Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Jimmy D]

From your link - "Patients with this deformity lack motor function at the affected vertebral level and sensory functions below the affected level." Doesn't sound vestigial at all to me. The key words that gave it away were "deformity", lacking "motor function", and "sensory functions". Just in case you don't understand the term vestigial, I quote it below:
"Vestigial (of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution."

Oops. Darwin's disciples get it wrong again. It hardly seems fair to call them scientists.

I'm not sure what your issue is?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Repeating a falsehood won't make it true. Further, there many Christians on CF who accept evolution and saying they are not Christians, but instead "evolutionismists" is a violation of forum rules.

I don't recall claiming anyone is or is not a Christian. But I am pretty certain creation scientists take the brunt of attacks on their faith by evolutionists on this board, and not vice versa.

In any case, I will defer to Phillip E. Johnson of the Discovery Institute regarding public statements by evolutionist Michael Ruse:

"I [Phillip E. Johnson] had the honor to be the subject of a program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Boston in February of 1993. Michael Ruse gave a lecture on me which was intended to be, from its abstract, an exercise in what we might call Johnson bashing. But what he did was really very surprising. [Michael Ruse], in fact, confessed that I was right on the main issue. The main issue is that, what they call evolution, that is, naturalistic evolution, metaphysical naturalism, is founded on a highly debatable and controversial philosophical programs, and that it's been used as a religion by evolutionists from the beginning. Ruse cited T. H Huxley and his grandson Julian Huxley, as well as other figures. We're saying that what they're really doing is using this as a cultural Platform, as a religion in all but name. It functions as a religion for them. Now then he said, of course we should acknowledge this among ourselves as academics because we're sophisticated-- we want to talk about the truth. But [claimed Ruse] we would not admit this to a school board, nor would we admit it in court.

I've been observing this for years. The sophisticated people in the universities know that this is founded on philosophy. But because it's their philosophy, they think that's fine; and because they have contempt for the public, they think that it's alright to mislead the public through propaganda because the public doesn't really deserve to know the truth. After all, they're not intellectuals like we are, so we can say anything we want to them. That is a widespread attitude, and I give Michael ruse credit for admitting it in public." [Johnson, Phillip, The Deception of Evoutionism, "Phillip E. Johnson on Darwinism." ID Quest, 2007]​

Transcript: Speech by Professor Michael Ruse, The New Antievolutionism: 1993 AAAS Symposium. Origins Research 15:1. Ruse, Michael​

No matter about withholding from the courts the truth of evolution being a religion. Evolutionists can always find a corrupt, attention-hungry judge (for example, one whose previous claim-to-fame was being the head of the state liquor control board) to take on a high-level case against creationists.

Rodhocetus wasn't a hoax, peppered moths weren't a hoax, four-winged or any other mutationally deformed fruit fly wan't a hoax and Haeckel's drawings would be fraudulent, not a hoax although Professor Robert Richards makes an excellent case that they aren't as fraudulent as claimed.

Richards' vain attempt to resurrect the credibility of Haeckel is beyond disreputable. The others?

• Rodhocetus is a hoax. Gingerich admitted on camera that he imagined the flippers and fluked tail. I realize he may be attempting to resurrect it (like Richards with Haeckel), but those in the know will never trust him again.
• The Peppered Moth experiments represent the simplest of microevolution. The Hoax is the misrepresentation (over-representation) that the experiment proves evolution, which it does not. The same for the crippled 4-wing fruit fly.

Appealing to conspiracy theory is a favored Creationist tactic. There's zero evidence for it, but I guess it helps them to sleep at night.

Where is the conspiracy? It is a fact that evolutionists have a cronyistic relationship with government that prevents other theories from being recognized or funded. Are you denying that?

Heh. I'm not going to waste and hour listening to a malarkey merchant taking advantage of the ignorance of his audience. Let's take a few snapshots though...

Ignorance is bliss, I have heard.

Two minutes - There are several Ediacaran fossils that are thought to be animals so his firm statement that there are no animals is wrong.

Thought to be? By whom?

Ten minutes - Long winded attempt to make it seem that rapid burial is the only way for fossils to form. We know they form in anaerobic environments and in environments that were dry like eolian deposits.

Dr. Wise presents the argument that fossilization occurs ONLY in anaerobic environments; so I am not sure what your point is. Baloney on the "eolian" fossils.

Twenty minutes - Variation on habitation zone PRATT where animals are running away from the Flood. I guess that explains why speedy sloths are found higher up than slow velociraptors and sprinting oak trees outdistanced lumbering dimetradons.

