Albert Einstein: Up Close and Personal!

[Hollie]

Scientific discovery requires order. No scientist of any particular discipline does any serious research in a chaotic manner. Do you see how ridiculous you sound when you postulate otherwise?

Claiming to discredit Behe and actually discrediting him are two different things. You should take the time to learn the difference. It might help you look less silly in the future.

You miserably fail to answer the underlying question(s):

Why did an evolving organism find it necessary to "evolve" a "pigment cell without a nerve?" Why did future generations of this organism retain a "pigment cell without a nerve" if it served ZERO purpose? Why did it then "evolve" a "pigment cell was a small depression" when THAT served ZERO purpose? Why, then, did it continue evolving this purposeless "depression" over the next million or billion years? No reason whatsoever. To believe such nonsense requires a certain level of insanity.

I see the problem you're faced with. You view the religion you were given as under attack on two levels.

1. Biological evolution over time scales of millions of years us a direct contradiction to your young/flat earth biblical literalism.

2. How is it possible that such incompetent gods could "design" a "pigment cell was a small depression" when THAT served ZERO purpose?

Here again we see the results and dangers of religious extremism. Had you ever studied biology and biological evolution, you would know that nature is imperfect and that evolution displays starts, stops and even utter dead ends.

Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"?

hahaha. Total sidestep. Can't answer the question? Just say so. Once again ... why would an organism "evolve" a useless lump of tissue and hang on to it for vast periods of time for no particular reason? Did the young organism think that someday it would like to see? Was it planning for the future of its posterity?

You have NO logical answer. PERIOD!! You MUST believe your insane hypothesis on pure faith coupled with some secular fantasy.

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

Claim CB361.1:

Even if a vestigial organ has no use today, we can be sure it had a function in the past. God does not make junk, but things deteriorated after sin entered the world. Calling an organ useless reflects evolutionary thinking.
Source:

Morris, John D. 2005. Does the gallbladder have a necessary function? Back to Genesis 194d (Feb.).
Response:

This claim is dogmatic assertion. It is based purely on personal religious belief; it cannot be tested against evidence. It is scientifically useless.

The idea that death and decay entered the world only after the original creation implies that many presently functional organs were originally useless. For example, defenses would have had no function when there were no threats to defend against.

Calling an organ useless reflects its having no detectable use, nothing more. Morris's view of deteriorating life is also evolutionary thinking, just with a very different mechanism of evolution.

Do you find it all concerning that the only real anti-science, anti- knowledge agenda driven attacks are from fundamentalist Christians?

 

[Hollie]

So why did your gods add so many spare / useless parts in their "design " ?

Do your gods have a sense of humor and decided, "hmm, let's add these useless /spare parts to humans and animals alike just to mess with 'em."



Claim CB360:

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 75-76.
Response:

"Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

 

[DriftingSand]

Yet another false equivalence.

The only observable "order" in the universe all stems from the various orders of physics and chemistry. Because the universe is not perfectly uniform the slightest variance invokes gravity. So if you can imagine that every single particle of matter was an exact equal distance from every other particle of matter then gravity would be neutralized and the universe would be in complete stasis. If there was an "intelligent designer" who "created order" then that would be the "perfect" universe with "order" everywhere.

However the universe is not uniform and the mere fact that matter is not evenly distributed results in the formation of planets, stars, galaxies, etc, etc. We live in a chaotic universe. Planets, stars and galaxies collide with one another. That also demonstrates that your imaginary "intelligent designer" is far from "perfect" since what he "created" is constantly obliterating and reforming itself.

The laws of physics govern the universe and they stipulate that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So logically your "intelligent designer" cannot be omnipotent either because he has alleged "created" something that he cannot destroy ergo he is not omnipotent.

Now if you want to get into biology the same natural laws govern the formation of an eyeball. But since you are awestruck at the mere concept it would be a waste of time trying to get you to comprehend how they occurred through natural selection. Instead I will refer you to the Dover, PA court ruling where a conservative judge threw out the illogical nonsense claim of an "intelligent designer" since it was proven without any doubt whatsoever that it was merely an "evolution" of the debunked "creationism" mythology that the Supreme Court had already ruled against.

