Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[Roderick Spode]

It's not a mistake.

Creationists do. But scientists have long known that wings first evolved for other purposes than flight.
God is a lot smarter than you seem willing to have Him be.


Then why not just accept it His way?

We do have tails. They are just vestigial.


Doesn't matter:

I haven't read all of your posts in this thread, so if you don't mind me asking, do you feel that the coccyx serves no purpose?

 

[The Barbarian]

I haven't read all of your posts in this thread, so if you don't mind me asking, do you feel that the coccyx serves no purpose?

Why would you think that? As Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs often develop a new function after they cease to have the original one. It is true that most people with coccygeal agenesis never know it, unlike those with scacral agenesis. The fact that the complete absence of the coccyx causes no harm, is not proof that the coccyx has no function, of course. I said that the coccyx is vestigial, i.e. it no longer serves as an organ of balance, grasping, or communication, as is the case in various animals with a non-vestigial tail. Again, that does not mean it has no function.

Common communication issue with creationists.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Why would you think that? As Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs often develop a new function after they cease to have the original one. It is true that most people with coccygeal agenesis never know it, unlike those with scacral agenesis. The fact that the complete absence of the coccyx causes no harm, is not proof that the coccyx has no function, of course. I said that the coccyz is vestigial, i.e. it no longer serves as an organ of balance, grasping, or communication, as is the case in various animals with a non-vestigial tail. Again, that does not mean it has no function.

Common communication issue with creationists.

I'm just curious as to why it's function wouldn't be reason enough to have been included in creation of man, apart from any sort of evolution involving apes?

 

[dlamberth]

There's no scientific evidence of a creator period. There's a distinct barrier between science and any creator. Therefore what would make your belief any more honest than another?

All I've shared is where I'm at today which basically is that I experience science opening a window into how the Divine creates new life forms. So from my position science and this creation are not separate from each other. I can do science and still experience and be aware of a creative force within Life itSelf.

But to answer you directly...I don't give a hoot what others believe. I really don't care.

 

[Roderick Spode]

All I've shared is where I'm at today which basically is that I experience science opening a window into how the Divine creates new life forms. So from my position science and this creation are not separate from each other. I can do science and still experience and be aware of a creative force within Life itSelf.

But to answer you directly...I don't give a hoot what others believe. I really don't care.

I'm guessing you feel that biblical creationists don't experience science opening a window into how the Divine creates new life forms. And that we're being intellectually dishonest about what we believe. That was the reason for my question.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm just curious as to why it's function wouldn't be reason enough to have been included in creation of man, apart from any sort of evolution involving apes?

It certainly seems redundant, since it's absence causes no difficulties for people who are born without one. I suppose you could say that the Creator (for reasons we can't understand) liked putting teeny little redundant tails on humans where no one would see them. It's a real problem for creationists, but it makes perfect sense in light of the phenomenon of evolution.

I'm guessing you feel that biblical creationists don't experience science opening a window into how the Divine creates new life forms. And that we're being intellectually dishonest about what we believe. That was the reason for my question.

I know you're not speaking to me, but let me make it clear that I know there are many, many intellectually honest creationists.

 

[The Barbarian]

All I've shared is where I'm at today which basically is that I experience science opening a window into how the Divine creates new life forms. So from my position science and this creation are not separate from each other. I can do science and still experience and be aware of a creative force within Life itSelf.

I like to photograph wildlife. Sometimes, when I'm out there alone, the scientific and the sacred seem to just come together in my head. And I'm caught up in that epiphany. I think I know what you're speaking of, here.

 

[AV1611VET]

I like to photograph wildlife. Sometimes, when I'm out there alone, the scientific and the sacred seem to just come together in my head. And I'm caught up in that epiphany. I think I know what you're speaking of, here.

Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

 

[Roderick Spode]

It certainly seems redundant, since it's absence causes no difficulties for people who are born without one. I suppose you could say that the Creator (for reasons we can't understand) liked putting teeny little redundant tails on humans where no one would see them. It's a real problem for creationists, but it makes perfect sense in light of the phenomenon of evolution.

And people have them removed at times. People also have their tonsils removed, and live normal lives. Are you saying there's no advantage whatsoever having a coccyx?

I know you're not speaking to me, but let me make it clear that I know there are many, many intellectually honest creationists.

I guess dlamberth is a creationist to some degree?

 

[The Barbarian]

And people have them removed at times. People also have their tonsils removed, and live normal lives. Are you saying there's no advantage whatsoever having a coccyx?

