How do creationists explain vestigial adaptations?

[Eyesabide]

Why is it so difficult to believe God placed evolution in play as part of his plan?

[Sci Fi Fan]

Do you really think we're that stupid?
Your every post is a hatred of Religion.

Ah, so you've realized that you can't identify any hatred of religion in my opening post, and so you'll rather clumsily dodge the point with an ad hominem. 

Carbon dating is far from accurate, scientists have buried cans of soda pop, dug them up a year later, carbon dated them at thousands of years old. 

Source please, and evidence that this is something other than an isolated incident as a result of poor methodology.

[Solar]

Ah, so you've realized that you can't identify any hatred of religion in my opening post, and so you'll rather clumsily dodge the point with an ad hominem. 

I warned you about trolling and your OP is just that, a shot at Religion.

I have a feeling you are under the illusion you are smarter than most people, well I have news for you, you're not, you come off as an ass, you prove with every post you are the product of parents that told you, "you are special".

Well, you're not, you aren't even average, nothing but your run of the mill lib troll.
So either engage in real debate, not your "ask a question, to answer a question", but actual debate, toe to toe disputation, make your case without straw men, make your case for socialism/communism, but cut out the nonsense you try and pass off as debate, your time is running out.

[JustKari]

Ah, so you've realized that you can't identify any hatred of religion in my opening post, and so you'll rather clumsily dodge the point with an ad hominem. 

Source please, and evidence that this is something other than an isolated incident as a result of poor methodology.

This is not the exact article I read (I read it in college which was 15 years ago now) but it shows roughly the same issues and comes to the same conclusion as the article I read.

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html

[MFA]

Why is it so difficult to believe God placed evolution in play as part of his plan?

Well, see that's not so difficult.  But Darwinism specifies unguided evolution, which actually is not a scientific statement but a metaphysical truth statement which can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically.

[Eyesabide]

Darwinism specifies unguided evolution, which actually is not a scientific statement but a metaphysical truth statement which can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically.

Great point MFA! Thank you for that perspective.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Well, see that's not so difficult.  But Darwinism specifies unguided evolution, which actually is not a scientific statement but a metaphysical truth statement which can neither be proven nor disproven scientifically.

Absolutely nothing in this statement makes sense.

The OP question presents an argument to discredit the notion that Evolution is divinely guided: if it were, vestigial adaptations wouldn't exist.  Why do humans have appendixes?  Why can whales drown?  Any reasonably intelligent human would understand not to make a sea creature that can't breathe water, let alone an almighty creator.

Why is it so difficult to believe God placed evolution in play as part of his plan?

Because then he wouldn't make so many amateur design mistakes.  I'm talking about mistakes that would get an engineer charged with criminal negligence. 

[JustKari]

Absolutely nothing in this statement makes sense.

The OP question presents an argument to discredit the notion that Evolution is divinely guided: if it were, vestigial adaptations wouldn't exist.  Why do humans have appendixes?  Why can whales drown?  Any reasonably intelligent human would understand not to make a sea creature that can't breathe water, let alone an almighty creator.

Because then he wouldn't make so many amateur design mistakes.  I'm talking about mistakes that would get an engineer charged with criminal negligence.

Since science has yet to even figure out what the appendix does, I would hold judgement on it's "proof" that there is no God.  Perhaps it is very important in fetal development, but has served it's purpose once the baby is born?  You don't know and neither does science.

[Sci Fi Fan]

You don't know and neither does science.

You're using the "god of the gaps" double standard here: demanding that science prove everything beyond a shadow of a doubt and discrediting it whenever it fails, but giving religion the benefit of the doubt so long as every unsupported claim isn't disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You would say "prove Evolution is true", and "prove Creationism is false", and not notice the blatant bias in this.

[JustKari]

You're using the "god of the gaps" double standard here: demanding that science prove everything beyond a shadow of a doubt and discrediting it whenever it fails, but giving religion the benefit of the doubt so long as every unsupported claim isn't disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You would say "prove Evolution is true", and "prove Creationism is false", and not notice the blatant bias in this.

And you claim to not be biased?  You want debate, prove your point.

[Sci Fi Fan]

And you claim to not be biased? 

I don't have widely different standards of evidence for evolution and creationism.

The former's supporters have spent millions of dollars doing intense genetics analysis, fossil digging, research, etc.

The latter's supporters have spread the word with an openly emotional argument: faith.  Attempts at "Christian science" only constitute a very small portion of Christian missionary work; the rest is preaching.  No attempt at empirical evidence.

But I find it interesting that you do not actually bother to deny my assertion.

I sometimes forget that I am mod here, I tried to quote SFF and deleted his post, I went back and put it back as it was.  I apologize for the mistake.

[MFA]

Absolutely nothing in this statement makes sense.

It's completely accurate in its premise and what follows.

1)  Darwinism specifies that evolution is unguided.
2)  This can never be scientifically verified.  If "guidance" is not discovered, that is not evidence that guidance doesn't exist through an as-yet undiscovered mechanism.  (Just like you cannot prove that "there is no God.")
3)  Thus, the claim that evolution occurs without any guidance is a metaphysical claim (not a scientific claim).