Physics and chemistry are "ordered" sciences. Order isn't created by chance and chaos. Science means "knowledge." Since we "know" that chaos doesn't create order then logic FORCES us to conclude that order was/is ordered.

I realize that secular, "religious" scientists refuse to accept the idea of "irreducible complexity" but having read Michael Behe's book on the subject I have no choice but to conclude that an eyeball didn't "evolve" in small increments or stages. What benefit would a non-seeing eye be to an evolving organism? What purpose would a half-evolved eye be to any organism? None!!

So ... you really have no logical explanation for why chaos would form a universe nor can you explain what purpose evolution would have for a non-functioning organ or any other complex, non-functioning, organic structure.

But I admire the deep faith you have in your science gods.

Thank you for conceding that you cannot follow basic logic, or the sciences for that matter.

Let me refute this nonsense;

What purpose would a half-evolved eye be to any organism? None!!

If you were capable of logic you would be able to comprehend that plants are able to "follow the sun" because of cells that are receptive to sunlight and use chemical triggers to cause other cells to expand and contract (similar to muscles) so that the plant is receiving the optimal amount of sunlight available.

Now consider primitive life forms that are in the ocean and also absorbing sunlight as a means to grow. If a predator life form were to be in the vicinity they would have no awareness until it was too late. However if they were to have cells that could detect the presence of a predator obscuring the sunlight that would be an evolutionary advantage and enable them to move elsewhere. So all it takes is a cell that is light sensitive on order to be able to "see". From there different cells evolved to react to different wavelengths of light. Other cells evolved to make the light sensitive cells move so as to cover a greater area.

The life forms that developed cells that were sensitive to light managed to avoid predators and survived to reproduce. Given the millions and millions of years of evolution the eye has evolved to it's current state. However the human eye is far from perfect. It cannot see in the dark and it cannot see infrared and ultraviolet. It is susceptible to being mislead and it can be fooled by camoflage. It has difficulty focusing properly which accounts for why 50% of the population need some kind of glasses/contacts.

So yes, a "half-evolved" eye was very useful from an evolutionary perspective and the variety of light sensitive cells in both flora and fauna is proof that it has come from humble beginnings to what we have today.

So explain why your "intelligent designer" made such an imperfect eye? Is this just more evidence that he is far from intelligent and not very good at design either?

And yet plants didn't find it necessary to develop eyes. And, using more logic, if organisms were able to survive just fine for millions of years without eyes then why the need to develop them later on? Also, if these phantom organisms didn't have eyes and the phantom predators didn't have eyes either then the playing field was just as equal as it would be if both had eyes. But in your fairy tale, both the prey and the predator just decided one day to develop a blob of tissue with the understanding that they would turn into eyes in a few million years. Got it. Thanks for that. You should be a fiction writer like Gene Roddenberry.

 

[DriftingSand]

I see the problem you're faced with. You view the religion you were given as under attack on two levels.

1. Biological evolution over time scales of millions of years us a direct contradiction to your young/flat earth biblical literalism.

2. How is it possible that such incompetent gods could "design" a "pigment cell was a small depression" when THAT served ZERO purpose?

Here again we see the results and dangers of religious extremism. Had you ever studied biology and biological evolution, you would know that nature is imperfect and that evolution displays starts, stops and even utter dead ends.

Why are your gods such incompetent "designers"?

hahaha. Total sidestep. Can't answer the question? Just say so. Once again ... why would an organism "evolve" a useless lump of tissue and hang on to it for vast periods of time for no particular reason? Did the young organism think that someday it would like to see? Was it planning for the future of its posterity?

You have NO logical answer. PERIOD!! You MUST believe your insane hypothesis on pure faith coupled with some secular fantasy.

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

Claim CB361.1:

Even if a vestigial organ has no use today, we can be sure it had a function in the past. God does not make junk, but things deteriorated after sin entered the world. Calling an organ useless reflects evolutionary thinking.
Source:

Morris, John D. 2005. Does the gallbladder have a necessary function? Back to Genesis 194d (Feb.).
Response:

This claim is dogmatic assertion. It is based purely on personal religious belief; it cannot be tested against evidence. It is scientifically useless.

The idea that death and decay entered the world only after the original creation implies that many presently functional organs were originally useless. For example, defenses would have had no function when there were no threats to defend against.

