Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Bible Research Tools]

Actually, youre still wrong, not all of the tracks at Cal orcko display evidence of running.

Who is feeding you all this false information?

Now I understand. You don't read well.

Will you please get off these silly topics and address the big picture, such as, for starters, where did the sediment come from? For starters, where did the sandstone come from that made up the Tapeats layering?

Dan

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Pitiful. I was expecting more out of you.

Why should a scientist be required to tell a lab how old they think a rock is before it can be dated? And what if they do not know how old the rock is?

The answer is, "Radiometric dating is a scam -- a fraud". It is a perpetuation of the "Index Fossil" scam, where rocks were dated according to the guestimated dates of "Index Fossils", and fossils were dated according to the "date" of the rocks that were determined by the "Index Fossils" found in them. There are few better examples of circular reasoning than those used to "date" rocks and fossils.

For the record, Andrew Snelling didn't date anything because creation scientists do not have labs. They use secular labs. So please refrain from muddying the waters (I am trying to be kind).

Dan

From memory, the Labs he sent specimens to told him that he was using inappropriate preparation for radiometric tests for the age of the rock - Oh, here it is! Creation Science Rebuttals, Creation Magazine, Radioisotope Dating of Rocks in the Grand Canyon - there are ways you can determine the most appropriate dating method to use, but he ignored them and requested they date it anyway... it's almost as if he was being dishonest, or something.

But I'm sure you wouldn't do that now, would you BRT?

There's also a note in this rebuttal about the amount of radioactive decay we have (billions of years) to be crammed into the thousands of years that Creationists want to cram them into, usually when the year long flood occurred, has insurmountable problems all on its own:

"Accelerated Decay

Snelling uses a text box at the end of the article to push the theory that radioactive decay in the past was accelerated. This is a recent, interesting development in the young earth movement. Young earth scientists now admit that the rock record contains evidence of billions of years of radioactive decay. I welcome this admission, because it makes the old earth creationist case even stronger.
The young earth model now states that two periods…the creation week, and the Genesis Flood, were responsible for this accelerated decay. In short, the problem this model faces is one of heat. Cramming billions of years of radioactive decay into a year long flood is a bad idea because the amount of heat from this amount of decay would have melted the entire earth. For those who wish to examine this theory in more detail, please check out the review of the young earth book, Thousands…Not Billions. "​

 

[tas8831]

Beats me. How many evolutionists claim to follow the scientific method, when they clearly do not?

Dan

Cool unsupported assertion.

The FACTS are:



1. The coccyx contains reduced vertebrae. Their articulation resembles that seen in tailed mammals.

2. The coccyx has a muscular attachment, the extensor coccygis (NOT the coccygeus as many creationists dishonestly try to counter with – that is a different muscle), whose origin is on the distal, dorsal sacrum and which inserts on the coccyx, crossing the sacrococcygeal joint. As such, this muscle’s ONLY possible function is to extend the coccyx. That is, to make it stick out posteriorly. And yet we cannot do this. The same muscle exists in tailed primates. And they Can extend their tails (their EC is more extensive than ours – say, that is totally like a rudiment! Just like in the definition of vestigial!). Why Design a muscle for humans that they cannot use?

3. People born without a coccyx generally do not exhibit detrimental symptoms – their ‘autonomic reproductive functions’ and bladder control etc. work fine. So much for this ‘supported by the coccyx’ gibberish.

4. I have seen no documentation indicating that humans born with tails are used as evidence that THE COCCYX is vestigial.

5. There is no creationist explanation for the extensor coccygis, for why we would have been ‘designed’ with a muscle that we cannot actually use, whose only possible function is to extend the coccyx.

6. Creationists never offer evidence FOR creation, just these sad, pathetic, desperate attacks on evolution and evolutionists to try to generate a fallacious false dichotomy argument.

 

[tas8831]

Who would you trust: evolutionists who were still promoting Haeckel's embryos a century after they were revealed as fraudulent

I would not trust a liar that made such a claim.

, or a Scientist/Lawyer (and a Christian) working with many world-class scientists and researchers who work tirelessly to cross ever "t" and dot every "i"?

LOL!

You have no clue, do you?

I go with Casey, any day of the week. I have seen first hand the deception of the evolution orthodoxy.

No you haven't.

