How do Creationists explain vestigal organs?

[SkyWriting]

Oh, they're real. None of them are identical, though. They are superficially similar. But you realize that what you just presented is evidence for evolution, right?

No. I'm a dope.

 

[Loudmouth]

Suppose you were on trial and the evidence was all set against you.

Should I use creationist arguments about how the laws of physics were different in the past so the evidence should be thrown out? Or should I argue that all of the DNA evidence should be thrown out since shared DNA is caused by common creator, not a common ancestor. Perhaps I should argue that I was told by a deity that I am innocent, therefore all of the evidence should be ignored.

You have no evidence that your results in hand will be there next time.

Yeah, I do. For example, ERV's are found at the same spot in both the genomes of humans and chimps. Everytime that PCR is done on these regions it amplifies the same sequence. The evidence is the same every time. Anyone with the equipment and know how can see for themselves if these ERV's are found at the same position in each genome.

I also find it funny how theists use faith as a term of derision. The one concept that forms the basis of their entire religion is used to try and insult others.

 

[renewed21]

Do flightless birds prove evolution?

 

[Skaloop]

Do flightless birds prove evolution?

No.

 

[renewed21]

do the fact that all biofunctional amino acids are levorotary prove evolution?

 

[Skaloop]

do the fact that all biofunctional amino acids are levorotary prove evolution?

No.

 

[renewed21]

wow you're a tough one skaloop

 

[renewed21]

does the fact that the complexity of lifeforms increase with geologic time evidence prove evolution?

 

[Skaloop]

does the fact that the complexity of lifeforms increase with geologic time evidence prove evolution?

No.

 

[renewed21]

No.

LOL, ok you win

 

[Tiberius]

Do flightless birds prove evolution?

do the fact that all biofunctional amino acids are levorotary prove evolution?

does the fact that the complexity of lifeforms increase with geologic time evidence prove evolution?

As Skaloop said, the answer is no.

But they are all explainable by evolution.

 

[renewed21]

As Skaloop said, the answer is no.

But they are all explainable by evolution.

Shall we always remain is the realm of theory then?

 

[Metal Minister]

As Skaloop said, the answer is no.

But they are all explainable by evolution.

Wait, just for my own clarification, these aren't proof for evolution, but evolution is their explanation? I'm a little confused...

 

[Tiberius]

Wait, just for my own clarification, these aren't proof for evolution, but evolution is their explanation? I'm a little confused...

Well, all those things could also be explained by a God, so evolution isn't the only explanation. So those things can't be used as proof of evolution, because evolution isn't the only thing that could be responsible. It would be like saying, "Either Bill or Joe took the chocolate. That proves that Bill did it!"

But what we see in reality with those things matches up precisely with what must have happened if evolution is the explanation. However, if God is the explanation, then it's a huge coincidence that what we see matches up with something that isn't the truth.

A user here on CF recently used the analogy of a person going to a restaurant. I go into a restaurant and two chefs approach me and ask what I want to eat.

To the first chef, I say, "I don't care, make me anything at all and I'll eat it."

To the second chef, I say, "Make me a pizza with three different kinds of cheese all over, ham and pineapple on one side, mushrooms and pepperoni on the other side, but no olives at all."

A little while later, the waiter brings out a plate, and on it is a pizza with three different kinds of cheese all over, ham and pineapple on one side, mushrooms and pepperoni on the other side, but no olives at all. Do I conclude that the first chef or the second chef made this dish?

Now, the existence of this exact pizza doesn't prove that the second chef made it. After all, there's nothing that stopped the first chef from making it. But the chances that the first chef made this pizza exactly the way i ordered it to the second chef, even though the first chef didn't hear that order... Well, it's a big coincidence, isn't it? After all, the first chef could have made me ANYTHING. An elephant ear roll. Calamarai in tobasco sauce. A PB&J sandwich. Sushi. An apple strudel. A steak, cooked medium rare, with a pepper sauce, and a side of salad garnished with a rose. Out of literally billions of choices, the first chef COULD have made the exact pizza I ordered. But the chances of that happening are incredibly small.

On the other hand, the second chef was guaranteed to make it. I knew that I'd get such a pizza from him. The chances of it were 100%.

So while I can't say that the existence of the pizza is proof that the second chef made it, I can say that the second chef making this pizza explains everything about it. I can explain why I have half ham and pineapple and half mushrooms and pepperoni, with three kinds of cheese all over and no olives by saying that the second chef was simply carrying out my orders. I cannot do this for the first chef except by invoking a huge amount of luck and coincidence.

