I think creationists miss one major thing: disproving the current theory of evolution doesn't prove creation. I think it's good to debate theories and find the truth, but it's so odd to me that creationists appear to think disproving some evidence for evolution will make rational people believe in a theory with absolutely no evidence (creation). Where's the logic?
What purpose does body hair in humans serve then? Goosebumps?
Eyes in some moles, tiny and COMPLETELY covered in skin?
The remnants of vestigial legs/hips in some snakes, whales, and (almost) legless amphibians?
Ear muscles too small to do anything?
Besides, just because it's not totally useless doesn't mean it's not evidence for evolution. If it's what evolution predicts there should be, and it's there...
this does not talk about many of the vistigial features that cant have uses like hips and bones just kinda chiling in the body not doing anything for example snakes with hip bones, whales and other aquatic mammels that with bones for limbs
well i tried to get to that site but it did not work but if its using mutation as an example then thats an example of evolution because mutations can be passed on and after a while they add up
The point is that these are regurgitated straw man arguments that have been contradicted time and time again. You and others like you make vestigial organs out to be something that they are not because it's easier for them to disprove.
For your information "all supported" evidence against evolution has not been disproven the 500,000 peer reviewed papers and millions of pieces of evidence still remain in tack.
Here is the actual definition of a vestigial organ, an organ that has lost all or most of it ORGINAL function. Yes, all our organs have a function, but not all have the orginal function. This is yet another straw man argument creationist use to disprove evolution.
Christians have a brain that they never use. It is surely vestigial (not 'vistigial')
wwwonderful 3 months ago
WHo created your fictional god?
wwwonderful 3 months ago
I think creationists miss one major thing: disproving the current theory of evolution doesn't prove creation. I think it's good to debate theories and find the truth, but it's so odd to me that creationists appear to think disproving some evidence for evolution will make rational people believe in a theory with absolutely no evidence (creation). Where's the logic?
schmuckyou 2 years ago
What purpose does body hair in humans serve then? Goosebumps?
Eyes in some moles, tiny and COMPLETELY covered in skin?
The remnants of vestigial legs/hips in some snakes, whales, and (almost) legless amphibians?
Ear muscles too small to do anything?
Besides, just because it's not totally useless doesn't mean it's not evidence for evolution. If it's what evolution predicts there should be, and it's there...
Thisismyrofl 2 years ago
THERE IS NO GOD...only the universe and evolution
spicbuddha 3 years ago
This is just sad...
PinkProgram 3 years ago
The very first sentences set-up the rest of this propaganda with a lie.
Vestigialty DOES NOT mean useless! Also, vestigiality does not mean it's original function is retained...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
As a scientist i have to say that I do not approve of this site.
Promise01 4 years ago
this does not talk about many of the vistigial features that cant have uses like hips and bones just kinda chiling in the body not doing anything for example snakes with hip bones, whales and other aquatic mammels that with bones for limbs
Prontest 4 years ago
Prontest, Mutations -
w w w dot warneveryone dot com/mutations dot htm
BereanBeacon 4 years ago 4
well i tried to get to that site but it did not work but if its using mutation as an example then thats an example of evolution because mutations can be passed on and after a while they add up
Prontest 4 years ago
The point is that these are regurgitated straw man arguments that have been contradicted time and time again. You and others like you make vestigial organs out to be something that they are not because it's easier for them to disprove.
For your information "all supported" evidence against evolution has not been disproven the 500,000 peer reviewed papers and millions of pieces of evidence still remain in tack.
erchdvd 4 years ago
first of all i didnt say 'all' i said 'nearly all', which is still true.
second, the issue isnt about vestigial organs, its one out of hundereds of lies in support for a theory that otherwise would have none.
third, This isnt a straw man, its just one thing the text books use to try to suggest macro evolution has taken place when it hasnt.
LogikosMan 4 years ago
Here is the actual definition of a vestigial organ, an organ that has lost all or most of it ORGINAL function. Yes, all our organs have a function, but not all have the orginal function. This is yet another straw man argument creationist use to disprove evolution.
Sorry swing and a miss.
erchdvd 4 years ago