Calling an organ useless reflects its having no detectable use, nothing more. Morris's view of deteriorating life is also evolutionary thinking, just with a very different mechanism of evolution.

Do you find it all concerning that the only real anti-science, anti- knowledge agenda driven attacks are from fundamentalist Christians?

And yet another sidestep. I didn't think you could lose any more credibility but you just did.

 

[Hollie]

hahaha. Total sidestep. Can't answer the question? Just say so. Once again ... why would an organism "evolve" a useless lump of tissue and hang on to it for vast periods of time for no particular reason? Did the young organism think that someday it would like to see? Was it planning for the future of its posterity?

You have NO logical answer. PERIOD!! You MUST believe your insane hypothesis on pure faith coupled with some secular fantasy.

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

Claim CB361.1:

Even if a vestigial organ has no use today, we can be sure it had a function in the past. God does not make junk, but things deteriorated after sin entered the world. Calling an organ useless reflects evolutionary thinking.
Source:

Morris, John D. 2005. Does the gallbladder have a necessary function? Back to Genesis 194d (Feb.).
Response:

This claim is dogmatic assertion. It is based purely on personal religious belief; it cannot be tested against evidence. It is scientifically useless.

The idea that death and decay entered the world only after the original creation implies that many presently functional organs were originally useless. For example, defenses would have had no function when there were no threats to defend against.

Calling an organ useless reflects its having no detectable use, nothing more. Morris's view of deteriorating life is also evolutionary thinking, just with a very different mechanism of evolution.

Do you find it all concerning that the only real anti-science, anti- knowledge agenda driven attacks are from fundamentalist Christians?

And yet another sidestep. I didn't think you could lose any more credibility but you just did.

I thought you would hope to slither away from addressing anything I posted.

As a religious extremist, You can't reconcile an ancient earth and incompetent "designer" gods.

 

[DriftingSand]

So why did your gods add so many spare / useless parts in their "design " ?

Do your gods have a sense of humor and decided, "hmm, let's add these useless /spare parts to humans and animals alike just to mess with 'em."



Claim CB360:

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 75-76.
Response:

"Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

Oh Hollee, you're working backwards. You're explaining that a vestigial organ USED to have a purpose but no longer does. You're not at all showing why or how a vestigial organ DEVELOPS a purpose. Nor have you explained WHY an organism would form a blob of tissue out of the blue for no particular reason. What purpose would the blob serve today, tomorrow, or 50 years from now? None whatsoever!!!!!!! Now if you're trying to say that this organism "PLANNED" to develop a new organ in a million years or so then you're literally stating that there is a plan; a purpose; and a goal in mind. That would require intelligence ... not chance. Gotcha again!

 

[Hollie]

hahaha. Total sidestep. Can't answer the question? Just say so. Once again ... why would an organism "evolve" a useless lump of tissue and hang on to it for vast periods of time for no particular reason? Did the young organism think that someday it would like to see? Was it planning for the future of its posterity?

You have NO logical answer. PERIOD!! You MUST believe your insane hypothesis on pure faith coupled with some secular fantasy.

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

Claim CB361.1:

Even if a vestigial organ has no use today, we can be sure it had a function in the past. God does not make junk, but things deteriorated after sin entered the world. Calling an organ useless reflects evolutionary thinking.
Source:

Morris, John D. 2005. Does the gallbladder have a necessary function? Back to Genesis 194d (Feb.).
Response:

This claim is dogmatic assertion. It is based purely on personal religious belief; it cannot be tested against evidence. It is scientifically useless.

The idea that death and decay entered the world only after the original creation implies that many presently functional organs were originally useless. For example, defenses would have had no function when there were no threats to defend against.

Calling an organ useless reflects its having no detectable use, nothing more. Morris's view of deteriorating life is also evolutionary thinking, just with a very different mechanism of evolution.

Do you find it all concerning that the only real anti-science, anti- knowledge agenda driven attacks are from fundamentalist Christians?

And yet another sidestep. I didn't think you could lose any more credibility but you just did.

Did the gods have a bunch of spare parts they needed to get rid of?


