How do creationists explain vestigial organs?

I've never really understood this one.

I put this in the general discussion board, and not the religion sub-board, because I want creationists to answer the question with some semblance of scientific integrity. The usual response "because we are sinners so everything is imperfect!" bends occam's razor over and violates it with a knife.

How do you explain blind animals that still have eyes? Or whales' having legs? Or flightless birds with wings?

And is it just a grand coincidence that these vestigial adaptations just happen to have had a legitimate use in the specimen's [alleged in evolutionary theory] ancestors? Is it just a coincidence that the vestigial organs seem to fade throughout the [alleged by evolutionary theory] species' evolution?

What intelligent creator would create water animals...that drown? doh

they don't believe in vestigial organs; man can't comprehend God's design

the answer wont satisfy your scientific curiosity, but it isn't supposed to /shrug

Originally posted by Oliver North
they don't believe in vestigial organs; man can't comprehend God's design

the answer wont satisfy your scientific curiosity, but it isn't supposed to /shrug

Interesting; I could use precisely the same response to "prove" that the universe was created by my Kleenex box.

congrads?

...I'm making a point to those that use such arguments, not you.

and what point is that? religion isn't science?

Originally posted by Oliver North
and what point is that? religion isn't science?

In case if you were entirely ignorant about the controversy, there are entire organizations dedicated to giving creationism scientific credence. Organizations that I obviously do not agree with.

sure, and putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a supermodel?

there are probably a dozen threads about this topic on the forum already, short of the technically accurate answer I already gave you, what is the point of this thread?

Originally posted by Oliver North
sure, and putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make it a supermodel?

there are probably a dozen threads about this topic on the forum already, short of the technically accurate answer I already gave you, what is the point of this thread?

Because your answering for other people does not equate to their answering for themselves? Because perhaps I want to see if anyone who genuinely believes in creationism can come up with an explanation? 😕

an explanation for something they, tautologically, don't think exist?

Originally posted by Oliver North
an explanation for something they, tautologically, don't think exist?

They may have a different explanation for their existence and call them by a different name, but they can't deny that the actual organs exist physically, or that they are useless.

I still can't fathom what your point is...

They don't think they are vestigial, they think God did it, they don't think they, or anyone for that matter, has the knowledge necessary to judge God's creations.

Like, if that doesn't satisfy the question you are asking, its sort of clear you are really just trolling creationists to try and mock them for not being able to justify their beliefs according to your standards.

No, it's clear that you don't understand that there exists a significant sub-section of creationists that wish to have it recognized as a legitimate science, and that wield significant influence in both our public school boards and political systems.

You seem to think I'm attacking a strawman, based more on your lack of understanding of the context than anything else.

so, the thread has nothing to do with vestigial organs, but rather, is a complaint about undue influence of religion on education?

might have clarified that in your OP. sorry for actually answering the question you posed ffs.

...that has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard all week.

It's so retarded, I don't even know how to explain it to someone who's obviously not very skilled in the [not-so] rare art of reading comprehension.

I was not directly criticizing whatever-school-board-influence in my OP, nor did I suggest otherwise in the post you were responding to. I was addressing your specific claim that my opponents do not pretend to classify creationism as a science and that my thread does nothing on the basis that they'd just explain it away as "god did it". I pointed out that these creationists:

1. Want to make their "science" legitimate
2. Wield significant power (to demonstrate that I'm not attacking an obscure group of fanatics)

----------

Using your ridiculous set of logic, if I make a thread asking fiscal conservatives to prove that the "trickle down economics" system has basis in statistical data, and respond to an accusation that I'm attacking a strawman by pointing out that precisely that economic theory has been used in the past and has been used to justify lower the tax rate for rich people, you would respond by accusing me of having a "hidden agenda", because your brain would not process that I was simply establishing that the people I am addressing exist.

You guys are in agreement about creationism, it seems. Perhaps some less divisive language will help rectify this spat.

Defying creationists to explain aspects of their model is somewhat fruitless. It doesn't make sense and in all likelihood never will, but there's money, influence, and faith pushing its adherence.

The better question is how does one combat it in society? I'm less interested in convincing a creationist, or in hearing their explanations (which I've heard numerous times, including the bogus attacks on evolution), than I am in lessening creationism's influence on our populace.

Originally posted by Master Han
I was addressing your specific claim that my opponents do not pretend to classify creationism as a science and that my thread does nothing on the basis that they'd just explain it away as "god did it".

I made neither of those points. I have no doubt creationists want to call what they believe a science, but you can also put lipstick on a pig and call it a supermodel. The thread does nothing because there are literally dozens of such threads on the site already and your argument is neither new nor insightful.

the insults are cute though. sorry the thread didn't go the way you wanted.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I made neither of those points. I have no doubt creationists want to call what they believe a science, but you can also put lipstick on a pig and call it a supermodel. The thread does nothing because there are literally dozens of such threads on the site already and your argument is neither new nor insightful.

the insults are cute though. sorry the thread didn't go the way you wanted.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I still can't fathom what your point is...

They don't think they are vestigial, they think God did it, they don't think they, or anyone for that matter, has the knowledge necessary to judge God's creations.

Like, if that doesn't satisfy the question you are asking, its sort of clear you are really just trolling creationists to try and mock them for not being able to justify their beliefs according to your standards.

Originally posted by Oliver North
and what point is that? religion isn't science?

All of the red involves your arguing that my thread is pointless on the grounds that "my standards" are different from theirs, even though their entire purpose is to substantiate their belief on my standards (ie., Science...).

Originally posted by Digi
You guys are in agreement about creationism, it seems. Perhaps some less divisive language will help rectify this spat.

Defying creationists to explain aspects of their model is somewhat fruitless. It doesn't make sense and in all likelihood never will, but there's money, influence, and faith pushing its adherence.

The better question is how does one combat it in society? I'm less interested in convincing a creationist, or in hearing their explanations (which I've heard numerous times, including the bogus attacks on evolution), than I am in lessening creationism's influence on our populace.

TBH, I'm not exactly concerned about changing society with this thread...

That being said, one of the issues our side has is that we simply aren't as politically organized to stop the rhetoric-spewing opposition, and, to sound elitist, most people aren't properly educated about Evolutionary Theory, and often times believe in outright falsities ("evolution is just a theory!"😉.

That being said, we are winning, gradually, so I'm optimistic about the future.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/setting-record-straight-vestigial

So the answer to "How do creationists explain vestigial organs?" would be "Not you your satisfaction."

Originally posted by Master Han
All of the red involves your arguing that my thread is pointless on the grounds that "my standards" are different from theirs, even though their entire purpose is to substantiate their belief on [b]my standards (ie., Science...). [/B]

actually, the red text indicates my direct answer to the question you asked in the OP and title of this thread

again, sorry for the confusion, how could I have possibly thought that was the topic of the thread