harmful side-effects. The point being that just because its removal has perceived value doesn't mean we should remove it. Crohn's is closely related to ulcerative colitis, but appendectomies and smoking have the opposite affect. Chances are you would trade ulcerative colitis for Crohn's.
This article is primarily about whether or not the appendix IS a vestigial organ, but that's not something I contest. I take issue with the idea that the appendix should be removed. I attribute many of the negative issues outlined in this article to hygienic practices. You attribute them to the liability of the appendix as a result of evolution or inefficient design.
It's the same way that you like to say that the more you learn about science, the stronger your faith becomes (an oxymoron). The problem with creationist agendas is two-fold:
1) Assume that a god exists.
2) Assume that everything is proof of god.
You really don't understand my beliefs at all. I don't support this as I'm not a creationist. I support theistic evolution. It is not an oxymoron that my faith grows as my understanding of science grows. I choose to believe that God exists. As such, I also choose to believe that science is our way of understanding the laws that govern our existence as laid out by God. I do not assume that science proves God, I do not claim that I can prove God and I argue that religion can't prove God.
I don't have an agenda. What I am doing is pointing out that your polarizing claims are not as accurate as you believe them to be. The only time I've mentioned God is when you claimed that you or others could do a better job designing the body. I contest this by saying that we, scientifically, do not have such an unshakable understanding of the human body that we can support this claim. I am very careful to address religious points with religion and scientific points with science.
1) I used the words "intelligent designer", not god. The design of the appendix is not remotely intelligent and everyone here knows it.
2) It's an argument because this 8 mm. part of our 20 feet bowel is one of the most common causes for surgeries. 7% of people in the USA get a problem with this one small segment. Despite everything that recent studies are finding, you can't deny that this design where shit gets clogged so easily is sub-optimal. Think about it. It's a long finger-like tube. It is hard to clean it up even with a high fiber diet.
1) My mistake, I'll use "designer" in our continued dialog. However, your statement is false. I am part of "everyone here" and I disagree. Many others disagree with you as well. You're generalizing and it serves no purpose.
2) I'll make the same point I did with Eiviyn: You're talking about less than 10% of the human population. Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of human death in the world. These and cancer account for close to half of all deaths in the United States. A great deal of these issues are being linked to man-made problems, diet being a major contender. These percentages are continuing to grow.
I think it is a mistake to conclude that the appendix is a major liability when we're doing a much better job killing ourselves. Considering how many of these issues are in areas close or related to the appendix, I don't think we should isolate it from the idea that appendicitis, also, could partly be our fault.
I don't agree that the appendix has a sub-optimal design. I agree that it wasn't designed for the diet we have today, so in that way it could be viewed as sub-optimal, but I feel this only proves that we are sub-optimally caring for our bodies. And I have thought about it. If you let your appendix clog up with a crappy diet and THEN switch to a high fiber diet, I completely agree that it's hard to clean it out. If you have a high fiber diet from the start, it is far less likely to need cleaning, if at all.
Until we understand why disease is increasing again (after a period
of rapid decrease), we can't honestly claim that they are no "major
adverse effects" to appendectomies. Smoking was once considered
harmless! We now know better...
Yes we can totally claim that. Sure, it's less than optimal to live with a removed appendix, but the appendix does not have essential functions necessary to our survival. Are you really comparing smoking to appendectomy?
Yes, I am, because we once claimed smoking had no side-effects. We claimed a number of harmful substances and practices had no side-effects. Do you know why disease is increasing? No? You can't tell me appendectomies aren't contributing to this if we're still not sure what is causing the increase in disease.
...you just gave me an entire spiel on the appendix's functions when I explicitly told you that I never denied that they exist. Who is strawmanning?
How is my attempt to educate you on suggested functions of the appendix and its relationship with diet and IBD "strawmanning?" You claim that there are no "major adverse effects" to removing the appendix. These studies suggest otherwise. Are you saying that you didn't make this claim and that a straw man typed it for you?
Give it a rest already. You should be more humble after totally failing to read your own article on Crohn's disease & appendectomy.
As I point out above, I didn't fail to read anything. Your circular logic continues to get you nowhere. Being humble does not require me to be passive. You are aggressively pushing false information. I do not tolerate this.
You conveniently ignore the link you provided "proving Joseph's Smith
fraudulent behavior" that turned out to be nothing of the sort. I
addressed it part way through this post.
No. Just no. You asked for the proof that he was arrested. . . I gave it to you in the form of his arrest record:
I picked that site because it had the cleanest picture. Just because I don't want to get into a debate about dubious, unfalsifiable history does not mean I'm "ignoring" anything. I realize that there is probably no way I'll be able to convince you that Joseph Smith was a fraud, you can google that stuff for yourself or watch the south park episode. A picture of his arrest record is enough for me, but not for you.
You truly don't understand the importance of context:
I’d appreciate it if you’d provide what you consider to be reliable documentation for this. This is consistently cited in criticism against us, but I have never found the evidence reliable.
Neither banking nor fraud are mentioned anywhere in the link you provided. It even states that some of the reports are contradictory. The only thing this is evident of is that Joseph Smith was arrested for "Glass Looking". That is, the act of looking for "treasures" which some might construed as fraudulent behavior. The problem is that the article closes with the following statement:
"However, the fact is that Rev. Walters broke the chain of custody of evidence. He had a vested interest in making Joseph Smith look as bad as possible. He did, in fact, use some of these records for that purpose. His conduct therefore gives rise to not-untenable suspicions about whether the complete body of evidence made it through his hands."
The problem that I frequently encounter is that evidence surfaces that claims against Joseph Smith were made, but not that the claims themselves had any validity. I am fully aware that many, many efforts have been made to discredit Joseph Smith, but I have not found any of these to be objectively sound in their documentation. The link you provided is no different.
You need to practice reading comprehension. I asked for documentation of the fraud that you claimed was "well documented." You gave me a picture of an arrest record that the containing article points out is suspicious. You even state that he "was already arrested once for banking fraud," so even if I did ask for the arrest record, the picture doesn't have anything to do with banking fraud. I pointed it out then and I'm pointing it out again now. This picture loses all credibility when you inspect its source. Something you failed to do.
If this picture is enough for you to believe Joseph Smith was committing bank fraud, then I could easily use photoshop and an anonymous blog site to convince you aliens are living inside your brain. You have the audacity to label those participating in this thread that disagree with you "a cesspool of unbridled ignorance & stupidity," yet your actions would readily include you in this group.
You said "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body."
This is wrong, appendicitis is brought on by obstruction or infection. The creation of toxins is a symptom. So you backpedal and say "An obstruction caused by improper hygienic practices". You then tell me how the appendix can remove toxins, when everybody knows that the entire problem with the appendix is that bacteria gets trapped in there too easily, which creates pus and eventually releases toxins.
Actually, I am correct. You don't understand how appendicitis works:
Step 1) Poor hygienic practices create fecaliths, promote infection/hyperplasia and contribute to a number of causes for appendicitis
Step 2) The appendix is obstructed, infected or affected by hyperplasia (cell growth similar to cancer, linked to diet)
Step 3) Mucus fills the appendix (swells) both in an attempt to lubricate and dislodge obstructions or deal with infection/hyperplasia. This is not yet appendicitis.
Step 4) When that fails, bacteria trapped in the appendix create pus and toxins leading to inflammation. This is the onset of appendicitis. This is because "itis" refers to the inflammation of an organ. Thus appendicitis is when the appendix becomes inflamed.
Step 5) If the appendix bursts or is perforated, its contents spill out leading to peritonitis (inflammation of the peritoneum) and/or septicemia (toxins reach the blood causing widespread inflammation)
The problem with appendicitis is we're only now getting a handle on what contributes to Step 1.
To address your misunderstanding: Toxins are NOT a symptom of appendicitis. Toxins and infections cause inflammation. The toxins/infections that cause inflammation can escalate to ischemia (lack of oxygen) or necrosis if they are not dealt with. This can certainly precipitate toxins/infections, but only because they were already there and not because inflammation suddenly created them. The body doesn't send blood to inflame the area if there isn't something to deal with: toxins/infections.
Additionally, I did NOT backpedal. Some more context:
An obstruction caused by improper hygienic practices such as overeating, poor diet and a plethora of other situations predominately perpetuated by the human responsible for said appendix. And yes, the appendix can and does remove toxins from the body. Nearly every part of your body can, in some way, absorb and mitigate toxins.
Yes, a poor diet without fiber will lead to appendicitis because food gets lodged in there. A flaw that does not exist in the rest of the GI tract, and the point which you refuse to acknowledge.
Again, not the point. The bowels are 20 feet long, and yet appendectomy remains one of the most common surgeries. Sure, you're going to get bowel obstruction, but this one tiny segment has caused way more grief for humans than it had a right to.
I didn't take anything back rather I clarified my points, deepening and further committing to them. I am not abandoning my points and this precise exchange culminates in your false statement. You got caught and try to escape the point. THAT is backpedaling.