Either that or they lived in higher altitudes than, say, the dinos, and were covered by subsequent flood sediments.

Twenty-seven minutes - Stasis in the fossil record?

That actually begins at the 29:09 mark. Stasis in the fossil record is obvious. Kurt Wise was a student of the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard, who coined the term; so I feel certain Dr. Wise understands it better than most.

Forty minutes - Floating Forest "Theory"?

How do you explain coal seams with flat tops and bottoms? How do you explain the presence of short mud layers (benches) between the seams?

For the record, Dr. Steven Austin received his PhD from Penn State by defending his dissertation on coal formation based on a theory similar to the floating forest theory.

One hour - C-14 in coal. Oh brother. I'm glad didn't watch that PRATT fall in it's entirety.

Carbon 14 dating of coal, alone, confirms the "300 million of years ago" date by evolutionist is silly. Additionally, the fact that coal seams are typically flat rules out any notion of a swamp origin.

Dan

 

[Aman777]

Creationists are seemingly programmed to deny the very existence of vestigial structures, and engage in all manner of intellectual gymnastics to prop up their case. They will do this even to the point of embarrassing themselves in their zeal to deny that, darn it, the coccyx is vestigial.

False, since Humans were not made first of flesh, but instead, of fire. We became flesh after Adam sinned. We became identical to the sons of God (prehistoric people) who descended from the common ancestor of Apes. They had a coccyx. We will regain our image as our maker, at the Rapture without a coccyx. Amen?

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Cool! A Google search, copy and paste. Shame you didn't actually read any of them.

I read them. Is there something in particular you think I missed?

>> THIS IS A DIRECTORY PAGE. Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic. <<

The title is "Evolutionism".

Modern use by creationists[edit] In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to evolutionary biology, since the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic.

​

However, the term has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy.[7] For example, the Institute for Creation Research, in order to imply placement of evolution in the category of 'religions', including atheism, fascism, humanism and occultism, commonly uses the words evolutionism and evolutionist to describe the consensus of mainstream science and the scientists subscribing to it, thus implying through language that the issue is a matter of religious belief. <<

​

Did you not even notice this was an evangelical blog?

>> Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion” (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history. Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as paramount in each of our personal life journeys. <<

I am still not certain what your point is, other than you do not like the term "evolutionism". Get used to it. It is a common term among creation scientists. Dr. David Mention has a good article on the term:

Evolutionism—Is There Such a Word?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I guess snark doesn't convey through the written word as well as in film. I was expressing "shock" at your unwillingness to address the content of the linked essay just as Renault was shocked- shocked- to find that gambling is going on in here! in Casablanca. Having cleared that up, no matter how many genetic fallacies are tossed at it, anyone who mistakenly references scientific proof or claims that science proves things will see that article again.

The term "snark" seems to be reserved for those who oppose your world view. But rather than dribble on, I will defer again, this time to Dr. David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute:

"Edward Wilson published Sociobiology and Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene during the 1970s. Since then, evolutionary psychology has become a contemporary darling. The story that it advances is one that takes place entirely within the human species. No apes need apply, for none are wanted. The essentials are simple and they have the simple-minded structure of a fairy tale—indeed, the philosopher David Stove entitled his attack on evolutionary psychology Darwinian Fairy-tales. The significant features of human psychology first arose during the late Paleolithic era—the so-called Era of Evolutionary Adaptation. For reasons that no one has properly specified, it was then that human beings devised their responsive strategies to the contingencies of life—getting food, getting by, and getting laid. These strategies have persisted to the present day. They are at the core of the modern human personality. We are what we were. There followed the long Era in Which Nothing Happened, the modern human mind retaining in its structure and programs the mark of the time that human beings spent in the savannah or on the forest floor, hunting, gathering, and reproducing with Darwinian gusto... The largest story told by evolutionary psychology is therefore anecdotal. It has no scientific value. We might as well be honest with one another. It has no value whatsoever." [David Berlinski, "The Devils Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions." Basic Books, 2009] ​

There is no correlation though. "Races" in Origin didn't refer to human races but to subspecies, breeds or varieties. It's not even tortured logic to try and connect that word in the title with racism. It's simply asinine to try and do so.

And as far as "overuse" of negro (by the way, what word should he have used?) I did a little fact checking.

This claim is false. The word negro is used 36 times. European is used 34 times. Indian 24. Fuegian 12. Aborigine 10. Hindoo 8. Where is the supposed "overuse"?

