nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 81:
Line 81: + + + + + +
→Human appendix: NEJM and related matters.
::::::I'm not sure who the "them" would be at the NEJM. As far as I know it's just a collection of editors. I am sure that the majority of them believe in evolution because the majority of scientists do, but they are trained to evaluate papers objectively based on the strength of the evidence they present without bringing personal biases into it. As I said before, the NEJM is one of the most highly respected sources that exists in science. If we don't consider it reliable, then nothing is.
::::::I'm not sure who the "them" would be at the NEJM. As far as I know it's just a collection of editors. I am sure that the majority of them believe in evolution because the majority of scientists do, but they are trained to evaluate papers objectively based on the strength of the evidence they present without bringing personal biases into it. As I said before, the NEJM is one of the most highly respected sources that exists in science. If we don't consider it reliable, then nothing is.
::::::I guess you could be right about the backup thing, redundancy is very common in humans and animals, but I just don't think there is close to enough evidence to say so definitively at this point. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 05:45, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::I guess you could be right about the backup thing, redundancy is very common in humans and animals, but I just don't think there is close to enough evidence to say so definitively at this point. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 05:45, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::It ''is'' incumbent on you to prove it if you are claiming it in the face of evidence to the contrary. I believe that the sources I have provided are sufficient evidence to make the claim.
:::::::If the New England Journal of Medicine doesn't object to creationary papers because of "personal biases" or any other biases, it would be about the only such journal that doesn't. Evolutionists are so convinced that evolution is a fact and that creation is not even science, that such journals simply won't even consider a paper that supports creation, such is the bias. And if one does get published somewhere, as happened with a Intelligent Design paper not that long ago, the fallout can be horrendous, as in the conspiracy to sack the editor involved.
:::::::I'm not suggesting that it is not "reliable", I'm suggesting that it is not neutral on the issue.
:::::::I wasn't claiming that we can definitively say that that the appendix is a backup system. The point there was that it ''could'' be, so your claim that its absence has no ill effects is therefore not evidence that it has no function.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:55, 31 May 2007 (EDT)