I've simply tried to demonstrate the correct etiology of appendicitis. I know that religious people love appealing to authority, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason you should be considered as one. So you have Crohn's disease and read many articles. Well I have headaches and I've read many articles on headaches; that still doesn't make me an authority.
The problem is your understanding of its etiology is wrong. I'm sure you'd love to label me a religious zealot on the matter, but the fact is I've largely avoided using religion in this discussion. I've used science to contest science. You can continue to paint verbal caricatures of me in hopes that somehow that will detract from my position, but the reality is that my personal experiences and a considerable portion of the scientific community contradict what you're saying.
You repeat that I'm not an "authority" on the subject, but I never said I was. I pointed out that I know what I'm talking about because I did the research and I'm living the results. Maybe you should read up on authority as well. I'm not leading anything, I don't advance the field, I have no social position.
On the other hand, I AM an authority on the Data Editor for StarCraft 2. I not only understand this area but I expanded its knowledge base. Someone could take the tutorials I create and furnish a solid understanding of the subject matter such that they do not need me to utilize it. This doesn't make them an authority, it makes them well informed. If they took this information and used it to explore the Data Editor in a similar matter, they would then become an authority.
If you spent as much effort verifying your own claims as you did trying to label me, you probably wouldn't need to attack my character so desperately.
32 By smooth words he will turn to godlessness those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people who know their God will display strength and take action.33 Those who have insight among the people will give understanding to the many; yet they will fall by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plunder for many days.34 Now when they fall they will be granted a little help, and many will join with them in hypocrisy.35 Some of those who have insight will fall, in order to refine, purge and make them pure until the end time; because it is still to come at the appointed time.
Matthew 2nd
6 'And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah,
Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah;
For out of you shall come forth a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.'"
Matthew Second, Daniel Eleven, Thank you satan.
- "Yes We Can" song in reverse
Or is there something they don't want you to know...
I have repeatedly acknowledged and dismissed it because I disagree. It
is not a fact because other scientists ALSO disagree. This has nothing
to do with religion or "creationist agendas." There is a longstanding
opinion of the appendix that, until recently, was unchallenged. This
opinion is mistakenly being represented as accepted fact.
What other scientists? The only articles you showed me simply establish that:
1) There is an increased risk for Crohn's after appendectomy....but not really because one of the articles you linked attributes this to diagnostic bias.
2) The appendix provides some auxiliary functions.
Wow, big deal. It's amazing what kind of mental gymnastics you're willing to go through simply to deny the fact that people can die from appendicitis.
Quote:
You are quick to point out alternatives but you don't support them. What
are some of these other ways a designer could "more safely" keep
bacteria in reserve for the colon? I also think you're exaggerating far
too much. "Semi-rotting orifice" is not an accurate description of the
appendix. This is your own characterization (opinion) of it.
How do other animals survive without an appendix? When you figure it out, you'll have your answer.
Quote:
You're running in circles now. If you claim they are now biased, then
their conclusions can't be trusted. Their conclusion was diagnostic bias
and this is what you were pointing to as undermining my position. If we
discard this and look only at the results, they support my position and
are consistent with the second study I provided. That study went on to
conclude a likely relationship between appendectomies and Crohn's.
There is nothing dishonest about what I am saying. I'm playing by the
rules you put forth and continue to change. Unfortunately, no matter how
many times you change them, they still prove to support the points that
I am making.
You don't get to make a bold statement like "a flaw that does not exist
in the rest of the GI tract. . . which you refuse to acknowledge" only
to brush it aside when I proved it unequivocally false. This is
PRECISELY what backpedaling is. You attempted to argue that the appendix
is the only part of the GI tract to have this flaw. The flaw being that
it could be obstructed. You didn't say "most likely" or "most commonly,"
you said "does not exist in the rest of the GI tract."
I refuse to let this go. If you are going to accuse me of dishonest and
untoward behavior I expect you to maintain the same standards.
Jesus Christ dude. As I've repeatedly said, there is no other 8 mm segment in the bowels that causes so many problems. Appendicitis would not be an issue if the risk was the same as in the rest of the GI tract. What is so damn hard to understand about this? You are being pedantic and never acknowledge the underlying point.
Quote:
"Brute fact". . . this is a pretty popular term and is used more often
to push opinions than it is actual fact. You should read up on the
Mitrofanoff procedure. It is becoming less and less likely that the
appendix is removed for unrelated surgeries. As I stated earlier, it may
eventually stop altogether. That doesn't sound like "ticking" to me. . .
Are you denying that surgeons routinely remove appendices to prevent further problems?
It looks like the Mitrofanoff procedure is for establishing a catheter. They remove the appendix for this purpose because you don't need it to survive. I'm not sure what your point is.
Quote:
You could use this to argue against intelligent design and I'd happily
concede the point. Even though we are moving to avoid removing teeth, we
have to alter the body in the process. That said, I'm less concerned
with the argument of intelligent design than I am you using the appendix
as a flag bearer.
I don't see why the discovery of some auxiliary functions in the appendix justifies all the cases of appendicitis in your mind.
Quote:
You should read my reply to Eiviyn. I address this specifically. You're
warping a lot of points here to imply that God or space magic or a
designer should have known we'd treat our bodies like crap. Religion
believes we've been given instructions on how to care for our bodies,
but many choose to ignore it.
Being born in crappy circumstances is nobody's fault. What makes you think these people would be in a position to do anything about it even if they did have the right knowledge? Animism was the default religion for the vast majority of humanity's existence. How exactly do you figure it would help those people prevent appendicitis? To suggest that it was their fault is totally asinine. You must be a republican.
Quote:
Only a small percentage of cases of appendicitis aren't caused by any
actual obstruction. In these cases, it has nothing to do with diet or
the appendix filtering "toxins", it has to do with an infection that
spread throughout the GI tract until it got to the weakest part: the
appendix.
Here I describe a small sample of cases where the cause is infection (read: not diet or obstruction). I don't get it. Are you trying to prove that you don't read yet again?
Quote:
Except that it doesn't and the new "rules" you lay out dictate we ignore
their conclusions. As mentioned above, removing the conclusion removes
the idea of diagnostic bias. This causes the article to correlate with
the other studies I provided. I'm definitely not on the defensive. If
anything, you're defending my point for me by failing to properly assess
your points before you make them. I did not, originally, expect to
follow up because I didn't think you would fail to understand the
article. I did, however, prepare such support and, upon realizing the
angle you were taking, hoped you'd allow me to do so. There's nothing
hypocritical about being able to consistently point out the flaws in
your arguments.
At no point did I say we ignore the conclusions (though you've been doing that without me just fine). It would help if you just manned up and admitted you didn't read the article. I guess I can buy that your original explanation of appendicitis was poorly worded. But this? No, I'm sorry, you do not give me an article which states that the point you're trying to make is actually a myth.
Quote:
You really have no idea what kind of person I am. I believe in the
philosophy that "how you do anything is how you do everything." If I
don't have the time or knowledge to discuss a topic, I don't. This is
why I've stayed out of most of the subjects in this thread because I
didn't feel comfortable arguing points I lack a communicable
understanding of. Most specifically, a lot of the theoretical sciences
(of reality) being discussed are beyond me because I haven't taken the
time to investigate them. I am aware of membrane theory, but I couldn't
hope to use it in arguing for or against anything.
When I DO decide to participate, I do so with great care. I do not make
a point unless I can support it with other points. I am careful to avoid
making polarizing claims such as "always, never, 100%" because
generalizations are always poor tools for debate. If my points are
false, I will admit them. I check and recheck everything I type before I
post it and I read everything to avoid this. I am an avid reader, I read
very quickly and I enjoy it. If the detail and organization of my posts
(and mapping tutorials of old) are not indicative of this fact, you will
probably never understand this about me.
I argue to be accurate, I don't argue to be right (win).
I'm sorry, but I will never believe you that you knowingly gave me an article which states that your position is a myth. It's almost like you just read the title and that was it. Again, not a big deal, I just can't bring myself to believe you.
Quote:
No, it doesn't prove either point. It simply shows that what we're
talking about is a real problem. It even admits the appendix is "one of
the most disputed" vestigial organs. What this article DOES do is
clarify what, specifically, the appendix is useless at: digesting
cellulose like a caecum. I don't find this statement unreasonable
because it is very specific and accurate.
So you agree that it's a vestigial organ that lost its primary function in humans?
Quote:
It also suggests the appendix is designed poorly but ignores important
details by focusing on ulcerative colitis. I've already pointed out (the
linked studies do as well) that an appendectomy is not a risk factor of
ulcerative colitis. Several studies (as this article mentions) do,
indeed, suggest appendectomies lower the risk of ulcerative colitis.
However, smoking lowers the risk of ulcerative colitis as well, but I
don't consider that a good reason to start smoking. Chemotherapy is a
method of treating cancer, but it harmful side-effects. The point being
that just because its removal has perceived value doesn't mean we should
remove it. Crohn's is closely related to ulcerative colitis, but
appendectomies and smoking have the opposite affect. Chances are you
would trade ulcerative colitis for Crohn's.