Balaenoptera musculus: Vestigial Limbs - The Panda's Thumb

Balaenoptera musculus: Vestigial Limbs

 

[DriftingSand]

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.




Do you find it all concerning that the only real anti-science, anti- knowledge agenda driven attacks are from fundamentalist Christians?

And yet another sidestep. I didn't think you could lose any more credibility but you just did.

Did the gods have a bunch of spare parts they needed to get rid of?


Balaenoptera musculus: Vestigial Limbs - The Panda's Thumb

Balaenoptera musculus: Vestigial Limbs

Some more sidestep shuffle:

 

[Hollie]

So why did your gods add so many spare / useless parts in their "design " ?

Do your gods have a sense of humor and decided, "hmm, let's add these useless /spare parts to humans and animals alike just to mess with 'em."



Claim CB360:

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 75-76.
Response:

"Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

Oh Hollee, you're working backwards. You're explaining that a vestigial organ USED to have a purpose but no longer does. You're not at all showing why or how a vestigial organ DEVELOPS a purpose. Nor have you explained WHY an organism would form a blob of tissue out of the blue for no particular reason. What purpose would the blob serve today, tomorrow, or 50 years from now? None whatsoever!!!!!!! Now if you're trying to say that this organism "PLANNED" to develop a new organ in a million years or so then you're literally stating that there is a plan; a purpose; and a goal in mind. That would require intelligence ... not chance. Gotcha again!

Your lack of exposure to a science education explains why you're asking silly questions already addressed.


You have no answer to why the gods are such incompetent designers.

Why would the designs of your gods evolve at all?

Did you realize you have actually refuted your own arguments to literal interpretation of bible tales and fables?


You got yourself, again.

 

[Hollie]

And yet another sidestep. I didn't think you could lose any more credibility but you just did.

Did the gods have a bunch of spare parts they needed to get rid of?


Balaenoptera musculus: Vestigial Limbs - The Panda's Thumb

Balaenoptera musculus: Vestigial Limbs

Some more sidestep shuffle:

You can't even begin to refute it.

Why did your gods have all theses spare parts lying around?

And why put these spare parts on / in animals that no longer use them?

Have the gods played a cruel joke on you?

 

[hobelim]

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.




Do you find it all concerning that the only real anti-science, anti- knowledge agenda driven attacks are from fundamentalist Christians?

And yet another sidestep. I didn't think you could lose any more credibility but you just did.

I thought you would hope to slither away from addressing anything I posted.

As a religious extremist, You can't reconcile an ancient earth and incompetent "designer" gods.

In the mind of a person who believes that three coequal beings that became human are the same as one incorporeal God who has no physical shape or material form and has no equal and that any doubt or rational question about those professed beliefs are a demonic attack and perpetuating such beliefs are a demonstration of faith and that God will give them presents when they are dead instead of obstinate stupidity and irrational delusions they are bound like slaves to those beliefs to oppose any truth and ignore any point made however small.

Ironically, the inability for you or any rational person to penetrate the darkness of such a mind whose only light in life is a lie is what Jesus was trying to describe in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man and the gulf that separates the living from the dead..

 

[Hollie]

And yet another sidestep. I didn't think you could lose any more credibility but you just did.

Did the gods have a bunch of spare parts they needed to get rid of?


Balaenoptera musculus: Vestigial Limbs - The Panda's Thumb

Balaenoptera musculus: Vestigial Limbs

Some more sidestep shuffle:

Science v Intelligent Design: Whales illustrate intelligent design - The Panda's Thumb

Science v Intelligent Design: Whales illustrate intelligent design.


Just when you think that you have heard it all, an Intelligent Design supporter makes the claim that Whales illustrate intelligent design. I kid you not.

We are surrounded by evidence of intelligent design. Take but one example: the suckling mechanism of the whale. The whale is a mammal which suckles its young underwater. It does so by means of a watertight cap around the mother’s nipple which fits tightly around the baby’s snout so as not to allow the entrance of sea water. Such a mechanism does not allow of a transitional form which adapts slowly to its environment. It does not allow for a gradual evolutionary process. It must exist perfectly formed for the purpose or the baby whale dies. How else could such a mechanism exist if not brought about by an intelligent and purposeful creative force?