For the rest of you, this is part of Casey Luskin's bio, and a link to the rest:

"I am a scientist and an attorney, and hold graduate degrees in science and law. My B.S. and M.S. are in earth sciences from the University of California at San Diego, where I studied geology and evolution extensively at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. (I also minored in history.) My master's thesis focused on the paleomagnetism of the Snake River Plain in southern Idaho."​

Bio of Casey Luskin - CaseyLuskin.com​

Dan

And now he does none of that. He is just a lawyer (supposeldy) who lies for Jesus.

The FACTS are:



1. The coccyx contains reduced vertebrae. Their articulation resembles that seen in tailed mammals.

2. The coccyx has a muscular attachment, the extensor coccygis (NOT the coccygeus as many creationists dishonestly try to counter with – that is a different muscle), whose origin is on the distal, dorsal sacrum and which inserts on the coccyx, crossing the sacrococcygeal joint. As such, this muscle’s ONLY possible function is to extend the coccyx. That is, to make it stick out posteriorly. And yet we cannot do this. The same muscle exists in tailed primates. And they Can extend their tails (their EC is more extensive than ours – say, that is totally like a rudiment! Just like in the definition of vestigial!). Why Design a muscle for humans that they cannot use?

3. People born without a coccyx generally do not exhibit detrimental symptoms – their ‘autonomic reproductive functions’ and bladder control etc. work fine. So much for this ‘supported by the coccyx’ gibberish.

4. I have seen no documentation indicating that humans born with tails are used as evidence that THE COCCYX is vestigial.

5. There is no creationist explanation for the extensor coccygis, for why we would have been ‘designed’ with a muscle that we cannot actually use, whose only possible function is to extend the coccyx.

6. Creationists never offer evidence FOR creation, just these sad, pathetic, desperate attacks on evolution and evolutionists to try to generate a fallacious false dichotomy argument.

 

[tas8831]

It is not obvious at all. There is no universal agreement that fusion even happened. If it was a fusion, it was not a simple fusion. And since all humans have the same chromosome 2, it is obvious that all humans descended from a common human ancestor, and that is about all that is "obvious".

Have you read this paper?

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v6/human-chromosome-fusion.pdf​

Dan

How about you explain why you think that creationist tripe has merit, is accurate and honest?

Never mind - you just accept it because a creationist wrote it - never mind that Tomkins has a pretty bad reputation for competence and honesty on these issues. Witnessing is far more important to creationists than integrity.


from google groups:


I exchanged a couple of emails with Tomkins last year, pointing out
the errors in his papers (in creationist journals) on the Chromosome 2
fusion site. As you all know, he’s very excited that he’s found a
“highly-expressed” gene that “spans” the fusion site. This means, he
claims, that the fusion site couldn’t possibly be what it seems.

He’s wrong, and many of the reasons why have already been pointed out
in this discussion. First and foremost, the gene in question (actually
a pseudogene with no known function) is a member of a transcript
family known as DDX11L. Tomkins pointedly ignores the Costa (2009)
paper, which identified 18 members of this gene family. Each of them
is next to a sequence known as “WASH,” which is transcribed in the
opposite direction of the DDX11L pseudogene. And, more to the point,
each and every one of them is located right next to a telomere –
except for one. That’s the DDX11L2 sequence, which is parked right
next to the fusion site. That alone is very strong evidence that site
is exactly what it seems to be – the remnant of a telomere-to-telomere
fusion.

Most of the genome databases show the DDX11L2 sequence as off to one
side of the fusion site, so it really doesn’t span it. However, in
some of the databases there are transcript variants that include the
head-to-head telomere sequence motifs as one of the introns in the
primary transcript. That is basis on which Tomkins claims that the
gene spans the site. But the very same data are easily explained by
variability in the termination of transcription so that occasionally a
somewhat longer RNA is produced. This is exactly what I pointed out to
Tomkins…. So that any claim that I “admitted” he was right about his
interpretation is bogus.

And, if Larry permits me to rant on a bit:

• Tomkins said that “some” chromosome banding patterns were similar
between humans and other great apes. Some? The matches were so
extensive that Yunis & Prakash (1982) were able to align each and
every chromosome from four different species!

• He said there were too few telomere repeats in the fusion site. A
“pristine” site would have 20,000 – 30,000 bases. But the fact is that
“pristine” telomeres would prevent fusion, and treatments that
dramatically shorten telomeres actually cause fusion, which is why
there are so few repeats in chromosome 2. The small number of telomere
repeats is exactly what should be expected at a fusion site.