We know about the effects of chemotherapy and smoking. It's a strawman to compare those two things to an appendectomy.
Quote:
I do not assume that science proves God
So how does learning more about the universe strengthen your faith? For most people, it simply leaves less things for God to do, and decreases their faith. That's why evolution is such a huge issue with Christians.
Quote:
I contest this by saying that
we, scientifically, do not have such an unshakable understanding of the
human body that we can support this claim. I am very careful to address
religious points with religion and scientific points with science.
You still do not acknowledge the point that the appendix is a non-essential organ in which thousands of people get along fine without. What you have here is basically an appeal to ignorance, and I can't really refute that.
Quote:
2) I'll make the same point I did with Eiviyn: You're talking about less
than 10% of the human population. Cardiovascular diseases are the
leading cause of human death in the world. These and cancer account for
close to half of all deaths in the United States. A great deal of these
issues are being linked to man-made problems, diet being a major
contender. These percentages are continuing to grow.
Cardiovascular diseases are inevitable and a result of old age. Appendicitis does not have to be. As Eiviyn said, it strikes around 10-30 years old, about the standard lifespan in ancient times.
We need the heart to survive, but we don't need the appendix. If you still don't get it I don't know what to say.
Quote:
I think it is a mistake to conclude that the appendix is a major
liability when we're doing a much better job killing ourselves.
Considering how many of these issues are in areas close or related to
the appendix, I don't think we should isolate it from the idea that
appendicitis, also, could partly be our fault.
Sure, but cancer, heart disease & pretty much everything else bar genetic diseases could also be considered "our fault". It still does not alleviate the problem that crap simply gets trapped way too easily in the appendix.
Quote:
Do you know why disease is increasing? No? You can't tell
me appendectomies aren't contributing to this if we're still not sure
what is causing the increase in disease.
Appeal to ignorance. Thousands of people have safely removed their appendices. If disease was increasing in these people, there would be studies about it. The fact that disease is increasing in general is totally irrelevant.
Quote:
How is my attempt to educate you on suggested functions of the appendix
and its relationship with diet and IBD "strawmanning?" You claim that
there are no "major adverse effects" to removing the appendix. These
studies suggest otherwise. Are you saying that you didn't make this
claim and that a straw man typed it for you?
-facepalm
Let's look over your studies showcasing these "major adverse effects".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10211500
This link established that appendectomy has no association with developing ulcerative colitis. It did establish it with Crohn's disease, but for all we know this could be diagnostic bias as your very first article proved.
What are the major adverse effects of appendectomy? You've proven virtually nothing. I have evidence (thousands of people that didn't die from an appendectomy). You have vacancy and an appeal to ignorance. Remind me again why you feel so entitled in this debate?
Quote:
Neither banking nor fraud are mentioned anywhere in the link you
provided. It even states that some of the reports are contradictory. The
only thing this is evident of is that Joseph Smith was arrested for
"Glass Looking". That is, the act of looking for "treasures" which some
might construed as fraudulent behavior. The problem is that the article
closes with the following statement:
"However, the fact is that Rev. Walters broke the chain of custody of
evidence. He had a vested interest in making Joseph Smith look as bad as
possible. He did, in fact, use some of these records for that purpose.
His conduct therefore gives rise to not-untenable suspicions about
whether the complete body of evidence made it through his hands."
The problem that I frequently encounter is that evidence surfaces that
claims against Joseph Smith were made, but not that the claims
themselves had any validity. I am fully aware that many, many efforts
have been made to discredit Joseph Smith, but I have not found any of
these to be objectively sound in their documentation. The link you
provided is no different.
You need to practice reading comprehension. I asked for documentation of
the fraud that you claimed was "well documented." You gave me a picture
of an arrest record that the containing article points out is
suspicious. You even state that he "was already arrested once for
banking fraud," so even if I did ask for the arrest record, the picture
doesn't have anything to do with banking fraud. I pointed it out then
and I'm pointing it out again now. This picture loses all credibility
when you inspect its source. Something you failed to do.
If this picture is enough for you to believe Joseph Smith was committing
bank fraud, then I could easily use photoshop and an anonymous blog site
to convince you aliens are living inside your brain.
Wow, just wow. What do you not understand about "Well here's the actual records from a google search"? You're going to complain about reading comprehension now? I gave you a picture of his arrest record. The site claims it's suspicious but overall it does not deny that this is the arrest record, which should have cemented your faith that the source was not biased. I made it patently obvious that the link I was providing was from a cursory search in google. At no point did I say that the one picture convinced me (since...you know, the fact that he was arrested is information that you can find anywhere). At no point did I say that this site is valid documentation for his entire career of fraud. I simply said what I wrote: that this is the arrest record I found in a google search.
I am aware that I did not answer your question, but I thought it was obvious that it's because I had no interest in going into the topic with you. I did not think I would have to spell it out for you so explicitly. How utterly dishonest of you to ignore what I actually wrote and claim victory.
Quote:
I am fully aware that many, many efforts
have been made to discredit Joseph Smith, but I have not found any of
these to be objectively sound in their documentation.
Of course you didn't. Just like Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Muslims can never find any evidence that discredits their beliefs. That's why I didn't want to get into a debate about unfalsifiable history facts. I know that you've probably already dismissed the evidence even if you've seen it. You're not as different from the vast majority of religious people as you think.
Quote:
You have the
audacity to label those participating in this thread that disagree with
you "a cesspool of unbridled ignorance & stupidity," yet your actions
would readily include you in this group.
Again, right back at ya buddy. "Audacity"? Are you defending the homophobes in this thread?
Quote:
Step 1) Poor hygienic practices create fecaliths, promote
infection/hyperplasia and contribute to a number of causes for
appendicitis
Step 2) The appendix is obstructed, infected or affected by hyperplasia
(cell growth similar to cancer, linked to diet)
Step 3) Mucus fills the appendix (swells) both in an attempt to
lubricate and dislodge obstructions or deal with infection/hyperplasia.
This is not yet appendicitis.
Step 4) When that fails, bacteria trapped in the appendix create pus and
toxins leading to inflammation. This is the onset of appendicitis. This
is because "itis" refers to the inflammation of an organ. Thus
appendicitis is when the appendix becomes inflamed.
Step 5) If the appendix bursts or is perforated, its contents spill out
leading to peritonitis (inflammation of the peritoneum) and/or
septicemia (toxins reach the blood causing widespread inflammation)
Great. But your original claim that "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body." is still false.
Quote:
Step 3) Mucus fills the appendix (swells) both in an attempt to lubricate and dislodge obstructions or deal with infection/hyperplasia. This is not yet appendicitis.
Wrong. The swelling of mucus increases pressure in the appendix lumen and causes thrombosis of the small vessels. This also leads to inflammation.
Quote:
To address your misunderstanding: Toxins are NOT a symptom of
appendicitis. Toxins and infections cause inflammation.
That's fantastic. Now what I said in reality was: "appendicitis is brought on by obstruction or infection. The creation of toxins is a symptom." Symptom referring to "obstruction or infection".
Symptom - A sign of the existence of something, esp. of an undesirable situation.
I have to provide definitions of common words now because you continue to be pedantic and nitpick semantics, instead of ever acknowledging the underlying point.
Quote:
I didn't take anything back rather I clarified my points, deepening and
further committing to them. I am not abandoning my points and this
precise exchange culminates in your false statement. You got caught and
try to escape the point. THAT is backpedaling.
Yeah you really "caught me" when I stated the obvious: that the rest of the GI tract doesn't have the same problems as the appendix. Sure, it was poorly worded, but you knew exactly what I meant, since you know, I stated it multiple times and I get weary of making it so explicit for you. Are these petty and trivial semantic arguments all you really have left?
Quote:
a considerable portion of
the scientific community contradict what you're saying.
ROFL
Name those things. You are delusional. Even after I told you multiple times that I never denied any of the appendix's functions, you still repeat this tired old diatribe. In the meantime you refuse to acknowledge the fact that:
1) Thousands of people get along fine after an appendectomy and only a small percentage develop Chrohn's, likely because they're already susceptible to it in the first place.
2) The appendix is considered a ticking time bomb by the medical community, which is why sometimes it's removed during unrelated surgeries. The Mitrofanoff procedure that you yourself linked among them.
3) The appendix is not essential to our survival. You can find this on literally any site that talks about the appendix.
4) Many people have died from appendicitis and it is usually fatal if left untreated. Less people would have died overall if this organ never existed.
And then you suggest that I am aggressively forwarding "false information". Wow, just wow. o.o
Quote:
You repeat that I'm not an "authority" on the subject, but I never said
I was. I pointed out that I know what I'm talking about because I did
the research and I'm living the results.
"I know what I'm talking about because I did the research and I'm living the results" is an authoritative statement. <_<
Receive Jesus Christ into your heart and He will open your eyes, and refresh you.
