So, what am I getting at? It is the year 2010, and people still think there are body parts in the human body that have no function, yet the people of about 100 A.D. knew that every body part had it's place.
On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable - 1 Corinthians 12:22
In this passage, Paul is talking about the gifts the spirit bestows on each believer and how every believer is vital to the church no matter how small of a spiritual gift they have. The analogy works beautifully for vestigial organs. Some things may have very small roles to the overall functioning, but they are just as useful to the functioning of the body as any other part. The coccyx can be removed, but it makes sitting uncomfortable. The tonsils may be removed, but it increases chance of infection of the throat. Just like the church, as Paul is saying, you can remove people with certain gifts, but that makes it that much harder for the church to function comfortably and fully -- just like removing the coccyx or tonsils do to the body.
Paul even says:
If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body. - 1 Corinthians 12:19-120
Every part is only important because of the parts around it. What good would a heart be without arteries and veins? What good would a brain be without a heart? Or a heart without a brain? They can't just stand alone and be useful, they have to be in used in conjunction with each other in order to be fully expressed. Just like people with "lesser" gifts from God can't be very useful by themselves, tonsils can't be very useful without a throat.
It is funny how people from many years ago could tell us the answer to vestigial organs today: There is no such classification. These people would know this through the Bible, which is God-Breathed and absolute truth! Instead of evolutionists begrudging admit there is no vestigial organs in 200 years, why don't I just check the book that is unchanging absolute truth!
Posts
5 comments:
I don't think you have any idea on what the history of the Medical Sciences are. So basically you render your entire post completely meaningless, because, again, you make these ridiculous blanket statements as if you know what in the world your talking about. I'll have Anath come in and give you a lesson on why you are completely wrong about your silly statements.
It's very simple. You're not using the accepted definition of vestigial, which is:
"A rudimentary structure in humans corresponding to a functional structure or organ in ancestral animals."
Rudimentary does not mean useless, it means reduced. Such as, compared to other primates, our tails are vestigial. Whomever gave you the definition you are using misinformed you. Check a dictionary next time.
The problem, Anath, is that Biology is a field built completely on inductive processes. This means you can find many different definitions that "could" mean the same thing. Unlike math, there is not one solid definition you can use, because there are so many different little caveats in Biology, again, due to the inductive nature of the field.
In this case, your interpretation of the definition is quite liberal. Rudimentary does not mean useless, no, but it means very basic--about as basic as you can get. If something so basic is found in our body, which is nothing but complexity, what makes it seem to have any use.
Sorry for the deleted post above this one... I merely forgot to bold your quotes.
"The problem, Anath, is that Biology is a field built completely on inductive processes."
What do you mean by completely inductive processes? You will need to clarify this in more detail please.
Either way it has nothing to do with accepted definitions or how something is currently defined. As far as I know.
And what do you mean that math doesn't use induction? It surely does.
"In this case, your interpretation of the definition is quite liberal."
You should also clarify this statement. What part of her "interpretation" was liberal? All she did was give you a definition and an example. I do not see any interpration...
In fact on the one point of clarification you both seem to agree upon is that rudimentary does not mean useless, in which case your blog post is at fault. So I am not clear on what you are trying to point out here...
Post a Comment