The OP question presents an argument to discredit the notion that Evolution is divinely guided: if it were, vestigial adaptations wouldn't exist.  Why do humans have appendixes?  Why can whales drown?  Any reasonably intelligent human would understand not to make a sea creature that can't breathe water, let alone an almighty creator.

Because then he wouldn't make so many amateur design mistakes.  I'm talking about mistakes that would get an engineer charged with criminal negligence.

Amateur design mistakes?  Why?  What does God have to prove to you about his Creation?  Is he answerable to you?  Are you going to sue him when a whale drowns?

[Sci Fi Fan]

1)  Darwinism specifies that evolution is unguided.

No, it just does not include a creator because such a variable is not needed to explain the evidence.  In science, you don't add superfluous elements to a theory; hence, the principle of parsimony.

2)  This can never be scientifically verified. 

The absence of a creator is an "assertion" of omission, and need not be proven.  This is like you claiming that the omission of Julius Caesar having a twin brother from most thesis's on the formation Roman Empire cannot be verified.

3)  Thus, the claim that evolution occurs without any guidance is a metaphysical claim (not a scientific claim).

By that logic, my assumption that you are not a flying unicorn is a metaphysical claim, because I cannot verify this statement.

In reality, I can make this assumption and be certain of it to any reasonable standard, because the theory that you are a flying unicorn involves an unnecessary and unsupported variable, and also fails to explain a host of questions, such as why you aren't on the news.  Meanwhile, the theory that you are a human explains this just fine.  Ergo, it is the better theory because;

1) It is simpler/it introduces no superfluous variables
2) It better explains the evidence

Amateur design mistakes?  Why?  What does God have to prove to you about his Creation?  Is he answerable to you?  Are you going to sue him when a whale drowns?

See, there you go with posting every possible evasion and sophistic rhetoric, rather than actually answering the damn point.

This has nothing to do with God having a "duty" to reveal something, or being "answerable" to me.  You do realize that this is an issue of science, not legality, do you?

Now, I will repeat my point:

The theory that Evolution was intelligently guided does not fit the evidence, because it does not explain the existence of vestigial organs and inefficiencies in animals and humans.  Meanwhile, Evolution by natural selection has a very believable answer: natural selection is highly limited in that it is an unguided process, and therefore vestigial leftovers of previous evolutionary stages is not only understandable, but expected.

[Eyesabide]

Intelligent guidance and intelligent design are two different concepts. Because God is perceived as perfect, it does not mean that all of creation is perfect by human standards. As an example; if a person finds the "perfect" acorn and plants it, the environment and way it is nurtured determine what the eventual outcome of its existence is.

[MFA]

No, it just does not include a creator because such a variable is not needed to explain the evidence.  In science, you don't add superfluous elements to a theory; hence, the principle of parsimony.

Actually, no, it specifies that there is no creator.  It specifically denies the existence of a creator or "guiding hand."

The absence of a creator is an "assertion" of omission, and need not be proven.  This is like you claiming that the omission of Julius Caesar having a twin brother from most thesis's on the formation Roman Empire cannot be verified.

You're right that it's an assertion of omission.  But since an omission can never be verified, what is it doing in a scientific theory?

By that logic, my assumption that you are not a flying unicorn is a metaphysical claim, because I cannot verify this statement.

That's right.  So if you formulated a scientific theory that included that statement, you'd have a problem then, wouldn't you?

In reality, I can make this assumption and be certain of it to any reasonable standard, because the theory that you are a flying unicorn involves an unnecessary and unsupported variable, and also fails to explain a host of questions, such as why you aren't on the news.  Meanwhile, the theory that you are a human explains this just fine.  Ergo, it is the better theory because;

1) It is simpler/it introduces no superfluous variables
2) It better explains the evidence

See...now there's the problem.  Introducing the word "unguided" into the theory is exactly the issue.  The mechanism is connected adaptation and genetics--i.e., natural selection.  There's no way of determining whether or not it's guided or not.

See, there you go with posting every possible evasion and sophistic rhetoric, rather than actually answering the damn point.

This has nothing to do with God having a "duty" to reveal something, or being "answerable" to me.  You do realize that this is an issue of science, not legality, do you?

No, I'm actually addressing your presumption--that whatever God has made must not have made any "mistakes" in creation.  I will admit that, given the statements of some young-earth creationists, your presumption has some merit.  But I'm just calling it into question.  Is it reasonable?  What is it presuming?

Now, I will repeat my point:

The theory that Evolution was intelligently guided does not fit the evidence, because it does not explain the existence of vestigial organs and inefficiencies in animals and humans.  Meanwhile, Evolution by natural selection has a very believable answer: natural selection is highly limited in that it is an unguided process, and therefore vestigial leftovers of previous evolutionary stages is not only understandable, but expected.

And the problem with this statement is that you are claiming to know and understand the intention of a purported creator.

Furthermore, you say that evolution by natural selection is a "best fit."  But up until now, it isn't.  There are huge numbers of unanswered questions.  It may very well be the best naturalistic fit.  That doesn't make it the best fit.