This heart business christians have is a relic from ancient Egyptian religion and ancient Egyptian beliefs that that heart did the thinking and that that heart was weighed in the afterlife. Obviously it's not true, the heart is just a pump for blood. Lol, 5000 years of outdated anatomy still propagate through modern religion. Receive science into your brain and you shall open your eyes and refresh your mind.
If you listen more, and reflect more, you know the statement you've posted is wrong. Research more. I'll post the video if I find it again. But a woman who specializes in this area herself have proven there's something that remains "aware" but only able to "interpret" things differently.
In the mean time:
This video is old, but could be a good point.
Again, keep exploring. Nothing wrong with trying to achieve or attain what is good and perfect.
::::::::::::::::::::: "Since emotional processes can work faster than the mind, it takes a power stronger than the mind to bend perception, override emotional circuitry, and provide us with intuitive feeling instead. It takes the power of the heart."
[b]"The idea that we can think with our hearts is no longer just a metaphor, but is, in fact, a very real phenomenon. We now know this because the combined research of two or three fields is proving that the heart is the major center of intelligence in human beings. Molecular biologists have discovered that the heart is the body's most important endocrine gland. In response to our experience of the world, it produces and releases a major hormone, ANF , which stands for Atriol Neuriatic Factor , that profoundly effects every operation in the limbic structure, or what we refer to as the "emotional brain." This includes the hippocampal area where memory and learning take place, and also the control centers for the entire hormonal system. And neurocardiologist have found that 60 to 65% of the cells of the heart are actually neural cells, not muscle cells as was previously believed."**
the heart affects mental clarity, creativity, emotional balance and personal effectiveness. Our research and that of others indicate that the heart is far more than a simple pump. The heart is, in fact, a highly complex, self-organized information processing center with its own functional "brain" that communicates with and influences the cranial brain via the nervous system, hormonal system and other pathways. These influences profoundly affect brain function and most of the body’s major organs, and ultimately determine the quality of life
-HeartMath www.heartmath.org
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
“...In recent years several heart transplant recipients have reported unexpected side effects including experiencing memories, habits and desires they never had before. With studies showing that these are not isolated cases, 'Transplanting Memories?' meets patients searching to understand what has happened to them. The film follows organ recipients as they make contact with their donor families in an effort to understand their new found lease of life and features scientists who are pioneering research into the intelligence of the heart and the biochemical basis for memory in our cells. Is science's understanding of how memory works quite as cut and dried as once thought?” ( (source: Mindshock: Transplanting Memories? Channel 4 television, UK, 26 June, 2006 at 10pm BST).
Completely independently of such heart transplant experiences, Dr Andrew Armour Ph.D. is a heart specialist who had noticed the presence of neurons in the heart – he noted a sophisticated collection of these and learned that the heart contains a complex nervous system of its own. He soon realised that there is a more intimate connection between the heart and brain than had previously been known or understood. Indeed, the doctor claims that the heart actually sends more information to the brain than the other way around! Dr Armour has written a pamphlet called, Anatomical and Functional Principles. His publisher makes the following comment about this writing:
[i]'Groundbreaking research in the field of neurocardiology has established that the heart is a sensory organ and a sophisticated information encoding and processing center, with an extensive intrinsic nervous system sufficiently sophisticated to qualify as a "heart brain" .... Armour discusses intriguing data documenting the complex neuronal processing and memory capabilities of the intrinsic cardiac nervous system, indicating that the heart brain can process information and make decisions about its control independent of the central nervous system. By providing an understanding of the elaborate anatomy and physiology of the cardiac nervous system, this monograph contributes to the newly emerging view of the heart as a complex, self-organized system that maintains a continuous two-way dialogue with the brain and the rest of the body.
Professor Paul Pearsall Ph.D. has also made a contribution to the new discussion of the intelligence of the human heart. After interviewing nearly 150 heart and other organ transplant recipients, Pearsall proposed the once staggering concept that cells of living tissue could have the capacity to remember.
Paul Pearsall is one of many researchers who has observed that transplant patients who receive an organ from another person's body may also receive much more , what he calls their "cellular memories." Recipients have reported inheriting everything from the donor's food cravings to knowledge about his murderer, information that in one case led to the killer's arrest. As a result of these and other researchers' findings, Pearsall is now convinced that the heart has its own form of intelligence, that we are only rarely aware of in modern life. In his view, the heart processes information about the body and the outside world through an "info-energetic code", a profuse network of blood vessels and cells that serves not only as our circulatory system but as an energy information gathering and distribution system, much like a complex telephone network. What's more, he believes that the soul, at least in part, is a set of cellular memories that is carried largely by our hearts. Predictably, such views have met with opposition in the medical world. But in his view, the implications of his theories , that the heart "thinks," cells remember, and communication can therefore transcend the boundaries of time and space , are too important for him to dismiss
Along with this, more scientists are regularly joining this exciting new area of research and even Britain's foremost heart transplant doctor, Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub (in the televised channel 4 programme), while being guarded in his comments, nevertheless welcomed the new area of research, although, of course, the professor is typical of a long line of heart specialists who have only seen the human heart as a pumper of blood.
However, the extensive research of Armour and others show that there can now be no going back – we can all now state quite dogmatically that the relationship between the heart and brain has been hugely underestimated and that the heart contains more brain-like capacities than anyone would have thought just a very few years ago. There is an inter-change between heart and brain with the brain actually receiving more information from the heart than vice versa.
This means that the biblical concept that the heart is the seat of one's soul , intellect and character can no longer be taken as a purely poetic/romantic writing idiom.
Bible still is the word of God. Science proves Bible. Science catches up to Bible. Atheism still a belief system with zero evidence and support. In later news, Gradius will continue to dodge my questions and go on to tell us how the growth of toe tails = bad design = cant be a god, That same logic in him talking about the appendix.
Nobody denied that the heart is part of the peripheral nervous system. So are the nerves in your hands & feet & pretty much everywhere else. The mesenteric nervous system has the largest concentrations of neurons in the PNS. More than 90% of the body's serotonin lies in the gut; as well as about 50% of the body's dopamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system
Maybe if the bible had verses like:
"Accept Jesus into your guts"
or
"You will find happiness when you accept God into your bowels"
Then maybe you'd be justified. Though I guess eating the body of Christ (communion cracker) does come close. Too bad that the bible has never been used to discover anything. Any discoveries you claim are made in hindsight, like this one. Most christians will at least admit that the bible is not a science book. But again, I don't need to remind you:
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with the pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find.
Thanks for demonstrating how this process works yet again.
Quote:
Atheism still a belief system with zero evidence and support.
So is a-santa-clausism, a-zeusism, and a-tooth-fairyism. All "dogmatic" and "zealous" beliefs, that you're part of too by the way (i hope).
Quote:
Gradius will continue to dodge my questions
I've recently stopped replying to you because you have repeatedly failed all thread to answer these questions:
1) Prove that god has to be the uncaused cause.
2) Prove that the universe was created.
3) Just because the bible has some facts in it does not mean everything in there is true, as is the case with books like Harry Potter. How do you bridge the gap and conclude that God is real?
I'll answer whatever you want once you provide actual answers to these questions.
Quote:
That same logic in him talking about the appendix.
I really don't get why you guys are hung up on the appendix. There's a reason it's one of the flagship organs for unintelligent design. Explain to me, if you would, the reason you believe that appendectomy is one of the most common abdominal surgeries despite the appendix being such a small segment of our bowels? And don't give me diet or that it's "our fault" because I can also use that to explain away cancer, heart disease & pretty much everything else.
You do realize that what you've posted are infomercial quotes, right? If you actually checked your quotes, you should notice that they come from traditional religious, new age spirituality, UFO, and conspiracy web sites. Notice how those articles rely on vague references any actual research. Did you notice that when you did a Google search there's a lack of any actual scientific journals/articles/literature supporting those claims, not even any journals authored by the people you listed. FYI: In case you didn't know, scientific journals/articles/literature tell you how actual researchers conducted their experiments and show actual results from the experiments.
Leave it to religious folks to be gullible to believe urban myths are scientific facts and to disbelieve actual science...
You should probably learn how the nervous system works.
By the way, here's some related articles discussing communication processes within the body. Since you have a defunct understanding on science, you'll probably misinterpret the facts, as usual.
You do realize that what you've posted are infomercial quotes, right? If you actually checked your quotes, you should notice that they come from traditional religious, new age spirituality, UFO, and conspiracy web sites
Haha no. Thats not the case. Lol. The research is also on-going.
More than 90% of the body's serotonin lies in the gut; as well as about 50% of the body's dopamine:
Yea, also, kinda completely irrelevant.
Although its influence is far-reaching, the gut is not the seat of any conscious thoughts or decision-making.
I've recently stopped replying to you because you have repeatedly failed all thread to answer these questions:
1) Prove that god has to be the uncaused cause.
2) Prove that the universe was created.