Nick Matzke documented a likely origin for this claim

The true origin of "intelligent design" - The Panda's Thumb


What is even more funny is how people at UcD respond to this news… Check out Born Again’s flawed understanding of vestigial organs:

…. some modern whales have a pair of bones embedded in their tissues, each of which strengthens the pelvic wall and acts as an organ anchor.

Carl Wieland- 1998

Seems like the useless leftover legs actually have purpose in the whale!

With the appendix finding purpose in humans it seems the Evolutionists seem to be running out of vestigial parts to point to as proof for their cherished lie!


Is this the best ID has to offer? Well, it can get worse, just check out Dembski and Denyse O’leary’s comments about eugenics and Darwinism at UcD.

Children you have been warned, this is a ‘brain on ID’…

What does this person expect? That the whale mother evolved independently from it’s off spring?

We learn some more about the nursing behavior of whales at this link

Actually, that’s a great question and it’s not one that we know everything about. The mammary glands of a female whale are located on either side of the genital slit, which is on the underside of the animal back towards the tail. A major difference between whales and land mammals is that the former’s mammary glands contain what are called compressor muscles, which the mother uses to actively pump milk into the mouth of the calf (i.e. it’ isn’t passive, with the kid doing most of the work by suckling). This undoubtedly evolved as a means of getting around the obvious problems you’re thinking of, concerning suckling in an aquatic environment.

As for the posture: there is a gap between the two racks of baleen inthe mouth of large whales (except, of course, the sperm whale, which is a toothed whale), and it is through this gap that the calf suckles. Or rather, has milk pumped into its mouth; whether there is active sucking on the part of the calf we don’t know, but given that this would help matters, there probably is to some extent.

Undoubtedly calves swallow some seawater in the process, and we really dont know how they minimize salt water intake. One hazard of this is that it is probably during nursing sessions that whales take in larval parasites. There may be rather high mortality in young animals or yearlings since the young immune system is “naive” or not fully developed at this time.

 

[DriftingSand]

Did the gods have a bunch of spare parts they needed to get rid of?


Balaenoptera musculus: Vestigial Limbs - The Panda's Thumb

Balaenoptera musculus: Vestigial Limbs

Some more sidestep shuffle:

You can't even begin to refute it.

Why did your gods have all theses spare parts lying around?

And why put these spare parts on / in animals that no longer use them?

Have the gods played a cruel joke on you?

The human body functions wonderfully. We have God to thank for our ability to walk, talk, see, hear, feel, grip things, think, plan, design, create, write, communicate, etc. A Christian can see a purpose in the design. A religious, secular scientist has to attribute all of these things chance and chaos even though they must admit that chaos doesn't not create design. Ah the dilemma!!

 

[DriftingSand]

And yet another sidestep. I didn't think you could lose any more credibility but you just did.

I thought you would hope to slither away from addressing anything I posted.

As a religious extremist, You can't reconcile an ancient earth and incompetent "designer" gods.

In the mind of a person who believes that three coequal beings that became human are the same as one incorporeal God who has no physical shape or material form and has no equal and that any doubt or rational question about those professed beliefs are a demonic attack and perpetuating such beliefs are a demonstration of faith and that God will give them presents when they are dead instead of obstinate stupidity and irrational delusions they are bound like slaves to those beliefs to oppose any truth and ignore any point made however small.

Ironically, the inability for you or any rational person to penetrate the darkness of such a mind whose only light in life is a lie is what Jesus was trying to describe in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man and the gulf that separates the living from the dead..

Coming from someone who believes that nothing created everything and that belief in chaos makes more sense than belief in intelligent design (even though chaos doesn't create order). You can tell the world what you don't believe but you can't put into credible words what you DO believe and why it's a more superior belief system. Have fun in your self-created fantasy-land.

 

[Hollie]

Some more sidestep shuffle:

You can't even begin to refute it.

Why did your gods have all theses spare parts lying around?

And why put these spare parts on / in animals that no longer use them?

Have the gods played a cruel joke on you?

The human body functions wonderfully. We have God to thank for our ability to walk, talk, see, hear, feel, grip things, think, plan, design, create, write, communicate, etc. A Christian can see a purpose in the design. A religious, secular scientist has to attribute all of these things chance and chaos even though they must admit that chaos doesn't not create design. Ah the dilemma!!