In other words, we conclude that the second chef made the pizza because it best fits the evidence we have.

Likewise, if we say that the existence of flightless birds and the other things is explained by God, it requires us to invoke a similarly huge amount of luck and coincidence to explain why the results we see so perfectly match what evolution predicts.

However, if we say it is explained by evolution, we do not need to invoke such coincidence.

Evolution can tell us exactly how those things came about in that particular why. God cannot tell us why those things came about in that way as opposed to any other way.

 

[Tiberius]

Shall we always remain is the realm of theory then?

Science can't prove something to be true.

Evolution is not proven to be 100% true. After all, somebody could find a fossil rabbit in billion year old rock tomorrow. Evolution says that it is impossible, but if someone finds it, then it would show that evolution can't be correct. (But I doubt that such a discovery will ever be made.)

but then again, gravity isn't proven either. Somebody could toss something up in the air and it stays there without falling. It only needs to happen once to show that gravity is wrong.

So science can easily prove something is wrong. It's impossible for science to prove that something is true.

 

[Metal Minister]

Well, all those things could also be explained by a God, so evolution isn't the only explanation. So those things can't be used as proof of evolution, because evolution isn't the only thing that could be responsible. It would be like saying, "Either Bill or Joe took the chocolate. That proves that Bill did it!"

But what we see in reality with those things matches up precisely with what must have happened if evolution is the explanation. However, if God is the explanation, then it's a huge coincidence that what we see matches up with something that isn't the truth.

A user here on CF recently used the analogy of a person going to a restaurant. I go into a restaurant and two chefs approach me and ask what I want to eat.

To the first chef, I say, "I don't care, make me anything at all and I'll eat it."

To the second chef, I say, "Make me a pizza with three different kinds of cheese all over, ham and pineapple on one side, mushrooms and pepperoni on the other side, but no olives at all."

A little while later, the waiter brings out a plate, and on it is a pizza with three different kinds of cheese all over, ham and pineapple on one side, mushrooms and pepperoni on the other side, but no olives at all. Do I conclude that the first chef or the second chef made this dish?

Now, the existence of this exact pizza doesn't prove that the second chef made it. After all, there's nothing that stopped the first chef from making it. But the chances that the first chef made this pizza exactly the way i ordered it to the second chef, even though the first chef didn't hear that order... Well, it's a big coincidence, isn't it? After all, the first chef could have made me ANYTHING. An elephant ear roll. Calamarai in tobasco sauce. A PB&J sandwich. Sushi. An apple strudel. A steak, cooked medium rare, with a pepper sauce, and a side of salad garnished with a rose. Out of literally billions of choices, the first chef COULD have made the exact pizza I ordered. But the chances of that happening are incredibly small.

On the other hand, the second chef was guaranteed to make it. I knew that I'd get such a pizza from him. The chances of it were 100%.

So while I can't say that the existence of the pizza is proof that the second chef made it, I can say that the second chef making this pizza explains everything about it. I can explain why I have half ham and pineapple and half mushrooms and pepperoni, with three kinds of cheese all over and no olives by saying that the second chef was simply carrying out my orders. I cannot do this for the first chef except by invoking a huge amount of luck and coincidence.

In other words, we conclude that the second chef made the pizza because it best fits the evidence we have.

Likewise, if we say that the existence of flightless birds and the other things is explained by God, it requires us to invoke a similarly huge amount of luck and coincidence to explain why the results we see so perfectly match what evolution predicts.

However, if we say it is explained by evolution, we do not need to invoke such coincidence.

Evolution can tell us exactly how those things came about in that particular why. God cannot tell us why those things came about in that way as opposed to any other way.

Ok, I understand the analogy (don't really agree with it but that's beside the point) but I've noticed that evolution, because its a theory, can at times change (starting with lamarkism, then darwinism, etc) and seems to "update" so often that it can encompass pretty much anything when necessary. I could be wrong, but from a layman's standpoint, that's how it appears...

 

[Tiberius]

It might be interesting to take the analogy to its own thread...

 

[Metal Minister]

It might be interesting to take the analogy to its own thread...

That might be a good idea, but doesn't really help my confusion...

 

[Tiberius]

That might be a good idea, but doesn't really help my confusion...

Evolution is updated with new evidence. If the evidence that is discovered shows that evolution is wrong, it will be thrown out. But why shouldn't it be fine-tuned as new evidence is gathered?

 

[Metal Minister]

Evolution is updated with new evidence. If the evidence that is discovered shows that evolution is wrong, it will be thrown out. But why shouldn't it be fine-tuned as new evidence is gathered?

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...