3) Just because the bible has some facts in it does not mean everything in there is true, as is the case with books like Harry Potter. How do you bridge the gap and conclude that God is real?
I'll answer whatever you want once you provide actual answers to these questions.
Its because you dont have answers to my questions. You`d just say "Go do your own research" whenever your crazy theories hit a dead center.
1. Has to be?, or IS?. This question has already been dealt with.
2. No dude, the universe was obviously not created. Ignore science, logic and reason too while you are at it. We`re all secretly in wonderland.
3. Everything is true. The bible has proven to be perfectly reliable, in many different cases and especially historically like for: http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=407
the evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible continues to build.
I dont see how this relates to a fictional book such as Harry potter. Most religions are like that?, yes probably indeed, but not the Bible. It can stand on its own merit.
Explain to me, if you would, the reason you believe that appendectomy is one of the most common abdominal surgeries despite the appendix being such a small segment of our bowels?
ProzaicMuze can deal with that. You`re use of intelligent design is a bit subjective here. We cant call the appendix useless. Sure we can do without it, and it seems a more pesky organ than others, but this can also be said of other organs too under/during z, x,y conditions.
I don't really want to engage in any present arguments, but simply share my view.
I'm a practicing Catholic and I don't care who knows it. I don't care if that offends you, get over it. There are worse things to be offended by in life. I believe that if I willfully choose to love God and man to the maximum of my capacity, I will go to heaven when I die. My primary goal in life is to become a saint.
I'm a practicing Catholic and I don't care who knows it. I don't care if that offends you, get over it. There are worse things to be offended by in life.
Nobody cares about what anyone believes. What people get offended by is when you try to dictate public policy and tell people how to live their lives based off your holy book. People can't get an abortion, gays can't marrry, evolution can't be taught in schools. Why do you guys care? There are worse things to be offended by in life that you have to go protest at dead soldier's funerals.
Point is, if you want to dictate to people how to live their lives, that opens your holy book to criticism. Have you ever seen a scientist walk into a Sunday school and say "you know guys, we've refuted all this creationism nonsense and you should really be teaching evolution instead." No. That's the height of arrogance. So why do religious people feel entitled to do the same?
We cant call the appendix useless. Sure we can do
without it, and it seems a more pesky organ than others, but this can
also be said of other organs too under/during z, x,y conditions.
I never called it useless. And no, we can't live without other organs such as the heart, brain, or liver the way we can simply remove an appendix and go back to work. You can't fix heart disease by just cutting out the heart. That's what you guys don't seem to get.
Also, get back to me when you have an actual answer to those questions instead of just reiterating how right you are.
Nobody cares about what anyone believes. What people get offended by is when you try to dictate public policy and tell people how to live their lives based off your holy book. People can't get an abortion, gays can't marrry, evolution can't be taught in schools. Why do you guys care? There are worse things to be offended by in life that you have to go protest at dead soldier's funerals.
Point is, if you want to dictate to people how to live their lives, that opens your holy book to criticism. Have you ever seen a scientist walk into a Sunday school and say "you know guys, we've refuted all this creationism nonsense and you should really be teaching evolution instead." No. That's the height of arrogance. So why do religious people feel entitled to do the same?
Sunday school isn't a public sector. I see my religion stamped upon all over the public sector by arrogant atheists who want to push their point of view over others. I've seen atheists protest and sue public schools for teachers who say things like "one point of view on the whole evolution thing held by SOME PEOPLE is the concept of creationism." lol
And yes, there are some radical Christians who protest during funerals, but I don't think the Westboro Baptist Church is a great example for Christianity as a whole. It's too large and complex a category of belief that one tiny example like that just doesn't cut it. I might as well call an elephant white because I saw a white tusk.
v.114
Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have repeatedly acknowledged and dismissed it because I disagree. It is not a fact because other scientists ALSO disagree. This has nothing to do with religion or "creationist agendas." There is a longstanding opinion of the appendix that, until recently, was unchallenged. This opinion is mistakenly being represented as accepted fact.
You are quick to point out alternatives but you don't support them. What are some of these other ways a designer could "more safely" keep bacteria in reserve for the colon? I also think you're exaggerating far too much. "Semi-rotting orifice" is not an accurate description of the appendix. This is your own characterization (opinion) of it.
You're running in circles now. If you claim they are now biased, then their conclusions can't be trusted. Their conclusion was diagnostic bias and this is what you were pointing to as undermining my position. If we discard this and look only at the results, they support my position and are consistent with the second study I provided. That study went on to conclude a likely relationship between appendectomies and Crohn's.
There is nothing dishonest about what I am saying. I'm playing by the rules you put forth and continue to change. Unfortunately, no matter how many times you change them, they still prove to support the points that I am making.
You don't get to make a bold statement like "a flaw that does not exist in the rest of the GI tract. . . which you refuse to acknowledge" only to brush it aside when I proved it unequivocally false. This is PRECISELY what backpedaling is. You attempted to argue that the appendix is the only part of the GI tract to have this flaw. The flaw being that it could be obstructed. You didn't say "most likely" or "most commonly," you said "does not exist in the rest of the GI tract."
I refuse to let this go. If you are going to accuse me of dishonest and untoward behavior I expect you to maintain the same standards.
To return to your (revised) point, appendectomies are actually on the decline as antibiotic treatment becomes more popular. It has been suggested that, eventually, antibiotics will be the primarily method of treating appendicitis with appendectomies reserved for more severe cases. A whole slew of other cardiovascular diseases are likely to push appendectomies out of the spotlight.
"Brute fact". . . this is a pretty popular term and is used more often to push opinions than it is actual fact. You should read up on the Mitrofanoff procedure. It is becoming less and less likely that the appendix is removed for unrelated surgeries. As I stated earlier, it may eventually stop altogether. That doesn't sound like "ticking" to me. . .
I am aware of this (I had mine removed after three years of braces), but new dental practices are preventing this from being an issue. My youngest brother (in elementary school) is having his palate widened to make room for all of his teeth. He will not need to have any teeth pulled, including his wisdom teeth. I, on the other hand, had 8 teeth pulled prior to my wisdom teeth. Hopefully that gives you an idea of how much changes in such a short period of time.
You could use this to argue against intelligent design and I'd happily concede the point. Even though we are moving to avoid removing teeth, we have to alter the body in the process. That said, I'm less concerned with the argument of intelligent design than I am you using the appendix as a flag bearer.
You should read my reply to Eiviyn. I address this specifically. You're warping a lot of points here to imply that God or space magic or a designer should have known we'd treat our bodies like crap. Religion believes we've been given instructions on how to care for our bodies, but many choose to ignore it.
Right here:
Nice try. I even provided the proper context in which you are clearly stating that diet has nothing to do with infections that lead to appendicitis. I state this exact sentiment in my quote, which you are now attempting to side-step.
Except that it doesn't and the new "rules" you lay out dictate we ignore their conclusions. As mentioned above, removing the conclusion removes the idea of diagnostic bias. This causes the article to correlate with the other studies I provided. I'm definitely not on the defensive. If anything, you're defending my point for me by failing to properly assess your points before you make them. I did not, originally, expect to follow up because I didn't think you would fail to understand the article. I did, however, prepare such support and, upon realizing the angle you were taking, hoped you'd allow me to do so. There's nothing hypocritical about being able to consistently point out the flaws in your arguments.
You really have no idea what kind of person I am. I believe in the philosophy that "how you do anything is how you do everything." If I don't have the time or knowledge to discuss a topic, I don't. This is why I've stayed out of most of the subjects in this thread because I didn't feel comfortable arguing points I lack a communicable understanding of. Most specifically, a lot of the theoretical sciences (of reality) being discussed are beyond me because I haven't taken the time to investigate them. I am aware of membrane theory, but I couldn't hope to use it in arguing for or against anything.
When I DO decide to participate, I do so with great care. I do not make a point unless I can support it with other points. I am careful to avoid making polarizing claims such as "always, never, 100%" because generalizations are always poor tools for debate. If my points are false, I will admit them. I check and recheck everything I type before I post it and I read everything to avoid this. I am an avid reader, I read very quickly and I enjoy it. If the detail and organization of my posts (and mapping tutorials of old) are not indicative of this fact, you will probably never understand this about me.
I argue to be accurate, I don't argue to be right (win).
You raise a good point with regards to the caecum in other animals, but I'd argue this has to do with the fact that humans can be omnivorous while cows are herbivores. I happen to think (this is definitely theorycrafting) that the appendix is important in balancing the relationship between herbivorous and carnivorous diets in omnivores. Specifically, that it protects herbivorous bacteria when meats are in the colon. I don't have solid evidence to support this though.
No, it doesn't prove either point. It simply shows that what we're talking about is a real problem. It even admits the appendix is "one of the most disputed" vestigial organs. What this article DOES do is clarify what, specifically, the appendix is useless at: digesting cellulose like a caecum. I don't find this statement unreasonable because it is very specific and accurate.
