How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?

Metal Minister said:

Not saying it shouldn't, but at times it almost appears that the evidence is forced to fit a preconceived notion, rather than taken at face value...

Click to expand...

If that's ever done, it's not science.

Science fits the theories to the facts. it does not fit the facts into the theories.

Tiberius said:

If that's ever done, it's not science.

Science fits the theories to the facts. it does not fit the facts into the theories.

Click to expand...

That's what I believe as well, but then I stumbled across things like the Jehol Group in China, and the subsequent problems it created, and things were quickly rearranged to fit a preconceived framework. Including a couple of faked fossils, and the arbitrary change of dating for the group that didn't quite mesh with the radiometric findings...when I see so many things faked, or misrepresented,(not just in this instance) it makes it hard to tell the good from the bad. I know there's no overt conspiracy, and if we found 100% undeniable proof of deep time tomorrow, it wouldn't change my faith (perhaps the way I read my bible), but its hard to accept the credibility of mainstream science when people are willing to accept frauds at face value, and only after touting their "proof" through every peer reviewed journal they can find, will they accept that they've been had, and will quietly remove the hoax. (The fairly recent fake fossils I believe the smithsonian was brandishing about until they found out a poor farmer had made them literally in his backyard) I guess I'm looking for less vitriol when it comes to science, and more openess. Let all comers look the evidence over without the claims of "you don't know real science" or even " you're being deceived by satan" from the other side. I want science as blind as justice is supposed to be, and yet we seem to have tunnel vision. If it doesn't mesh with our preconceived ideas, its either rejected or forced as a square peg in a round hole. Let's admit that God may have used deep time, and that the fossil record is full of gaping holes at the same time. We've become so blinded by trying to prove the other side wrong that we fail to simply look at the evidence objectively anymore. I'm sorry, I apologize for the rant, and I will withdraw. Good luck, and God bless.

Ah, here we go. I;ve found the source of the pizza analogy I used. it comes from Skaloop:

Skaloop said:

Say I have two chefs who want to cook a meal for me. The first, I tell him to make whatever he feels like. Anything at all. The second, I secretly tell that he must cook me an 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese.

My first meal comes. It is an 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese. Based on the meal presented, which chef do you think prepared that meal, #1 or #2? Chef #1 certainly could have prepared it; he's capable of making a 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese. He's capable of making anything at all! But the fact he's capable of making it doesn't mean he did, and can't really serve as evidence that he did. The fact that chef #2 had to make a 11" thin-crust pizza with tomatoes, hot peppers, mushrooms, onions, and double cheese and that's what I got is strong evidence that he was the chef that prepared the meal. Similarly, all relevant evidence (yes, all) is just what you'd expect if evolution were chef #2.

Click to expand...

Metal Minister said:

For my own education, can you show how it used to support a tail, and didn't always do what it does now?

Click to expand...

There's a great post that discusses the evidence and conclusions we can draw from the structure of the bones (multiple vs. single) and muscles (there are two that move the tail in tailed animals, but are reduced or missing in tailless primates) in this thread. The germane part is the lower part of the OP.

- eta, you can also check out post #12 for a readers digest version.

Metal Minister said:

Not saying it shouldn't, but at times it almost appears that the evidence is forced to fit a preconceived notion, rather than taken at face value...

Click to expand...

If you've read math beyond algebra, into functions like y=x^2 or similar, you can picture how it's useful and possible to fit the theory after the data.

Say you have a coordinate grid where you have two points known to exist:
(0,0) (the origin)
(1,1)

To make some useful predictions you assume that there is a function that can explain those two points, you see that you can have any function (there are more functions as well, but lets stick with these for simplicity) of the form y=x^n, where n is bigger than 0.

You can then exclude (under that assumption) that you won't have to look for points beneath the line of y=x (on the positive side of the y-axis) since all other functions diverges faster than y=x, that would save a whole lot of trouble looking where you had the best chance of finding some more points of interest.

Say you spend some time to find additional points, in the predicted area, and you find some:
(2,8)
(3,27)

You can conclude that there is indeed a function that would fit this in the manner you assumed, y=x^3.

During this, you've constructed a model based on available data, searched for more data and made the model more exact to fit the newly arrived data.

There are an infinite amounts of functions that can explain those points but additional points would exclude more and more functions until there are highly unlikely functions (as in very unnatural looking, example below) and, if you're lucky, a couple of easy functions.

Example:
You have gathered a lot of points (101 in this case);
(0,0)
(1,1)
and so on until
(100,100)

There are still an infinite amount of functions that can explain this but I'll focus on the two main contenders:

Function 1:
y = 0 when x = 0
y = 1 when x = 1
y = 2 when x = 2
and so on, each point defined with nothing in between until
y = 100 when x = 100

Function 2:
y = x


I gather more points, I find 100 more points, in between the 101 I already have:
(0.5 , 0.5)
(1.5 , 1.5)
(2.5 , 2.5)
and so on until
(99.5 , 99.5)

This will result in function 1 either scrapped completely, or modified, and function 2 to still work. I choose to rework function 1:

Function 1:
y = 0 when x = 0
y = 0.5 when x = 0.5
y = 1 when x = 1
y = 1.5 when x = 1.5
y = 2 when x = 2
y = 2.5 when x = 2.5
and so on, each point defined with nothing in between until
y = 99.5 when x = 99.5
y = 100 when x = 100

Function 2:
y = x


We can continue this all day long, eventually you'll end up with something that needs to be reworked every time something new shows up or something that is fairly exact and rarely has surprises for you.
This isn't an exact analogy but I hope I helped some


(If I made some mistake, don't hesitate to mention it)

Loudmouth said:

Should I use creationist arguments about how the laws of physics were ...<snip>

Click to expand...