• Tomkins said that the DDX11L2 gene was unique to humans. Wrong. As
Costa (2009) showed, there are members of this family in chimpanzees
and gorillas. And, as you might expect, they are located right next to
telomeres.

• Finally, Tomkins lays great emphasis on the observation that
transcription factor binding has been found throughout this region.
But simple binding says nothing about the specificity of binding or
its biological importance.

• Tomkins has constructed a straw man in which an authentic fusion
site would have to be an exact replica of the ends of two present day
chimpanzee chromosomes to be valid. What he does not seem to realize
is that the fusion occurred millions of years after our lineage
separated from chimpanzees, and that both lines have continued to
evolve along separate pathways. That accounts for the differences he
regards as so significant.

The evidence for a chromosomal fusion in the ancestry of our species
is on very solid ground, and has been greatly strengthened by the very
research he wishes to use against this idea.

 

[tas8831]

The "Treaty of Tripoli" argument is the go-to secular humanist argument based on what was apparently a flawed translation (known as the "Barlow" translation) of the original Arabic document. The Hunter-Miller Notes explain:

"Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11."​

Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty with Tripoli 1796 : Hunter Miller's Notes​

The fact that an almost exclusively Christian Senate approved the treaty, and a devout Christian president named John Adams signed the treaty, should give any conscientious individual second thoughts about promoting that treaty as proof against our nation's Christian heritage.

How pathetic and desperate are the Christian Nationalists!

That was the version read, ratified, and signed.

Keep trying, desperado.

The FACTS are:



1. The coccyx contains reduced vertebrae. Their articulation resembles that seen in tailed mammals.

2. The coccyx has a muscular attachment, the extensor coccygis (NOT the coccygeus as many creationists dishonestly try to counter with – that is a different muscle), whose origin is on the distal, dorsal sacrum and which inserts on the coccyx, crossing the sacrococcygeal joint. As such, this muscle’s ONLY possible function is to extend the coccyx. That is, to make it stick out posteriorly. And yet we cannot do this. The same muscle exists in tailed primates. And they Can extend their tails (their EC is more extensive than ours – say, that is totally like a rudiment! Just like in the definition of vestigial!). Why Design a muscle for humans that they cannot use?

3. People born without a coccyx generally do not exhibit detrimental symptoms – their ‘autonomic reproductive functions’ and bladder control etc. work fine. So much for this ‘supported by the coccyx’ gibberish.

4. I have seen no documentation indicating that humans born with tails are used as evidence that THE COCCYX is vestigial.

5. There is no creationist explanation for the extensor coccygis, for why we would have been ‘designed’ with a muscle that we cannot actually use, whose only possible function is to extend the coccyx.

6. Creationists never offer evidence FOR creation, just these sad, pathetic, desperate attacks on evolution and evolutionists to try to generate a fallacious false dichotomy argument.

 

[tas8831]

Debunked by whom, and how?

People in the know and through the use of facts and science and data - one example:

r/NaturalTheology - My first reply to Jeffrey Tomkins

r/junkscience - Human - Chimp similarity update - How Tomkins did it

r/NaturalTheology - Chromosome 2 fusion - A response to a question on biology stack exchange

r/junkscience - Human - Chimp similarity take 2!


There are a lot more out there, these are just the ones that popped up at the top of my returns.

He has also been debunked on this forum.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Let me guess. Is it because the evolutionism orthodoxy controls the scientific establishment and the so-called "peer-review" process, not to mention their interpretations are enforced by the power of the federal government sword? Just a hunch.

Well, you'd be wrong. All you need to do is provide evidence for your proposition. The evidence will stand and fall on its own merits, just as every other major shift in scientific consensus has ever been effected. Why do your creation 'scientists' not just do that?

I have made mention in this thread of scientists who demonstrated the evolution so-called "tree of life" is a fantasy. Perhaps you have not been paying attention, or you arrived late. In either case, check out evolutionist J. Craig Venter, beginning at the 9:35 mark in this video:

The "Bush of Life"? It is in reality more like a lawn, but that is a good start for an evolutionist.