It also suggests the appendix is designed poorly but ignores important details by focusing on ulcerative colitis. I've already pointed out (the linked studies do as well) that an appendectomy is not a risk factor of ulcerative colitis. Several studies (as this article mentions) do, indeed, suggest appendectomies lower the risk of ulcerative colitis. However, smoking lowers the risk of ulcerative colitis as well, but I don't consider that a good reason to start smoking. Chemotherapy is a method of treating cancer, but it harmful side-effects. The point being that just because its removal has perceived value doesn't mean we should remove it. Crohn's is closely related to ulcerative colitis, but appendectomies and smoking have the opposite affect. Chances are you would trade ulcerative colitis for Crohn's.
This article is primarily about whether or not the appendix IS a vestigial organ, but that's not something I contest. I take issue with the idea that the appendix should be removed. I attribute many of the negative issues outlined in this article to hygienic practices. You attribute them to the liability of the appendix as a result of evolution or inefficient design.
You really don't understand my beliefs at all. I don't support this as I'm not a creationist. I support theistic evolution. It is not an oxymoron that my faith grows as my understanding of science grows. I choose to believe that God exists. As such, I also choose to believe that science is our way of understanding the laws that govern our existence as laid out by God. I do not assume that science proves God, I do not claim that I can prove God and I argue that religion can't prove God.
I don't have an agenda. What I am doing is pointing out that your polarizing claims are not as accurate as you believe them to be. The only time I've mentioned God is when you claimed that you or others could do a better job designing the body. I contest this by saying that we, scientifically, do not have such an unshakable understanding of the human body that we can support this claim. I am very careful to address religious points with religion and scientific points with science.
1) My mistake, I'll use "designer" in our continued dialog. However, your statement is false. I am part of "everyone here" and I disagree. Many others disagree with you as well. You're generalizing and it serves no purpose.
2) I'll make the same point I did with Eiviyn: You're talking about less than 10% of the human population. Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of human death in the world. These and cancer account for close to half of all deaths in the United States. A great deal of these issues are being linked to man-made problems, diet being a major contender. These percentages are continuing to grow.
I think it is a mistake to conclude that the appendix is a major liability when we're doing a much better job killing ourselves. Considering how many of these issues are in areas close or related to the appendix, I don't think we should isolate it from the idea that appendicitis, also, could partly be our fault.
I don't agree that the appendix has a sub-optimal design. I agree that it wasn't designed for the diet we have today, so in that way it could be viewed as sub-optimal, but I feel this only proves that we are sub-optimally caring for our bodies. And I have thought about it. If you let your appendix clog up with a crappy diet and THEN switch to a high fiber diet, I completely agree that it's hard to clean it out. If you have a high fiber diet from the start, it is far less likely to need cleaning, if at all.
Yes, I am, because we once claimed smoking had no side-effects. We claimed a number of harmful substances and practices had no side-effects. Do you know why disease is increasing? No? You can't tell me appendectomies aren't contributing to this if we're still not sure what is causing the increase in disease.
How is my attempt to educate you on suggested functions of the appendix and its relationship with diet and IBD "strawmanning?" You claim that there are no "major adverse effects" to removing the appendix. These studies suggest otherwise. Are you saying that you didn't make this claim and that a straw man typed it for you?
As I point out above, I didn't fail to read anything. Your circular logic continues to get you nowhere. Being humble does not require me to be passive. You are aggressively pushing false information. I do not tolerate this.
You truly don't understand the importance of context:
You need to practice reading comprehension. I asked for documentation of the fraud that you claimed was "well documented." You gave me a picture of an arrest record that the containing article points out is suspicious. You even state that he "was already arrested once for banking fraud," so even if I did ask for the arrest record, the picture doesn't have anything to do with banking fraud. I pointed it out then and I'm pointing it out again now. This picture loses all credibility when you inspect its source. Something you failed to do.
If this picture is enough for you to believe Joseph Smith was committing bank fraud, then I could easily use photoshop and an anonymous blog site to convince you aliens are living inside your brain. You have the audacity to label those participating in this thread that disagree with you "a cesspool of unbridled ignorance & stupidity," yet your actions would readily include you in this group.
Actually, I am correct. You don't understand how appendicitis works:
Step 1) Poor hygienic practices create fecaliths, promote infection/hyperplasia and contribute to a number of causes for appendicitis
Step 2) The appendix is obstructed, infected or affected by hyperplasia (cell growth similar to cancer, linked to diet)
Step 3) Mucus fills the appendix (swells) both in an attempt to lubricate and dislodge obstructions or deal with infection/hyperplasia. This is not yet appendicitis.
Step 4) When that fails, bacteria trapped in the appendix create pus and toxins leading to inflammation. This is the onset of appendicitis. This is because "itis" refers to the inflammation of an organ. Thus appendicitis is when the appendix becomes inflamed.
Step 5) If the appendix bursts or is perforated, its contents spill out leading to peritonitis (inflammation of the peritoneum) and/or septicemia (toxins reach the blood causing widespread inflammation)
The problem with appendicitis is we're only now getting a handle on what contributes to Step 1.
To address your misunderstanding: Toxins are NOT a symptom of appendicitis. Toxins and infections cause inflammation. The toxins/infections that cause inflammation can escalate to ischemia (lack of oxygen) or necrosis if they are not dealt with. This can certainly precipitate toxins/infections, but only because they were already there and not because inflammation suddenly created them. The body doesn't send blood to inflame the area if there isn't something to deal with: toxins/infections.
Additionally, I did NOT backpedal. Some more context:
I didn't take anything back rather I clarified my points, deepening and further committing to them. I am not abandoning my points and this precise exchange culminates in your false statement. You got caught and try to escape the point. THAT is backpedaling.
The problem is your understanding of its etiology is wrong. I'm sure you'd love to label me a religious zealot on the matter, but the fact is I've largely avoided using religion in this discussion. I've used science to contest science. You can continue to paint verbal caricatures of me in hopes that somehow that will detract from my position, but the reality is that my personal experiences and a considerable portion of the scientific community contradict what you're saying.
You repeat that I'm not an "authority" on the subject, but I never said I was. I pointed out that I know what I'm talking about because I did the research and I'm living the results. Maybe you should read up on authority as well. I'm not leading anything, I don't advance the field, I have no social position.
On the other hand, I AM an authority on the Data Editor for StarCraft 2. I not only understand this area but I expanded its knowledge base. Someone could take the tutorials I create and furnish a solid understanding of the subject matter such that they do not need me to utilize it. This doesn't make them an authority, it makes them well informed. If they took this information and used it to explore the Data Editor in a similar matter, they would then become an authority.
If you spent as much effort verifying your own claims as you did trying to label me, you probably wouldn't need to attack my character so desperately.
the rise of Rehoboam
Daniel 11
32 By smooth words he will turn to godlessness those who act wickedly toward the covenant, but the people who know their God will display strength and take action.33 Those who have insight among the people will give understanding to the many; yet they will fall by sword and by flame, by captivity and by plunder for many days.34 Now when they fall they will be granted a little help, and many will join with them in hypocrisy.35 Some of those who have insight will fall, in order to refine, purge and make them pure until the end time; because it is still to come at the appointed time.
Matthew 2nd
6 'And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah,
Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah;
For out of you shall come forth a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel.'"
Matthew Second, Daniel Eleven, Thank you satan.
- "Yes We Can" song in reverse
Or is there something they don't want you to know...
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWhat other scientists? The only articles you showed me simply establish that:
1) There is an increased risk for Crohn's after appendectomy....but not really because one of the articles you linked attributes this to diagnostic bias.
2) The appendix provides some auxiliary functions.
Wow, big deal. It's amazing what kind of mental gymnastics you're willing to go through simply to deny the fact that people can die from appendicitis.
How do other animals survive without an appendix? When you figure it out, you'll have your answer.
1) I was talking about this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279496/ not this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2000241/
2) Both articles conclusions are valid. You cherrypicked one sentence from the discussion/intro/whatever in the first one which has nothing to do with what the study actually found. This is called dishonesty.
Jesus Christ dude. As I've repeatedly said, there is no other 8 mm segment in the bowels that causes so many problems. Appendicitis would not be an issue if the risk was the same as in the rest of the GI tract. What is so damn hard to understand about this? You are being pedantic and never acknowledge the underlying point.
Are you denying that surgeons routinely remove appendices to prevent further problems?
It looks like the Mitrofanoff procedure is for establishing a catheter. They remove the appendix for this purpose because you don't need it to survive. I'm not sure what your point is.
I don't see why the discovery of some auxiliary functions in the appendix justifies all the cases of appendicitis in your mind.
Being born in crappy circumstances is nobody's fault. What makes you think these people would be in a position to do anything about it even if they did have the right knowledge? Animism was the default religion for the vast majority of humanity's existence. How exactly do you figure it would help those people prevent appendicitis? To suggest that it was their fault is totally asinine. You must be a republican.
Here I describe a small sample of cases where the cause is infection (read: not diet or obstruction). I don't get it. Are you trying to prove that you don't read yet again?