That was quite a sidestep. You chose to slither away from any acknowledgement of your self-refuting arguments. You also chose to sidestep a number of obvious contradictions with biblical tales, an ancient earth and incompetent "designer" gods. Not surprising as christian extremists are impervious to a reality based worldview.

Speaking of a human body that functions wonderfully, it must be wonderful that you have never needed medical attention for an illness or a cavity.

God bless the jeebus for that blueprint for the cancer cell. That was a master stroke of "design".

 

[Hollie]

I thought you would hope to slither away from addressing anything I posted.

As a religious extremist, You can't reconcile an ancient earth and incompetent "designer" gods.

In the mind of a person who believes that three coequal beings that became human are the same as one incorporeal God who has no physical shape or material form and has no equal and that any doubt or rational question about those professed beliefs are a demonic attack and perpetuating such beliefs are a demonstration of faith and that God will give them presents when they are dead instead of obstinate stupidity and irrational delusions they are bound like slaves to those beliefs to oppose any truth and ignore any point made however small.

Ironically, the inability for you or any rational person to penetrate the darkness of such a mind whose only light in life is a lie is what Jesus was trying to describe in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man and the gulf that separates the living from the dead..

Coming from someone who believes that nothing created everything and that belief in chaos makes more sense than belief in intelligent design (even though chaos doesn't create order). You can tell the world what you don't believe but you can't put into credible words what you DO believe and why it's a more superior belief system. Have fun in your self-created fantasy-land.

You have that reversed. "Nothing creating everything" defines the argument coming from the religious extremist.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So why did your gods add so many spare / useless parts in their "design " ?

Do your gods have a sense of humor and decided, "hmm, let's add these useless /spare parts to humans and animals alike just to mess with 'em."



Claim CB360:

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 75-76.
Response:

"Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

Oh Hollee, you're working backwards. You're explaining that a vestigial organ USED to have a purpose but no longer does. You're not at all showing why or how a vestigial organ DEVELOPS a purpose. Nor have you explained WHY an organism would form a blob of tissue out of the blue for no particular reason. What purpose would the blob serve today, tomorrow, or 50 years from now? None whatsoever!!!!!!! Now if you're trying to say that this organism "PLANNED" to develop a new organ in a million years or so then you're literally stating that there is a plan; a purpose; and a goal in mind. That would require intelligence ... not chance. Gotcha again!

You poor deluded soul.
There is no "why" to a genetic mutation. They happen. The fact that some have a benefit is what causes them to survive. You want to retroactively ascribe a "why", a purpose, to justify your belief system, but mutations are accidents. Most are useless and die, others have advantages that allow them to become selected. There is no "why". It happens, and a simple metric of advantage allows it to continue. No "why".

 

[DriftingSand]

So why did your gods add so many spare / useless parts in their "design " ?

Do your gods have a sense of humor and decided, "hmm, let's add these useless /spare parts to humans and animals alike just to mess with 'em."



Claim CB360:

CB360: Function of vestigial organs.

Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 75-76.
Response:

"Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

Oh Hollee, you're working backwards. You're explaining that a vestigial organ USED to have a purpose but no longer does. You're not at all showing why or how a vestigial organ DEVELOPS a purpose. Nor have you explained WHY an organism would form a blob of tissue out of the blue for no particular reason. What purpose would the blob serve today, tomorrow, or 50 years from now? None whatsoever!!!!!!! Now if you're trying to say that this organism "PLANNED" to develop a new organ in a million years or so then you're literally stating that there is a plan; a purpose; and a goal in mind. That would require intelligence ... not chance. Gotcha again!

You poor deluded soul.
There is no "why" to a genetic mutation. They happen. The fact that some have a benefit is what causes them to survive. You want to retroactively ascribe a "why", a purpose, to justify your belief system, but mutations are accidents. Most are useless and die, others have advantages that allow them to become selected. There is no "why". It happens, and a simple metric of advantage allows it to continue. No "why".

Another religious evolutionist surfaces. "They happen." That's it? That's really all you got?