My 1888 edition of Descent of Man, 2nd edition, revised and augmented, contains 112 uses of the word "negro" or "negroes". In all fairness, only once did Darwin use the word "negro race":

"This is manifestly the case with the Australian, Mongolian, and Negro races of man; in a less well-marked manner with the Hottentots; but plainly with the Papuans and Malays, who are separated, as Mr. Wallace has shewn, by nearly the same line which divides the great Malayan and Australian zoological provinces." [Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap VII, p.169] ​

Dan

 

[Speedwell]

I read them. Is there something in particular you think I missed?



The title is "Evolutionism".



I am still not certain what your point is, other than you do not like the term "evolutionism". Get used to it. It is a common term among creation scientists. Dr. David Mention has a good article on the term:

Evolutionism—Is There Such a Word?

Dan

The problem lies with the sneering way the term is generally used, as in the phrase, "Evolutionists believe..." where you can pretty much bet the ranch that what follows will be a fib.

 

[PsychoSarah]

False, since Humans were not made first of flesh, but instead, of fire. We became flesh after Adam sinned. We became identical to the sons of God (prehistoric people) who descended from the common ancestor of Apes. They had a coccyx. We will regain our image as our maker, at the Rapture without a coccyx. Amen?

-_- pretty sure that the bible explicitly states that the first human was made from dust, and that the second was made from the rib of the first human.

 

[Aman777]

-_- pretty sure that the bible explicitly states that the first human was made from dust, and that the second was made from the rib of the first human.

Amen, but they were not made of flesh since they were made in the likeness of YHWH/Jesus. Here is His appearance in 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. Eze 1:28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of One that spake.

After His resurrection, Jesus blinded Saul on the road to Damascus with His glory/brightness Act 22:6 at noon. At the Rapture, Christians will know Jesus because we will be like Him.

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 shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.

Jesus is the Light of the first Day. Gen 1:3

 

[PsychoSarah]

Amen, but they were not made of flesh since they were made in the likeness of YHWH/Jesus. Here is His appearance in 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. Eze 1:28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of One that spake.

After His resurrection, Jesus blinded Saul on the road to Damascus with His glory/brightness Act 22:6 at noon. At the Rapture, Christians will know Jesus because we will be like Him.

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 shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.

Jesus is the Light of the first Day. Gen 1:3

-_- that implies that you think that Adam and Eve started out as just their souls. I'm pretty sure this is what people interpret souls/denizens of heaven to look like.

To which I have to question why a soul would have to eat from the tree of life to continue onward if souls are inherently eternal? Furthermore, the fiery appearance doesn't mean they are literally made of fire.

 

[Brightmoon]

Of course creationists take the brunt of the criticisms- mainly because they’re usually incompetently wrong . Not mistaken like Gingerich was due to lack of evidence . he said that whales might be descended from mesonychids and they’re actually only close cousins . The fossils clearing that up lineage weren’t available and Gingerich made a reasonable guess.

 

[Brightmoon]

[QUOTE="Bible Research Tools, post: 72793972, member: 409605" I don't recall claiming anyone is or is not a Christian. But I am pretty certain creation scientists take the brunt of attacks on their faith by evolutionists on this board, and not vice versa.

Creationist pseudoscience practioners ( I’m not calling them scientists) deserved the so called attacks as they are dead wrong to lie the way they do

"I [Phillip E. Johnson] had the honor to be the subject of a program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Boston in February of 1993. Michael Ruse gave a lecture on me which was intended to be, from its abstract, an exercise in what we might call Johnson bashing.

Well deserved too as Johnson is a lawyer and has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn’t understand science

​

Where is the conspiracy? It is a fact that evolutionists have a cronyistic relationship with government that prevents other theories from being recognized or funded. Are you denying that?

Yes!


Ignorance is bliss, I have heard. Only accurate thing you’ve ever stated. .







Dr. Wise presents the argument that fossilization occurs ONLY in anaerobic environments; so I am not sure what your point is. Baloney on the "eolian" fossils.

aeolian deposits are formed by wind like sand dunes. baloney on your pseudoscience based ignorance

Either that or they lived in higher altitudes than, say, the dinos, and were covered by subsequent flood sediments.

yep, pines run faster than ferns

That actually begins at the 29:09 mark. Stasis in the fossil record is obvious. Kurt Wise was a student of the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard, who coined the term; so I feel certain Dr. Wise understands it better than most.

Wise deliberately ignores evidence and real scientists don’t. Punk eek is due to rapid speciation followed by relative stasis . If you want to see this in real life- Timema cristinae evolving to eat another plant species . These timemids are background mimics.