At no point did I say we ignore the conclusions (though you've been doing that without me just fine). It would help if you just manned up and admitted you didn't read the article. I guess I can buy that your original explanation of appendicitis was poorly worded. But this? No, I'm sorry, you do not give me an article which states that the point you're trying to make is actually a myth.
I'm sorry, but I will never believe you that you knowingly gave me an article which states that your position is a myth. It's almost like you just read the title and that was it. Again, not a big deal, I just can't bring myself to believe you.
So you agree that it's a vestigial organ that lost its primary function in humans?
We know about the effects of chemotherapy and smoking. It's a strawman to compare those two things to an appendectomy.
So how does learning more about the universe strengthen your faith? For most people, it simply leaves less things for God to do, and decreases their faith. That's why evolution is such a huge issue with Christians.
You still do not acknowledge the point that the appendix is a non-essential organ in which thousands of people get along fine without. What you have here is basically an appeal to ignorance, and I can't really refute that.
Cardiovascular diseases are inevitable and a result of old age. Appendicitis does not have to be. As Eiviyn said, it strikes around 10-30 years old, about the standard lifespan in ancient times.
We need the heart to survive, but we don't need the appendix. If you still don't get it I don't know what to say.
Sure, but cancer, heart disease & pretty much everything else bar genetic diseases could also be considered "our fault". It still does not alleviate the problem that crap simply gets trapped way too easily in the appendix.
Appeal to ignorance. Thousands of people have safely removed their appendices. If disease was increasing in these people, there would be studies about it. The fact that disease is increasing in general is totally irrelevant.
-facepalm
Let's look over your studies showcasing these "major adverse effects".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2000241/
This is what you advertised as "increased risk of Crohn's disease following an appendectomy", yet the conclusion shows that this is a myth.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10211500
This link established that appendectomy has no association with developing ulcerative colitis. It did establish it with Crohn's disease, but for all we know this could be diagnostic bias as your very first article proved.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877178/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1250841/
Diet plays a significant role. Something I already admitted a long time ago yet you keep repeating because you simply have nothing else.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2764754/
Appendicitis can be triggered by air pollution. Great. Now you can stop rambling about diet for a second.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3332285/
Increased risk for Crohn's in smokers. Irrelevant.
What are the major adverse effects of appendectomy? You've proven virtually nothing. I have evidence (thousands of people that didn't die from an appendectomy). You have vacancy and an appeal to ignorance. Remind me again why you feel so entitled in this debate?
Wow, just wow. What do you not understand about "Well here's the actual records from a google search"? You're going to complain about reading comprehension now? I gave you a picture of his arrest record. The site claims it's suspicious but overall it does not deny that this is the arrest record, which should have cemented your faith that the source was not biased. I made it patently obvious that the link I was providing was from a cursory search in google. At no point did I say that the one picture convinced me (since...you know, the fact that he was arrested is information that you can find anywhere). At no point did I say that this site is valid documentation for his entire career of fraud. I simply said what I wrote: that this is the arrest record I found in a google search.
I am aware that I did not answer your question, but I thought it was obvious that it's because I had no interest in going into the topic with you. I did not think I would have to spell it out for you so explicitly. How utterly dishonest of you to ignore what I actually wrote and claim victory.
Of course you didn't. Just like Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Muslims can never find any evidence that discredits their beliefs. That's why I didn't want to get into a debate about unfalsifiable history facts. I know that you've probably already dismissed the evidence even if you've seen it. You're not as different from the vast majority of religious people as you think.
Again, right back at ya buddy. "Audacity"? Are you defending the homophobes in this thread?
Great. But your original claim that "Appendicitis is brought on by poor hygienic practices as a result of the appendix attempting to remove toxins from the body." is still false.
Wrong. The swelling of mucus increases pressure in the appendix lumen and causes thrombosis of the small vessels. This also leads to inflammation.
That's fantastic. Now what I said in reality was: "appendicitis is brought on by obstruction or infection. The creation of toxins is a symptom." Symptom referring to "obstruction or infection".
Symptom - A sign of the existence of something, esp. of an undesirable situation.
I have to provide definitions of common words now because you continue to be pedantic and nitpick semantics, instead of ever acknowledging the underlying point.
Yeah you really "caught me" when I stated the obvious: that the rest of the GI tract doesn't have the same problems as the appendix. Sure, it was poorly worded, but you knew exactly what I meant, since you know, I stated it multiple times and I get weary of making it so explicit for you. Are these petty and trivial semantic arguments all you really have left?
ROFL
Name those things. You are delusional. Even after I told you multiple times that I never denied any of the appendix's functions, you still repeat this tired old diatribe. In the meantime you refuse to acknowledge the fact that:
1) Thousands of people get along fine after an appendectomy and only a small percentage develop Chrohn's, likely because they're already susceptible to it in the first place.
2) The appendix is considered a ticking time bomb by the medical community, which is why sometimes it's removed during unrelated surgeries. The Mitrofanoff procedure that you yourself linked among them.
3) The appendix is not essential to our survival. You can find this on literally any site that talks about the appendix.
4) Many people have died from appendicitis and it is usually fatal if left untreated. Less people would have died overall if this organ never existed.
And then you suggest that I am aggressively forwarding "false information". Wow, just wow. o.o
"I know what I'm talking about because I did the research and I'm living the results" is an authoritative statement. <_<
This heart business christians have is a relic from ancient Egyptian religion and ancient Egyptian beliefs that that heart did the thinking and that that heart was weighed in the afterlife. Obviously it's not true, the heart is just a pump for blood. Lol, 5000 years of outdated anatomy still propagate through modern religion. Receive science into your brain and you shall open your eyes and refresh your mind.
It's symbolic of your being. The core, the foundation, the pulpit from which you become.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
Well, actually the brain is what is definitively you.
If you listen more, and reflect more, you know the statement you've posted is wrong. Research more. I'll post the video if I find it again. But a woman who specializes in this area herself have proven there's something that remains "aware" but only able to "interpret" things differently.
In the mean time:
This video is old, but could be a good point.
Again, keep exploring. Nothing wrong with trying to achieve or attain what is good and perfect.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
@Nebuli2: Go
:::::::::::::::::::::
"Since emotional processes can work faster than the mind, it takes a power stronger than the mind to bend perception, override emotional circuitry, and provide us with intuitive feeling instead. It takes the power of the heart."
-Doc Childre, Founder, Institute of HeartMath
www.heartmath.org
The Intelligence of the Heart:
[b]"The idea that we can think with our hearts is no longer just a metaphor, but is, in fact, a very real phenomenon. We now know this because the combined research of two or three fields is proving that the heart is the major center of intelligence in human beings. Molecular biologists have discovered that the heart is the body's most important endocrine gland. In response to our experience of the world, it produces and releases a major hormone, ANF , which stands for Atriol Neuriatic Factor , that profoundly effects every operation in the limbic structure, or what we refer to as the "emotional brain." This includes the hippocampal area where memory and learning take place, and also the control centers for the entire hormonal system. And neurocardiologist have found that 60 to 65% of the cells of the heart are actually neural cells, not muscle cells as was previously believed."**
-Joseph Chilton Pearce
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
the heart affects mental clarity, creativity, emotional balance and personal effectiveness. Our research and that of others indicate that the heart is far more than a simple pump. The heart is, in fact, a highly complex, self-organized information processing center with its own functional "brain" that communicates with and influences the cranial brain via the nervous system, hormonal system and other pathways. These influences profoundly affect brain function and most of the body’s major organs, and ultimately determine the quality of life
-HeartMath
www.heartmath.org
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
“...In recent years several heart transplant recipients have reported unexpected side effects including experiencing memories, habits and desires they never had before. With studies showing that these are not isolated cases, 'Transplanting Memories?' meets patients searching to understand what has happened to them. The film follows organ recipients as they make contact with their donor families in an effort to understand their new found lease of life and features scientists who are pioneering research into the intelligence of the heart and the biochemical basis for memory in our cells. Is science's understanding of how memory works quite as cut and dried as once thought?” ( (source: Mindshock: Transplanting Memories? Channel 4 television, UK, 26 June, 2006 at 10pm BST).
Completely independently of such heart transplant experiences, Dr Andrew Armour Ph.D. is a heart specialist who had noticed the presence of neurons in the heart – he noted a sophisticated collection of these and learned that the heart contains a complex nervous system of its own. He soon realised that there is a more intimate connection between the heart and brain than had previously been known or understood. Indeed, the doctor claims that the heart actually sends more information to the brain than the other way around! Dr Armour has written a pamphlet called, Anatomical and Functional Principles. His publisher makes the following comment about this writing:
[i]'Groundbreaking research in the field of neurocardiology has established that the heart is a sensory organ and a sophisticated information encoding and processing center, with an extensive intrinsic nervous system sufficiently sophisticated to qualify as a "heart brain" .... Armour discusses intriguing data documenting the complex neuronal processing and memory capabilities of the intrinsic cardiac nervous system, indicating that the heart brain can process information and make decisions about its control independent of the central nervous system. By providing an understanding of the elaborate anatomy and physiology of the cardiac nervous system, this monograph contributes to the newly emerging view of the heart as a complex, self-organized system that maintains a continuous two-way dialogue with the brain and the rest of the body.
http://madurasinghe.blogspot.com/2008/06/neurocardiology-brain-in-heart.html
http://scienceray.com/biology/human-biology/do-you-know-that-the-heart-can-think/
Professor Paul Pearsall Ph.D. has also made a contribution to the new discussion of the intelligence of the human heart. After interviewing nearly 150 heart and other organ transplant recipients, Pearsall proposed the once staggering concept that cells of living tissue could have the capacity to remember.
