Creationists: Can I hear your explanation for these human functions?

The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail.





Wisdom teeth are vestigial third molars that humans' ancestors used to help in grinding down plant tissue.





The plica semilunaris is small fold of tissue on the inside corner of the eye. It is the vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane (the "third eyelid") which is present in other animals.





I'd love to hear why we have these useless things explained by creation as "God thought it would be neat"!





Science has an explanation. It's called evilution.....

Creationists: Can I hear your explanation for these human functions?
Well, God was a bit busy at the drawing board, what with all the other animals and the dinosaur hoax and all. So he started to draw in one too many bits, erasing it would have made a mess of the drawing so he thought "never mind, I'll just create them with smaller brains, they will never notice. Oh........ooops again!"
Reply:Go get 'em...





although... the religious folk might climb all over that "evil"ution mispell... *smile*
Reply:You can't use such big words here! These people haven't went to college or read any books what are you thinking?!!!?!!





I loved your question about the appendix as well.
Reply:They have no real answers to these questions, only bible verses to condemn people that have the ability to think.
Reply:No youre all wrong
Reply:lol. evilution.





tailbones and wisdom teeth and appendixes oh my!





apparently their god likes to give us false information.





their bible states that god sends delusions to us.
Reply:EVILution??? BWAHAHAHA!! that's even funnier than your question. I want to hear you answer this: how do you know God isn't responsible for evolution? Hmm?
Reply:You have to ask God to give you wisdom.
Reply:EVILution is right. hehehe.
Reply:Evilution? Really? Wow...where's the proof? I know...it's a theory but where's your proof?





You only call it evilution. Show me some hard fact. Without your proof, your post is just silly.
Reply:The coccyx is what evolutionists call the remnants of a lost tail.


Wisdom teeth are there to replace the bad teeth we lose in life.


The plica whatever is used by humans that have contact lenses.
Reply:cool deal!
Reply:Evolution is not science. Missing Link it's not science, it means I don't have an evidence.





Is evolution really scientific?





Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.





Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.





According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.





Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.





Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?





The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.





“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.





The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.





What view does the fossil record support?





Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?





Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?





Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.





What does the fossil record actually show?





The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.





A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.





Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.





Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.





Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.





Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?





Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.





The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.





What about those “ape-men” depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?





“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”—The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.





“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”—Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.





“Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”—Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.





Do not textbooks present evolution as fact?





“Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”—The Guardian, London, England, December 4, 1980, p. 15.





But is it reasonable to believe that everything on this earth was created in six days?





There are some religious groups that teach that God created everything in six 24-hour days. But that is not what the Bible says.





Genesis 1:3-31 tells how God prepared the already existing earth for human habitation. It says that this was done during a period of six days, but it does not say that these were 24-hour days. It is not unusual for a person to refer to his “grandfather’s day,” meaning that one’s entire lifetime. So, too, the Bible often uses the term “day” to describe an extended period of time. (Compare 2 Peter 3:8.) Thus the ‘days’ of Genesis chapter 1 could reasonably be thousands of years long.
Reply:It's actually 'evOlution', and for some, (not creationists, admittedly) the explanation is that God was the start of evolution- the start of life. Not of humans in the Adam and Eve sense but in the 'a small flicker in some ooze' kind.





But that's besides the point.


The real question is why do you insist upon pointing out the flaws in people's arguments when you aren't in an argument in the first place?


it just comes off as cruelty- instead of attempting to heal the gap between creationists and people who believe in evolution you're deliberately trying to cause an argument that, frankly, neither side can win.
Reply:Oh you forgot appendix.


Oh that's right. It's been proven to have a function after all.


So called "vestigial organs" most likely do not exist and even if they do, they don't prove evolution.
Reply:?Wow your really out of touch. the discovery of DNA disproves evolution.


I'm so sorry I see your a blond. Do you need me to tell it again
Reply:EVILUTION...nice fruedian slip! Science actually has no explanation for these things either since they are only guessing....seriously..has there ever been a human species ever and i mean ever discovered that showed any "remnants of a functional coccyx, 3rd molar, or plica semilunaris...no they haven`t so please explain why not? Why have we found dinosaur creatures but no humans in various stages of evolution...because the theory doesn`t hold water.
Reply:Nice. The best they can do is to jump on a typo, in order to spout their religious drivel without actually having to address your question. Good going, believers, you're proving her point for her.
Reply:The human coccyx,actually,provides anchorage points for important muscles.





The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.
Reply:Well, firstly you must understand there is still A LOT we dont know about the human body or its history. the "vestigial" structures we THINK have no KNOWN function. Its possible they could have a function, we just haven't found it.





why is it there? God only knows.





p.s. i have my b.s. in genetics and i dont buy the whole theory. a lot of missing pieces.
Reply:There are no vestigial organs. Just because you don't know the function of an organ doesn't mean it doesn't have a function, or lost its function.