I'm not going to suggest.

What would you say in court if all the evidence said you were falsely accused of a crime ?

SkyWriting said:

I'm not going to suggest.

What would you say in court if all the evidence said you were falsely accused of a crime ?

Click to expand...

If the evidence said I was falsely accused, I wouldn't say anything. I'd let the evidence speak for itself.

If the evidence itself seemed to accuse me, (which is what I think you mean), that would be a different matter. If I knew I was not guilty, I would seek to find circumstances that would lead to the evidence as presented but which would also exonerate me. For example, I would try to think of when and how my fingerprints got where they were found, etc. There would probably be enough that I didn't know that I would not have pieced together every detail, but if I could show, for example, that the soda can with my fingerprints was five years old, and also included a print from the shopkeeper who sold it to me, and who retired and moved to Florida four years ago, it would go a long way toward showing that I did not leave the print last month, when the crime was supposed to have happened.

OllieFranz said:

If the evidence said I was falsely accused, I wouldn't say anything. I'd let the evidence speak for itself.

If the evidence itself seemed to accuse me, (which is what I think you mean), that would be a different matter. If I knew I was not guilty, I would seek to find circumstances that would lead to the evidence as presented but which would also exonerate me. For example, I would try to think of when and how my fingerprints got where they were found, etc. There would probably be enough that I didn't know that I would not have pieced together every detail, but if I could show, for example, that the soda can with my fingerprints was five years old, and also included a print from the shopkeeper who sold it to me, and who retired and moved to Florida four years ago, it would go a long way toward showing that I did not leave the print last month, when the crime was supposed to have happened.

Click to expand...

Looking back, it's a trick question. You should never speak in court. No one wants to convict a person until they have heard your side of the story. So don't speak in court. It rarely helps your case.

But from what you say, you wouldn't accept all the evidence against you.
And I agree that one should not accept all the evidence in any issue as the final word. One's gut feeling can be part of the final decision.

SkyWriting said:

I'm not going to suggest.

What would you say in court if all the evidence said you were falsely accused of a crime ?

Click to expand...

If you were on a jury, what types of arguments would you seriously consider?

Would you consider an argument where a supernatural deity changed the laws of physics in such a way that it made me look guilty even though I wasn't?

Would you consider an argument where a supernatural deity embedded my guilt into the crime scene when the world was created Last Thursday?

Or would you want naturalistic and materialistic explanations of how that evidence would have come to be there?

Loudmouth said:

If you were on a jury, what types of arguments would you seriously consider?

Would you consider an argument where a supernatural deity ...<snip>

Click to expand...

A jury should indeed hear evidence pertaining to any thought processes by the defendant.
If they believe in any gods and have any religious background, it is likely relevant to the case.

SkyWriting said:

A jury should indeed hear evidence pertaining to any thought processes by the defendant.
If they believe in any gods and have any religious background, it is likely relevant to the case.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could give a more direct answer to these questions?

Would you consider an argument where a supernatural deity changed the laws of physics in such a way that it made me look guilty even though I wasn't?

Would you consider an argument where a supernatural deity embedded my guilt into the crime scene when the world was created Last Thursday?

Or would you want naturalistic and materialistic explanations of how that evidence would have come to be there?

SkyWriting said:

If they believe in any gods and have any religious background, it is likely relevant to the case.

Click to expand...

How so?

ok Skaloop, you gotta give in on this one...

Are cave fish who dont have eyes proof od evolution?

renewed21 said:

ok Skaloop, you gotta give in on this one...

Are cave fish who dont have eyes proof od evolution?

Click to expand...

Proof, no. Evidence, yes.

Skaloop said:

Proof, no. Evidence, yes.

Click to expand...

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! I give up *wants to bust guitar over Skaloop's head El Cabong style

renewed21 said:

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! I give up *wants to bust guitar over Skaloop's head El Cabong style

Click to expand...

Why? I answered honestly and accurately. What's the problem?

Agreed. Skaloop's answer was a very good one.

True, perhaps a god did make cave fish with no eyes. But one would have to ask, "Why, of all the billions of possible ways to make blind cave fish, did this God choose to use the one method which evolution would have produced?"

And yet, when we look at blind cave fish, they bear the traits that we'd expect them to bear if they are indeed the products of evolution.

It's like Santa Claus.

The kid goes to sleep on Christmas Eve, and when he wakes up, lo and behold! - there's presents under the tree where there were none last night! And funnily enough, even though the tags all say "From Santa", the handwriting is the same as mum's. Sure, it's possible that Santa really does come and put the presents out, and his writing looks the same as mum's but isn't it far more likely that it was mum who did and just forged Santa's name?

I clearly explained this using the analogy of a chef making pizza in post 374 (which was a paraphrasing of Skaloop's own explanation using the same analogy, which I quoted in post 383).

Tiberius said:

The muscles that make our hair stand on end? And this is the best support you can show for a current use?

Click to expand...

They allow your skin to remain soft and supple thanks to the oil glands they attach to.
Some might like dry skin that cracks or flakes off? I dunno.

renewed21 said:

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! I give up *wants to bust guitar over Skaloop's head El Cabong style

Click to expand...

There are no absolute proofs in science, only evidence (that can be overwhelming).

Loudmouth said:

Would you consider an argument where a supernatural deity changed the laws of physics

Click to expand...

Would you consider Satan to be supernatural? Because God does NOT violate or change his own laws. HE only restores them.[FONT=arial,sans-serif] Till heaven and earth pass,[/FONT] not one jot, or[FONT=arial, sans-serif] one [/FONT]tittle[FONT=arial, sans-serif] shall [/FONT]pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.