Paul Pearsall is one of many researchers who has observed that transplant patients who receive an organ from another person's body may also receive much more , what he calls their "cellular memories." Recipients have reported inheriting everything from the donor's food cravings to knowledge about his murderer, information that in one case led to the killer's arrest. As a result of these and other researchers' findings, Pearsall is now convinced that the heart has its own form of intelligence, that we are only rarely aware of in modern life. In his view, the heart processes information about the body and the outside world through an "info-energetic code", a profuse network of blood vessels and cells that serves not only as our circulatory system but as an energy information gathering and distribution system, much like a complex telephone network. What's more, he believes that the soul, at least in part, is a set of cellular memories that is carried largely by our hearts. Predictably, such views have met with opposition in the medical world. But in his view, the implications of his theories , that the heart "thinks," cells remember, and communication can therefore transcend the boundaries of time and space , are too important for him to dismiss
Along with this, more scientists are regularly joining this exciting new area of research and even Britain's foremost heart transplant doctor, Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub (in the televised channel 4 programme), while being guarded in his comments, nevertheless welcomed the new area of research, although, of course, the professor is typical of a long line of heart specialists who have only seen the human heart as a pumper of blood.
However, the extensive research of Armour and others show that there can now be no going back – we can all now state quite dogmatically that the relationship between the heart and brain has been hugely underestimated and that the heart contains more brain-like capacities than anyone would have thought just a very few years ago. There is an inter-change between heart and brain with the brain actually receiving more information from the heart than vice versa.
This means that the biblical concept that the heart is the seat of one's soul , intellect and character can no longer be taken as a purely poetic/romantic writing idiom.
Bible still is the word of God. Science proves Bible. Science catches up to Bible. Atheism still a belief system with zero evidence and support. In later news, Gradius will continue to dodge my questions and go on to tell us how the growth of toe tails = bad design = cant be a god, That same logic in him talking about the appendix.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium@EternalWraith: Go
Nobody denied that the heart is part of the peripheral nervous system. So are the nerves in your hands & feet & pretty much everywhere else. The mesenteric nervous system has the largest concentrations of neurons in the PNS. More than 90% of the body's serotonin lies in the gut; as well as about 50% of the body's dopamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system
Maybe if the bible had verses like:
"Accept Jesus into your guts"
or
"You will find happiness when you accept God into your bowels"
Then maybe you'd be justified. Though I guess eating the body of Christ (communion cracker) does come close. Too bad that the bible has never been used to discover anything. Any discoveries you claim are made in hindsight, like this one. Most christians will at least admit that the bible is not a science book. But again, I don't need to remind you:
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with the pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find.
Thanks for demonstrating how this process works yet again.
So is a-santa-clausism, a-zeusism, and a-tooth-fairyism. All "dogmatic" and "zealous" beliefs, that you're part of too by the way (i hope).
I've recently stopped replying to you because you have repeatedly failed all thread to answer these questions:
1) Prove that god has to be the uncaused cause.
2) Prove that the universe was created.
3) Just because the bible has some facts in it does not mean everything in there is true, as is the case with books like Harry Potter. How do you bridge the gap and conclude that God is real?
I'll answer whatever you want once you provide actual answers to these questions.
I really don't get why you guys are hung up on the appendix. There's a reason it's one of the flagship organs for unintelligent design. Explain to me, if you would, the reason you believe that appendectomy is one of the most common abdominal surgeries despite the appendix being such a small segment of our bowels? And don't give me diet or that it's "our fault" because I can also use that to explain away cancer, heart disease & pretty much everything else.
No. (Nor of any unorganized religion for that matter)
@EternalWraith: Go
You do realize that what you've posted are infomercial quotes, right? If you actually checked your quotes, you should notice that they come from traditional religious, new age spirituality, UFO, and conspiracy web sites. Notice how those articles rely on vague references any actual research. Did you notice that when you did a Google search there's a lack of any actual scientific journals/articles/literature supporting those claims, not even any journals authored by the people you listed. FYI: In case you didn't know, scientific journals/articles/literature tell you how actual researchers conducted their experiments and show actual results from the experiments.
Leave it to religious folks to be gullible to believe urban myths are scientific facts and to disbelieve actual science...
You should probably learn how the nervous system works.
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/introb.html
By the way, here's some related articles discussing communication processes within the body. Since you have a defunct understanding on science, you'll probably misinterpret the facts, as usual.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gut-second-brain <- Gradius12 is a prophet! Oo
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120928103802.htm
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-data-storage-breaks-records-1.11194
@FDFederation: Go
You do realize that what you've posted are infomercial quotes, right? If you actually checked your quotes, you should notice that they come from traditional religious, new age spirituality, UFO, and conspiracy web sites
Haha no. Thats not the case. Lol. The research is also on-going.
More than 90% of the body's serotonin lies in the gut; as well as about 50% of the body's dopamine:
Yea, also, kinda completely irrelevant.
Although its influence is far-reaching, the gut is not the seat of any conscious thoughts or decision-making.
I've recently stopped replying to you because you have repeatedly failed all thread to answer these questions:
1) Prove that god has to be the uncaused cause.
2) Prove that the universe was created.
3) Just because the bible has some facts in it does not mean everything in there is true, as is the case with books like Harry Potter. How do you bridge the gap and conclude that God is real?
I'll answer whatever you want once you provide actual answers to these questions.
Its because you dont have answers to my questions. You`d just say "Go do your own research" whenever your crazy theories hit a dead center.
1. Has to be?, or IS?. This question has already been dealt with.
2. No dude, the universe was obviously not created. Ignore science, logic and reason too while you are at it. We`re all secretly in wonderland.
3. Everything is true. The bible has proven to be perfectly reliable, in many different cases and especially historically like for:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=407
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittites#Archaeological_discovery
the evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible continues to build.
I dont see how this relates to a fictional book such as Harry potter. Most religions are like that?, yes probably indeed, but not the Bible. It can stand on its own merit.
Explain to me, if you would, the reason you believe that appendectomy is one of the most common abdominal surgeries despite the appendix being such a small segment of our bowels?
ProzaicMuze can deal with that. You`re use of intelligent design is a bit subjective here. We cant call the appendix useless. Sure we can do without it, and it seems a more pesky organ than others, but this can also be said of other organs too under/during z, x,y conditions.
@FDFederation: Go
Also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible
I don't really want to engage in any present arguments, but simply share my view.
I'm a practicing Catholic and I don't care who knows it. I don't care if that offends you, get over it. There are worse things to be offended by in life. I believe that if I willfully choose to love God and man to the maximum of my capacity, I will go to heaven when I die. My primary goal in life is to become a saint.
well jesus said you shouldnt pray in public so... read the bible :p
@GizmoPT: Go
I'm not praying in public... ???
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumNobody cares about what anyone believes. What people get offended by is when you try to dictate public policy and tell people how to live their lives based off your holy book. People can't get an abortion, gays can't marrry, evolution can't be taught in schools. Why do you guys care? There are worse things to be offended by in life that you have to go protest at dead soldier's funerals.
Point is, if you want to dictate to people how to live their lives, that opens your holy book to criticism. Have you ever seen a scientist walk into a Sunday school and say "you know guys, we've refuted all this creationism nonsense and you should really be teaching evolution instead." No. That's the height of arrogance. So why do religious people feel entitled to do the same?
I never called it useless. And no, we can't live without other organs such as the heart, brain, or liver the way we can simply remove an appendix and go back to work. You can't fix heart disease by just cutting out the heart. That's what you guys don't seem to get.
Also, get back to me when you have an actual answer to those questions instead of just reiterating how right you are.
What is really the truth in all these?
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Sunday school isn't a public sector. I see my religion stamped upon all over the public sector by arrogant atheists who want to push their point of view over others. I've seen atheists protest and sue public schools for teachers who say things like "one point of view on the whole evolution thing held by SOME PEOPLE is the concept of creationism." lol
And yes, there are some radical Christians who protest during funerals, but I don't think the Westboro Baptist Church is a great example for Christianity as a whole. It's too large and complex a category of belief that one tiny example like that just doesn't cut it. I might as well call an elephant white because I saw a white tusk.
Anyway, doesn't matter. Peace be with you.
The Gospel of Thomas (Gnostic Gospels)
v.114
Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.