How do you explain coal seams with flat tops and bottoms? How do you explain the presence of short mud layers (benches) between the seams?

Are you serious!?!?! Unbelievable!!!!!

For the record, Dr. Steven Austin received his PhD from Penn State by defending his dissertation on coal formation based on a theory similar to the floating forest theory.

Austin is either an incompetent or a liar. Take your pick.

Carbon 14 dating of coal, alone, confirms the "300 million of years ago" date by evolutionist is silly. Additionally, the fact that coal seams are typically flat rules out any notion of a swamp origin.

C14 dating is only good for 50,000 years . I find it odd that you don’t know that . No layer over 50,000 years is able to be dated by C14. You’d rather keep repeating pseudoscience nonsense, though, wouldn’t you?

 

[Aman777]

To which I have to question why a soul would have to eat from the tree of life to continue onward if souls are inherently eternal? Furthermore, the fiery appearance doesn't mean they are literally made of fire.

Scripture doesn't say that Adam had to eat from the Tree of Life to continue. It says:

Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) said, Behold, the man (Heb-Adam) is become as one of Us, (The Trinity) to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Adam had sinned and lost his image like Jesus. Mankind would have been lost FOREVER if Adam had eaten of the tree of life. The words Adam and mankind are the same and also apply today since we live today at Genesis 1:27 because God the Trinity is STILL creating Adam/mankind in His Image or in Christ Spiritually. The present Day/Age of Salvation continues. Jesus confirms this:

2Co 6:2 (For He saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured (helped) thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

 

[Aman777]

Furthermore, the fiery appearance doesn't mean they are literally made of fire.

Dan 3:24 ¶ Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
Dan 3:25 ¶ He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Dan 3:26 ¶ Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.

Jesus IS the Light of the first Day. Eze 8:1 ¶ And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me. Eze 8:2 Then I beheld, and lo a likeness as the appearance of fire: from the appearance of His loins even downward, fire; and from His loins even upward, as the appearance of brightness, as the colour of amber.

Jesus is also the literal Light of Heaven. Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

 

[tas8831]

Have you ever read this by Dr. David N. Mention (PhD Biology, Brown University)?

Ah, another great reliable creationist source. He was caught lying - and I do mean lying - about Tiktaalik fossils. And expressing some pretty serious ignorance of anatomy - which is odd since he teaches anatomy.

 

[tas8831]

So I must have missed it - did ANY creationists actually deal with the facts presented in the OP?

 

[tas8831]

From your link - "Patients with this deformity lack motor function at the affected vertebral level and sensory functions below the affected level." Doesn't sound vestigial at all to me. The key words that gave it away were "deformity", lacking "motor function", and "sensory functions". Just in case you don't understand the term vestigial, I quote it below:
"Vestigial (of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution."

Oops. Darwin's disciples get it wrong again. It hardly seems fair to call them scientists.

The sentence RIGHT BEFORE what you quoted:

"Sacral [or lumbosacral agenesis in severe cases where lumbar spine is also involved] characterized by absence of the variable portion of the portion of the spine. It is a very rare deformity."

Oops. Looks like the devotees of biblical apologetics get it wrong again. They should stop with their silly keyword searches in which they do not bother to read the context. It makes them look... Ignorant.
Had this creationist read beyond the quote, they would have seen that there are many types of this issue, and as one can see in the relevant quote I provided:

"The clinical appearance of sacral agenesis patient ranges from one of severe deformities of the pelvis and lower extremities to no deformity at all.

Patients with with partial sacral or coccygeal agenesis may have no symptoms."

But that doesn't fit the narrative, so...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Where is the conspiracy? It is a fact that evolutionists have a cronyistic relationship with government that prevents other theories from being recognized or funded. Are you denying that?

That flat out sounds exactly like a conspiracy.

 

[pitabread]

Where is the conspiracy? It is a fact that evolutionists have a cronyistic relationship with government that prevents other theories from being recognized or funded. Are you denying that?

You do realize that the theory of biological evolution isn't strictly an American thing? You do know there are other countries in the world, yes?

So are you really suggesting a global conspiracy involving various governments from around the world for the past 150+ years?

 

[pitabread]

That flat out sounds exactly like a conspiracy.

It's either a deliberate conspiracy or gross incompetence. Those are the only real options creationists have to explain why the world's biologists accept evolution without giving credence to the other, more obvious reason.

 

[Speedwell]

That flat out sounds exactly like a conspiracy.

I'd like to know what other theories he has in mind. Biblical creationism has been off the table for 200 years.