1) An organism is simply surviving. Eating and existing and happy as a bacteria in a pile of goo.
2) Then, one day, the organism produces offspring with two lumps of tissue (on both sides of its head). No reason. It just "happened."
3) A million years goes by and out of the blue, an offspring is born with more pronounced gobs of flesh (on both sides of its head) for no particular reason. They're just there for decoration. Oh well ... thing's "just happen."
4) Another million years goes by and another offspring is born with lumps of unnecessary flesh but now it has an indistinct membrane covering it. No reason ... it's just there for the shear fun of it. It just happened as a matter of unplanned chance.

And the fairytale goes on until **poof** the gobs of lumpy flesh covered with a membrane develops into an intricate, complex, ordered DESIGN that can see.

Got it bruce. Nice story!!

 

[Hollie]

Oh Hollee, you're working backwards. You're explaining that a vestigial organ USED to have a purpose but no longer does. You're not at all showing why or how a vestigial organ DEVELOPS a purpose. Nor have you explained WHY an organism would form a blob of tissue out of the blue for no particular reason. What purpose would the blob serve today, tomorrow, or 50 years from now? None whatsoever!!!!!!! Now if you're trying to say that this organism "PLANNED" to develop a new organ in a million years or so then you're literally stating that there is a plan; a purpose; and a goal in mind. That would require intelligence ... not chance. Gotcha again!

You poor deluded soul.
There is no "why" to a genetic mutation. They happen. The fact that some have a benefit is what causes them to survive. You want to retroactively ascribe a "why", a purpose, to justify your belief system, but mutations are accidents. Most are useless and die, others have advantages that allow them to become selected. There is no "why". It happens, and a simple metric of advantage allows it to continue. No "why".

Another religious evolutionist surfaces. "They happen." That's it? That's really all you got?

1) An organism is simply surviving. Eating and existing and happy as a bacteria in a pile of goo.
2) Then, one day, the organism produces offspring with two lumps of tissue (on both sides of its head). No reason. It just "happened."
3) A million years goes by and out of the blue, an offspring is born with more pronounced gobs of flesh (on both sides of its head) for no particular reason. They're just there for decoration. Oh well ... thing's "just happen."
4) Another million years goes by and another offspring is born with lumps of unnecessary flesh but now it has an indistinct membrane covering it. No reason ... it's just there for the shear fun of it. It just happened as a matter of unplanned chance.

And the fairytale goes on until **poof** the gobs of lumpy flesh covered with a membrane develops into an intricate, complex, ordered DESIGN that can see.

Got it bruce. Nice story!!

Not surprisingly, you offered a pointless, nonsensical characterization of biological evolution that reinforces a lot of negative stereotypes surrounding religious fundamentalists.

 

[DriftingSand]

You poor deluded soul.
There is no "why" to a genetic mutation. They happen. The fact that some have a benefit is what causes them to survive. You want to retroactively ascribe a "why", a purpose, to justify your belief system, but mutations are accidents. Most are useless and die, others have advantages that allow them to become selected. There is no "why". It happens, and a simple metric of advantage allows it to continue. No "why".

Another religious evolutionist surfaces. "They happen." That's it? That's really all you got?

1) An organism is simply surviving. Eating and existing and happy as a bacteria in a pile of goo.
2) Then, one day, the organism produces offspring with two lumps of tissue (on both sides of its head). No reason. It just "happened."
3) A million years goes by and out of the blue, an offspring is born with more pronounced gobs of flesh (on both sides of its head) for no particular reason. They're just there for decoration. Oh well ... thing's "just happen."
4) Another million years goes by and another offspring is born with lumps of unnecessary flesh but now it has an indistinct membrane covering it. No reason ... it's just there for the shear fun of it. It just happened as a matter of unplanned chance.

And the fairytale goes on until **poof** the gobs of lumpy flesh covered with a membrane develops into an intricate, complex, ordered DESIGN that can see.

Got it bruce. Nice story!!

Not surprisingly, you offered a pointless, nonsensical characterization of biological evolution that reinforces a lot of negative stereotypes surrounding religious fundamentalists.

No. It's exactly what you teach only in layman terms. Using scientific jargon won't change the point you all try to make on a routine basis. But you refuse to acknowledge this truth because you're a religious zealot who "believes" your own words on "faith."