I am asking this question with an open mind just to see what responses I will get:

Since humans were supposedly (for the sake of arguement I'm going with supposedly) created in God's image, why do we have tail bones?

Having a tail bone would suggest that at one time we had tails, but according to various religions, we were created as humans with no tails, which doesn't explain why we have tailbones...

creationists will use the Adam and Eve story to bash the evolutionists

and the evolutionists will use that to bash the creationists

and never the twain will meet

me personally I think it is a combination of all of the above

mitochondrial DNA tracing leads us to believe that all humans are descended from a single hominid mother (nicknamed "Eve" and probably not recognizable as human) and evolution is a established fact whether people want to admit it or not

evolution sounds like a great way for God to tinker with his creation and make it adaptable to a changing environment

both the creationists and the evolutionists deny it. but thats my belief and I could care less who likes it or not

Because our "image" is not physical in nature, it's spiritual.
It says in the Bible that man cannot look upon the face of God.

Exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

So our "image" is more about our capacity to love and our free will to choose our actions.

Hope that helps...

I am not sure about the tail bone thing but i am sure if thats what it is thier is a use for it.

Just like untill recently scientists/Docters said thier was no use for our appendixs now they say thier is.

Why is appr. 90% of our brain not used in most people?

I would guess and thats all it is it is thier for stability.


But we have eyes and mouths ect. does that mean we are related to everything that does? Blessings...Miles

I agree that all humans are descended from other (no longer existing) non-human primate species, and enough of evolutionary theory is 'established fact' for us to be confident of this conclusion.

But I'm not convinced that the usual 'all new genetic material is obtained from isolated, random mutations' view is correct (and 'established fact'), by any means. I've always believed that there are as-yet-undiscovered ways in which 'life processes' encourage the development of new genetic material aside random mutation.

In any case, its obvious in retrospect that earlier forms of the theory of evolution were flawed and incomplete, and I expect the same is true of the latest forms.

If you are talking about the glial cells (if I remember correctly), yes, there is a lot of brain tissue which is there to support the other cells - the provide structurally support and I think they help with glucose transport and regulation and other things.

There are some '10% use' myths out there, though, which are complete lies. Just about all of the cells in a healthy persons brain are doing something useful.



If you are asking 'does the fact we have a mouth prove we are related to other mouth-bearing creatures', well no, not that fact by itself.... but if you look into it further, we are in fact related to all other mouth bearing creatures. Its just a matter of how far back in the family tree you want to go.

I believe that the image that we were created in is a spirit image, not a flesh & bone one. God, I believe, is a spirit and, therefore, we too are spirits, but in a human fleshly body which houses our spirit or true self.

http://thejourneyofjimmie.blogspot.com/

Hummm if I understand right no one has actually seen God it is Jesus that actually others seen. Therefore how is it possible to know what he looked like.

According to what I have been told through the years humans were made in the image of God. But was that only the way he seen them to be or the way he actually looked.

If God was more or less a Spirit could he have not taken on many shapes?


There are even other animals that have a tailbone with no tail. Apes nor Orangutans have a tail and they have tailbones.

As far as the tailbone goes without it wouldn't it not affect us being able to walk.

Therefore is it possible that the tailbone is there in order to stabilize our legs in order for us to walk up right the way we do?

umm...did you ever hear of anyone being shot in the head where the doctor comes back and says something like, "hey don't worry about it, the bullet didn't hit anything useful"?

You use 100% of your brain. Anyone who doesn't think so is....well...probably right...about themselves.


This "only use 10% of your brain" Bovine Excrement has been a misquote for over 40 years. And it drives me crazy. What actually happened is a doctor, in the 60's, figured out that we only have conscious control over 10% of our brain---the parts of the brain that control voluntary functions such as making your arm move at will. But the rest of the brain is absolutely, definitly used!!!
There is NO PART THAT IS DORMANT. geesh...

LOL

Naturally we have a tail bone from evolution.

Some people actually have to have the tail removed because it grows longer for some people.

It is evidence of our ancestry.

tail bone is support for our backs while we sit. It's in the same sence of a kickstand for a motorcycle.

oh man...i needed that

The coccyx is at the end of the spine and corresponds to the tail in animals, so it is often called the tailbone


its just the name given to it.. doesnt imply there is another appendage,, just like adams apple isnt really an apple

The tailbone is commonly thought of as the remnant of an actual tail, left over from a time before we evolved into humans. Some describe it as a "vestigial tail," meaning it has no real purpose in our bodies. However, it does serve as an attachment site for muscles and ligaments, which makes this a misnomer. There are several muscles that attach to the tailbone, including the gluteus maximus, the levator ani, the sphincter ani externis and the coccygeus. These muscles all play important roles in standing, bowel control and pelvic floor support.


This is one explanation,, others will insist it is the remnant of the tail. I believe this explanation is more reasonable. I find it a stretch to believe any of my ancestors had tails.

There are many parts of the body that they have yet to find a use for,,,the leap to some animnal explanation is too far a leap for me,, personally.

What about the people who have tails?

Have you seen one for yourself. From what I have read,,,it is a type of tumor or fatty tissue

Between 1960 and 1997 there were 59 reported cases of babies being born with vestigial tails. So it's no understatement to say that a child with a tail is a rare occurrence in pediatric surgery. The vast majority of these cases can be easily remedied with a relatively simple procedure, as the appendage is only attached superficially by a cord of fatty tissue. There is just one recorded case of a human tail containing vertebral remnants, and the longest tail on record was measured at an impressive 20 centimeters.

Read more: http://www.tcclinic.com/learning_centre/cosmetic_surgery/strangecosmeticsurgery.php#ixzz0cNq0ZzII

Good answer. I've never heard this one before.

Tail bones became vestigal because mothers use to slap their children saying "stop chasing your tail!" And yet, people still do it. They just can't resist. Although, Transendental Meditators are working to bring the tail back, soas to make levitation more productive.

Creation vs Evolution. To me its quite simple. Eveloution is Creation. 7 days does anyone have a clue what a day is to God? Who knows what hes thinking? Has anyone ever know The Lord not to do things in his time. Although i have no clue about time with the Lord.... it is true that his day may be billions of years to me.

Ain't there a place in the bible where moses sees gods 'tail'?

perhaps we just lost it over the years.