The coccyx is not a vestigial "tailbone". It is an anchor point for 13 very important muscles that you cannot do without. If you believe you don't need your tailbone, bend over and I'll cut it out for you.





Wisdom teeth exist because Antediluvian humans were 9-12 foot tall giants and the extra tooth fit their skulls just fine. After the Flood, the atmosphere changed and humans got smaller, but they retained the extra tooth, which got crowded out.





In the human, the plica semilunaris is just a barrier between the tear duct and the eyeball. It does not prove evolution from anything.





Some people also think the appendix is vestigial, but it's not. It is a part of the immune system, where immune responses are initiated.





Besides, if vestigial organs DID exist, that would be evidence AGAINST evolution. We lose everything until we have it all?





And you're right, it IS "EVIL"ution.
Reply:These examples are so good. Tell you what i believe in putting you money were your mouth is. You have a tail bone which your science type claim does nothing for the body. I will pick up the cost to have your tail bone removed and then we can check it out.


And correct me but do we still not eat with our molars and vegs to boot. If science was so pure then why all the fraud in every evoluation case ever presented. You know a lie is still a lie and evoluation is the biggest fraud ever pulled on man. This even is reported amoung your own people. There can be no mutation of a beneficial nature because the alpha male will destroy that anamial out right thus it will not happen. This has been proved tiem and time again. Get you facts rigth. Micro-evoluation is not macro-evoluation. The real question is how could life as we know it a carbon based creation have come to exist in a none carbon based planet as evoluation promotes. Thus one more great deception from the evoluation nuts. Life had to be created because of the complexity of the RNA of all life itself. The odds of life comeing about on it own is 10x820billion. Put it this way it would be like flying a jumbo jet at 50,000 and dumping out a billion bricks and them all falling to the earth and creating the tribume building with out any hands touching the bricks. Could not happen period. Science is pure, evoluation is not. Science is based on real research and evidence. Physics alone proved evoluation is a joke. Mechanics proved evoluation can't happen. Math atest that evoluation is wishful thinking. Biology even declares that cells have designed function. DNA AND RNA did nto just happen. These are more complex then you will ever imagain. Entergy studies of the decay of the gravity prove beyond a shadow of a dought that life has only been on this planet for a short time this go around, no more then 7000 years and that in our gravity field is weaking and will flip with in the next 2000 years. Destroying all life. This cycle happens evey 7000 to 10000 years. So is anything evolving NO! Cows do nto bring forth none cows. Pigs bring forth pigs. There is not macro-evoluation. There is mental retardation which is the case for evoluation promoters Charles Darwin GOD bless his soul said if you can't find any fossel record to prove this then it is false. Well he is right and it is a false as it gets. I rank evoluationist right up there with lawyers the scum of the earth pedding lies to make money.
Reply:Actually, the coccyx, or tailbone, is a vital anchor for certain muscles necessary for our upright posture.





Wisdom teeth are not evidences of evolution; rather, they are evidence for devolution. About 400 years ago, according to Orthodontist John W. Cuozzo, DDS, MS, the human jaw was actually larger. Today, perhaps by increased nutrition, but not because of evolution, it is growing smaller faster, thus the reason that wisdom teeth hurt when growing in--the jaw is smaller. Because of rapid maturation, wisdom teeth are now trying to erupt into a smaller space. Our bodies, rather than getting more efficient, are getting less so -- a result of sin.





Actually, the plica semilunaris, according to the Southwest Eye Institute, is a, "...tissue [that] allows the eye the freedom to move laterally without restriction. This extra fold of tissue is essential for proper sideways movement of the eye and if damaged, can cause double vision due to restriction of movement.





Of course, looking throughout creation, one will notice some things that are similar throughout. Why is this? Because all things have one Designer!





Romans 1:20 NIV


For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.





God bless!
Reply:1) Are you saying that the coccyx is just floating around in our body without actually being attached to anything? Just because something doesn’t have an apparent function doesn’t mean it has no purpose.


2) Are you saying we cannot use our wisdom teeth at all? If so I think you are rather misguided, but I could be wrong since I don’t have mine just yet.


3) Are you sure the plica semilunaris doesn’t serve some role in either holding the eye in place (minor role) or in controlling the flow of tears over and along the eye?








Science's THEORY of evolution also contradicts the scientific LAW of thermodynamics (2nd). I mean this in that on a large scale (as in not just on a molecular level but dealing with enough molecules to make an organism) everything tends to move or alter itself to a point where as little energy as possible is used to maintain its state. This is the principle that gun powder works on. Most biological compounds are quite complex and hold allot of energy in their bonds, which would mean that they would need to draw a lot of energy from their environment to be formed without a catalyst (most of those are also quite complex). This makes it unlikely to occur because the reaction removes the ability for other molecules like it to react by taking energy out of the system.





Also the odds of just parts of the cell just randomly forming are very small, given the fact that enzymes are defective if just one atom is out of place or omitted.



opera sheet music