It isn't a fantasy. For multi-celled eukaryotic life, it remains by far a tree of life as described using VGT (and on very rare occasions, a little HGT to boot). The 'bush' or sometimes even 'web' of life do apply early on, and in single-celled life now where HGT is a primary form of gene transfer between organisms, you'll see this. None of this, however, discounts the Tree of Life as being the dominant emergent pattern of how we have all the life forms we have today.

The constitution was not written to separate "Church and State". That corruption of the constitution was invented by the ACLU and usurped into "law" by a corrupt judiciary in 1947. Up until that time Christianity and the U.S. governments (federal, state and local) got along just fine.

as well as the Muslims with which the treaty was signed. The USA has long been a bastion of Church/State separation exactly because of the issues that the founding fathers sought to avoid like the plague.

I cannot imagine anything worse than the many hundreds of millions slaughtered by the Christian-hating communists, and their close cousins, the fascists, in the 20th century.

Dan

Your cracking Christian character alluding to falsities about supposed "Christian-hating communists & fascists aside, I sincerely hope that's how you feel, your rhetoric seems to indicate you think otherwise, so perhaps be mindful with whom you share such throw-away lines as you did here - I'd hate to see any more fundamental Christian extremists being incited once again to start killing innocent fellow countrymen...

 

[pitabread]

Of course it is dumb, but that was Lyell's motive -- to remove Moses from science. Science got along just fine with Moses hanging around, but Lyell's agenda usurped his common sense.

Ah, so it's just part of the creationist conspiracy fan fiction you've been writing. Gotcha.

(Still makes no sense why anyone would fake the age of rocks, though...)

 

[pitabread]

There is no difference. Evolutionism is a form of secular humanism.

If you're making up terms to equate with other terms, then just use the original term. Unless you are trying for deliberate obfuscation, making up words doesn't serve any purpose here.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Project much?

No. Do you?

Tell us, oh creationist retired engineer - what do YOU know that this doctorate-holding biochemist, baraminologist, apologist, and creationist does not? (I bolded a key part)

The truth about evolution

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

It appears Todd has become the evolutionism "Goto Boy". No doubt he has said some really dumb things, even professing a bizarre belief in common descent, which puts him in total denial of the Word of God.

For the rest of you, faith comes from hearing the Word of God; and the Word of God is crystal clear that Jesus, Paul and Peter are creationists who declared man's descent from Adam and Eve, as well as the historical truthfulness of the great flood.

I will wait for you to provide a rationale for one to accept your condescending proclamations (and no, hubris, egomania, and overconfidence do not count).

But seeing as how I am still waiting for you to address the topic of the thread...

Are you still obsessed with proving the evolution icon of vestigial organs is not a myth? You have a tough road ahead of you.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

He promised you a Conservative SCOTUS. He took you to the top of a high mountain and showed you the overthrow of Obergefell v. Hodges, Roe v. Wade, Engle v. Vitale and Brown v. Board. Now your souls belong to him.

Do you have a point?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Trump Steaks
Trump University
GoTrump.com
Trump Airlines
Trump Vodka
Trump Mortgage
Trump: The Game
Trump Magazine
The Trump Network
etc. etc. etc.

If it were not for daddy's millions, the Orange fool would be mowing lawns somewhere.
But it is so cool how 'Christians' are totally cool with his serial philandering, divorces, prideful nature, dishonesty, etc. Christians, it seems, will drop their supposed morals and family values at the drop of a hat so long as their prejudices are being validated.

And will of the people? 3 million votes more for the other person sort of takes the wind out of that nonsense...

"...exploding their cannons..."

You have been reading too many left-wingnut newspapers.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211). Original in Arabic. Submitted to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. As to the ratification generally, see the notes. Proclaimed Jane 10, 1797.


ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


Yes - how does it feel to be wrong so often on so many topics?

You need to keep up. That has already been debunked:

"Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase,"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," does not exist at all. There is no Article 11." [Hunter Miller Notes, "The Barbary Treaties." Yale Law School]​

Avalon Project - The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty with Tripoli 1796 : Hunter Miller's Notes
​

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

. Religious fundamentalism causing a problem with education in general, is one problem . If you look at social problems the more Christian based religiosity in a particular state the higher the STD rate , divorces, child abuse, teenage pregnancies. There are others

Baloney.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Sure. Adam's likeness was like that of Lord God/Jesus and here is His likeness from the O.T. Eze 1:27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of His loins even upward, and from the appearance of His loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.



Doesn't matter when one can quote Scripture which refutes them.

