Evolving the Musculoskeletal System

What has this to do with evolution of the musculoskeletal system?Could you please stop posting if you have nothing to say about the topic?--Percy

You and common sense obviously do not get along at all...Edited by Flatland, : No reason given.

I dunno--there's a good reason his sense is called common.

---

I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

quote:

---

How did Evolution manage to put the correct joint in the appropriate position?

---

How did erosion manage to create a hole with the exact right volume to hold the same volume of water when it rains?

Your equating a hole created by the force of running water with joints in the skeletal system?
"What do we got for him behind curtain #3 Johnny? Wank wank wank waaahhh. Twooo donkey's"

quote:

---

Your equating a hole created by the force of running water with joints in the skeletal system?
"What do we got for him behind curtain #3 Johnny? Wank wank wank waaahhh. Twooo donkey's"

---

No, I am establishing the naivete of your query.

quote:

---

What does 26 bones, 31 joints and 20 muscles in the foot have to do with survival?

---

What does 26 bones, 31 joints and 20 muscles in the foot have to do with Creation?Why 26 bones? Superstitious pagan numerology is rampant in the bible, so why not 7 bones? Why not 40? Why not a number divisible by 3?Edited by derwood, : No reason given.

Hi ICdesign,When last you were here we were talking about new functions/features that are possessed by apes but not by fish. My Message 286 is the last message in that discussion.--Percy

Hi Percy, Yeah, I know. The only reason I posted on that thread today is because I had a fresh reply. I have thought about picking up where we left off but haven't got a renewed motivation for it yet. I was in the frame of mind back then. When I started that thread I asked the question of how all the correct bones, joints and muscles ended up in the in the correctly needed positions and your response was "pretty much by natural selection" I believe was your response (without going back and looking). And of course I heard all the typical "who says those are the correct parts and positions" smoke and mirror responses.When I am ready to spend the time debating this subject again I would like to pitch my tent back at this point because none of those answers even came close to satisfying the question in my opinion.
Good hearing from you,
IC

Because that's how it happened. Do you have a refutation of that position or not? Could you explain why you find natural selection an unsatisfying answer?Talking to you is akin to talking to a very small child. Imagine that I showed you a videotape of 10 random people from off the street. I explained that I had a miracle ten-minute basketball training regimen that would train anyone at all to have perfect shot accuracy, and then I showed you the tape - 10 people randomly selected off the street, a shot of them flipping through my book (available on Amazon!), and then the amazing part - the rest of the videotape is each one of those 10 people making a dozen three-point shots each, with no missing."How does it work!" you would exclaim! "How can Crash's method result in such incredible gains of accuracy?!" And then, during the fraud prosecution, I would be forced to admit that I merely had each person shoot from the three point line a hundred times each, and I just edited out all the misses. You don't see them missing on the record because I selected that part of the record out and destroyed it.And you would reply "But that doesn't explain their incredible accuracy! I mean they hit every shot they made! I saw it!" When you say that a perfectly explanitory response is not "satisfying", the rest of us can only conclude that it is because you literally did not understand it.And, of course, you're on the record that the best way to understand science is to not understand anything at all about it, so naturally you won't ask questions designed to increase your understanding. Why you continue to allow yourself to be the person who knows the least in these discussions is a mystery to me. It's one thing to bring a knife to a gunfight. It's quite another to do so because you think knives always beat guns.

Thanks Crash. That is a compliment. In Matthew 18:2 Jesus said "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."I admit I have a simple childlike approach to things but guess what? The truth is so simple a child can understand it. I may not be the most articulate cat in town but I think I bring some thought provoking points of view to the table. Heck, at least I bring a little personality into the fray with some humor and friendly gestures now and then which is more than I can say for many of the members around here. And this is the gun you brought to the fight? That's about equivalent to an empty plastic
water pistol puffing a little air spurt. You would be more vicious to tickle me to death Yes I could. Your little fairytale was quite entertaining. I had to stop half way through and run to make some popcorn. I think that was an excellent way to put it because that's exactly what this whole notion of natural selection being able to "edit" is, a fraud. In a nutshell editing is an act of intelligence with intentionality. This is in direct violation of the very premise of ToE.
And where the heck are all these bones, muscles and joints coming from to begin with. This totally screams intentionality!
A joint is needed between bones to have proper mobility and I am to believe it just happened along? Sorry, I just can't sign up for that wishful thinking fairytale!Let me give you a very simple and short quiz Crash;What is one provable truth all of these systems have in common?The Neurological System
Vision
Hearing
Balance
Smell
Taste
Touch
Skin
The Endocrine System
The Respiratory
The Gastrointestinal System
The Circulatory System
The Excretory System
The Musculoskeletal System
The Reproduction SystemDoot du doot du, doot du doot, doot du doot du doot du doot
......and his answer is?Edited by ICdesign, : No reason given.

Hello again ICdesign, Well no, I disagree. There are some truths a child might understand, but really, most things are far more complex than a child-like approach can comprehend. Or are you going to tell me that children understand complex mathematics? And sometimes a bit of bile, perhaps?
What I mean is that some of your remarks are condescending and belittling, like all your "opponents" are children to be told off. Ok, go ahead, explain it then. We're waiting. See, this is what I was talking about. Was it really necessary to label it as a fraud here? You're basically calling everyione dishonest people. That's not necessary, now is it? Yes. And editing in the example was the fraud. Yes. Which was the point of the example. No, it really doesn't. They evolved from previously present bones / bone-like structures. No, you could take the evidence into acount. Though, you ask to "just beilieve" your version. Ok, but if you don;t want to take into account the evidence, it's not fair to vcall it a fairytale. Uhm... They evolved?

Hi Huntard,Good to here from you mate. You are right my friend. Some of my remarks do end up as you say. In fact it is one of my New Year resolutions to work on that. Having said that, the heavy condescending and belittling comes from your camp mostly. Almost every single reply from your guys are filled with hate centered comments about how stupid we creationists are. Being a rebel all my life and an Ex-Marine, my tendency is to push back. Like I said, I am trying to be more Christ-like. Boy is it hard around hereAny who mate I am off to bed. You will have to wait till tomorrow for more feedback and the answer to the quiz. Your answer was wrong. I said provable.Good night friend,
ICEdited by ICdesign, : No reason given.

Since the essence of creationist argument is to willfully misunderstand very simple issues, it is futile to try to explain anything to a creationist by analogy, because this just gives him greater scope for creative misunderstanding, as he can now misunderstand not only the thing you were trying to explain in the first place but also the relationship between metaphier and metaphrand --- no matter how obvious this relationship actually is.

Well, it's more that we can't seem to understand why you guys (used loosely here), seem so hell bent on putting your own beliefs in front of the evidence. Anyway, yes, perhaps a bit less condescension should be done on both parts. Does being a rebel and taking orders work togehter? Yes, I figured as much, I should've included a winky. Let me guess, it's something to do with function, intelligence, and complexity? Anyways, good night mate.