Well, if you fall and break it, it provides income for a physician. The fact that most people with coccygeal agenesis never realize it, suggests that it's not of much benefit. Since those tiny little bones have marrow, they do produce some blood cells. People without them, don't seem to have any difficulty producing enough RBC and WBCs, though. What do you think the advantage might be?

 

[The Barbarian]

I guess dlamberth is a creationist to some degree?

I believe God created all things; does that make me a creationist? The salient difference seems to be that diamberth and I are good with the way He did it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Psalm 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Matthew 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows.

 

[Astrid]

I believe God created all things; does that make me a creationist? The salient difference seems to be that diamberth and I are good with the way He did it.

I have no problem accepting that as a possibility.

Yec is an insult to human intelligence and to God,
if such there be.

 

[Astrid]

It certainly seems redundant, since it's absence causes no difficulties for people who are born without one. I suppose you could say that the Creator (for reasons we can't understand) liked putting teeny little redundant tails on humans where no one would see them. It's a real problem for creationists, but it makes perfect sense in light of the phenomenon of evolution.


I know you're not speaking to me, but let me make it clear that I know there are many, many intellectually honest creationists.

That's only possible for a very ignorant yec.

 

[The Barbarian]

I know you're not speaking to me, but let me make it clear that I know there are many, many intellectually honest creationists.

That's only possible for a very ignorant yec.

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.
Dr. Todd Wood, YE creationist.

Kurt Wise is another YE creationist, who while believing that the world is only a few thousand years old, and not accepting evolution, has listed dozens of transitional forms and series of forms that he admits are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." He's not hiding anything, and he's not kidding himself. He just prefers his reading of Genesis to the evidence. And that's honest, even if I regard it as mistaken.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Well, if you fall and break it, it provides income for a physician. The fact that most people with coccygeal agenesis never realize it, suggests that it's not of much benefit. Since those tiny little bones have marrow, they do produce some blood cells. People without them, don't seem to have any difficulty producing enough RBC and WBCs, though. What do you think the advantage might be?

I think when you say "not much of a benefit", you're meaning relatively. It's not a handicap not having one, but just doesn't give much benefit.

I would say having a coccyx would provide a certain amount of bodily support, but like many other physical or social disadvantages, can be overcome, or compensated for.

I suppose you could say that the Creator (for reasons we can't understand) liked putting teeny little redundant tails on humans where no one would see them.

I have no problem with the concept of certain things being a mystery, or not us fully understanding something by God's design. God's discourse to Job strongly suggested that there were a number of questions pertaining to nature he didn't know about. Even if you don't think Job was a real person, the message is very straightforward.

 

[Roderick Spode]

I know you're not speaking to me, but let me make it clear that I know there are many, many intellectually honest creationists.


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.
Dr. Todd Wood, YE creationist.

Kurt Wise is another YE creationist, who while believing that the world is only a few thousand years old, and not accepting evolution, has listed dozens of transitional forms and series of forms that he admits are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." He's not hiding anything, and he's not kidding himself. He just prefers his reading of Genesis to the evidence. And that's honest, even if I regard it as mistaken.

I understand what he's saying.

The problem is not really lack of evidence, it's about believing what God says in His Word. There are Theoretical physicists who maintain that scientific evidence points to us one day having the ability to create a universe with life in a laboratory. These aren't pseudo scientists, and simply proposing this idea due to what they perceive as evidence, even if we never accomplish such a feat.

This opens up many questions:

If we created life in a lab, could we reveal our presence to them?

Could we hide our presence from them?

And if we did hide our presence, assuming they might have relatively similar intelligence, could they practice a similar scientific method leading them leading to conclude a completely natural origin like evolution?

 

[Roderick Spode]

I believe God created all things; does that make me a creationist? The salient difference seems to be that diamberth and I are good with the way He did it.

I don't really know what your beliefs are, but if you believe in a resurrected body, this would require you to have an open mind as a number of atheists would claim the idea as intellectual dishonesty. Just the idea of creation alone would cause such a reaction.

I'm sure you're not concerned with what anyone else thinks, but I'm just not sure why you'd think the biblical creationist is intellectually dishonest?

 

[dlamberth]

I guess dlamberth is a creationist to some degree?

To some degree, yes. But to be clear, not at all like Biblical Creationist.

 

[dlamberth]

I'm sure you're not concerned with what anyone else thinks, but I'm just not sure why you'd think the biblical creationist is intellectually dishonest?

When a person denies what the Earth itSelf is showing us about itSelf in favor of the creation story of an ancient tribe of middle-eastern desert nomads...how is that any different than saying that the Earth is lying? And how is that any different than being intellectually dishonest? That's what I don't understand.