Gen 6:4 There were (Intellectual) giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric man) came in unto the daughters of men, (Adam) and they bare children to them, the same (children) became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Humans (descendants of Adam) lost our image like Jesus, when Adam sinned. Gen 3:7



Here is what Christians will look like at the Rapture:

1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He (Jesus) shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.

Want more Scripture about Jesus blinding Saul on the road to Damascus? with His brightness which was greater than the noonday Sun? Or when Jesus was transfigured and His face shone like the Sun?

Aman, those giants in Genesis 6 were real giants, as in BIG! They were the hybrid sons of the fallen angels and earthly women.

Dan

 

[Brightmoon]

Aman, those giants in Genesis 6 were real giants, as in BIG! They were the hybrid sons of the fallen angels and earthly women.

Dan

Humans can’t get that large . There are problems with circulation in the extremities which can lead to nerve damage and a potential for amputation

 

[Brightmoon]

Baloney.

Dan

I agree, the creationist information you post usually is

 

[Speedwell]

Do you have a point?

Dan

So what do you want? You say this is supposed to be a Christian nation. How ould it be different than the way it is now?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Not that I can see - but if you addressed it the same way you've addressed anything else, then you offered nothing of value or substance.
Really?

How does one prove for or against something of which there is no evidence? If you must believe in vestigial organs -- if your faith demands it -- go right ahead.

"Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters..."

Please show me where in the bible the "genetic character" of 'Negroes' is discussed.

My gosh, the lengths you people will go to...

What was the full context? Do you even know?

Really? ALL creation "scientists"?

That is correct. Creation scientists, by definition, believe all humans are direct descendants of Adam and Eve, and are therefore, cousins.

Darwin is on record as writing:

“It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and
is constant.”

“This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.”

“He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be
deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. …and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers.”

-Descent of Man, 1871

But you don't know since your creationist propaganda sources don't tell you about that.

Yea, I guess not. Did you know that Darwin also wrote this?

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man." [Darwin, Charles, Civilised Nations, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." 1981, Chap V, p.168]
​

LOL! Purdom is kind of... funny.So where is the genetic evidence for Adam and Eve?.

She tried to put it in simple layman's terms, but I guess it is still over your head. Maybe you can better understand this video:

Wow! Hilarious!
Sure, cousins - some are meant to be servants, others are special in Yahweh's eyes...

God does not wish that any should perish.

Your tunnel vision is hysterical - if we say that we are cousins with chimps, did you not bother to think what that means we think about all humans?

Let me guess. Does that mean you think humans are chumps?

Thanks for another great example of the simple-mindedness of creationist argumentation.

It obviously went right over your head.

So, you've got nothing but dopey Trump-like insults to hide your ignorance. Got it.

Insults are all evolutionist's seem to understand. Have you never visited evolutionism web sites? I guess not.

The FACTS are:

1. The coccyx contains reduced vertebrae. Their articulation resembles that seen in tailed mammals.

2. The coccyx has a muscular attachment, the extensor coccygis (NOT the coccygeus as many creationists dishonestly try to counter with – that is a different muscle), whose origin is on the distal, dorsal sacrum and which inserts on the coccyx, crossing the sacrococcygeal joint. As such, this muscle’s ONLY possible function is to extend the coccyx. That is, to make it stick out posteriorly. And yet we cannot do this. The same muscle exists in tailed primates. And they Can extend their tails (their EC is more extensive than ours – say, that is totally like a rudiment! Just like in the definition of vestigial!). Why Design a muscle for humans that they cannot use?

3. People born without a coccyx generally do not exhibit detrimental symptoms – their ‘autonomic reproductive functions’ and bladder control etc. work fine. So much for this ‘supported by the coccyx’ gibberish.

4. I have seen no documentation indicating that humans born with tails are used as evidence that THE COCCYX is vestigial.

5. There is no creationist explanation for the extensor coccygis, for why we would have been ‘designed’ with a muscle that we cannot actually use, whose only possible function is to extend the coccyx.

6. Creationists never offer evidence FOR creation, just these sad, pathetic, desperate attacks on evolution and evolutionists to try to generate a fallacious false dichotomy argument.

Just another silly evolutionism icon ready to bite the dust.

Let me know when you can do more than quote creationist frauds and hacks.

Let me know when you can prove macroevolution.

Dan