Useless Organs

[The Lorax]

https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf/0/0...ment&Click=

[Will Hill]

You know evolutionists will make up anything in order to preserve their dead theory.

[The Lorax]

You know evolutionists will make up anything in order to preserve their dead theory.

Funny, evolution can explain these vestiges and creation can't. That's just one of the many reasons why young-Earth creationism is a dead theory, or more accurately, a dead hypothesis.

[apothanein kerdos]

https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf/0/0...ment&Click=

How is it a bane of creationism (the idea God created man)?

For one, what we once thought was useless is turning out to have use. Secondly, this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. Proving something is "useless" doesn't negate that there is a design to the world or universe.

[The Lorax]

How is it a bane of creationism (the idea God created man)?

It's might not be the bane of creationism, but it is a bane. Why? Because if God created humans say, a few thousand years ago, and he created us in a state of perfection, there is no reason we would have vestigial organs. Whereas, if you believe God created the universe several billion years ago, and thus indirectly created humans, there is room for vestiges to occur. As evolved forms, humans will necessarily bear the remnants of their ancient precursors.

For one, what we once thought was useless is turning out to have use.

Like, for instance...

For the record, I don't completely agree all these vestiges are useless. For instance, body hair has sensory purposes, and appendices may serve immune functions. However, not all of these vestiges can be so easily explained away and, what's more, they strongly point to our common descent from animals, which goes against young-Earth creationism.

Secondly, this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. Proving something is "useless" doesn't negate that there is a design to the world or universe.

It doesn't negate a creator, but it implies a different creator than that of young-Earth creationism, like I said earlier.

[apothanein kerdos]

How is it a bane of creationism (the idea God created man)?

It's might not be the bane of creationism, but it is a bane. Why? Because if God created humans say, a few thousand years ago, and he created us in a state of perfection, there is no reason we would have vestigial organs. Whereas, if you believe God created the universe several billion years ago, and thus indirectly created humans, there is room for vestiges to occur. As evolved forms, humans will necessarily bear the remnants of their ancient precursors.

For one, what we once thought was useless is turning out to have use.

Like, for instance...

For the record, I don't completely agree all these vestiges are useless. For instance, body hair has sensory purposes, and appendices may serve immune functions. However, not all of these vestiges can be so easily explained away and, what's more, they strongly point to our common descent from animals, which goes against young-Earth creationism.

Secondly, this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. Proving something is "useless" doesn't negate that there is a design to the world or universe.

It doesn't negate a creator, but it implies a different creator than that of young-Earth creationism, like I said earlier.

I'm not a young earth creationist, but I am against bad arguments. There is a multitude of evidence against young-earth Creation, but at least use good evidence.

A young earth creationist can simply come back and explain that the fall of man has either:

1) caused these organs to become useless

2) caused man to devolve so these organs appeared

Etc

Essentially, they can easily use the fall to describe these useless organs. I just think there are better arguments against young-earth creation...like the age of the earth.

[The Lorax]

A young earth creationist can simply come back and explain that the fall of man has either:

1) caused these organs to become useless

How would the fall of man cause say, molars, to be useless? How would it cause any organ to become vestigial? That, my friend, is a bad argument. Also, I don't believe such an argument has any Biblical justification. I don't remember the Bible saying humans became physically altered as a result of the fall.

2) caused man to devolve so these organs appeared

I don't see how this is different from your first hypothetical counter-argument. It makes equal sense: none.

The fall of man is used by creationists to "explain" a lot of things. I have even heard it used to explain the most basic physical aspects of the universe, like entropy. (According to some creationist quacks, entropy comes from sin.) Needless to say, that isn't an explanation at all.

Essentially, they can easily use the fall to describe these useless organs. I just think there are better arguments against young-earth creation...like the age of the earth.

Yes, that is a better argument. Now if only you could get YE creationists to accept radiometric dating...

[apothanein kerdos]

How would the fall of man cause say, molars, to be useless? How would it cause any organ to become vestigial? That, my friend, is a bad argument. Also, I don't believe such an argument has any Biblical justification. I don't remember the Bible saying humans became physically altered as a result of the fall.

They often use the verse that says man began to die the moment he ate the fruit. They could argue that the molars and such had a purpose prior to the fall, but lost their purpose post-fall.

I mean, I don't find it all that convincing, but at the same time, I don't think "useless organs" are a good argument either - if they can be found to have a purpose later on, then it only emboldens YEC.

I don't see how this is different from your first hypothetical counter-argument. It makes equal sense: none.

The fall of man is used by creationists to "explain" a lot of things. I have even heard it used to explain the most basic physical aspects of the universe, like entropy. (According to some creationist quacks, entropy comes from sin.) Needless to say, that isn't an explanation at all.

A lot of them do use the Fall for such things. I don't know, I'm just saying if I were YEC, I'd use these arguments.

Yes, that is a better argument. Now if only you could get YE creationists to accept radiometric dating...

Agreed.

Thing is, I've never argued too much against YEC, mainly because I'm more concerned about proving God created the world; how He did it is something I'll worry about later.

[Giaour]

Vestigial Organs

As we have seen on other pages, evolutionists can

[rtwo]

There seems to be a misconception that a rejection (or questioning) of evolution means also to not believe in adaptation. Adaptation is one thing -- evolution into a higher species is something else entirely.