How do creationists explain vestigial adaptations?

[Sci Fi Fan]

How do you explain that blind animals that live underground/deep underwater and have no need for eyesight, often times still have eye sockets?

How do you rationalize a Creator's decision to make sea creatures that can drown?

What purpose would a Creator have in putting appendixes and tailbones in humans?

Evolution not only has a very simple solution to this phenomena, but is actually actively supported by it.  Does Creationism have a logical answer that can beat Darwinism in the context of Occam's Razor?

[Solar]

Why is this in science, when your argument is about a creator?

[Eyesabide]

Occams Razor is philosophical. It is not scientific.

Creationists might say vestigial adaptations are not adaptations at all, everything is the way god made it. The most simple reasoning for how plants and animals are the way they are is through intelligent design. Spontaneous creation. So, if you apply Occam's Razor, God wins.

[JustKari]

And how do you explain away a heart, that if changed only slightly, will kill, not adapt?

[IBeMe]

Evolution not only has a very simple solution to this phenomena, but is actually actively supported by it.

Not according to Dr. Liu, Harvard's "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative".
So far, they don't have a clue how life could exist without God creating it, but they're working on it.

David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

They started that project over six years ago to find "a very simple series of logical events."

Still waiting to here back from those folks ...
Still waiting to here back from those folks ...
Still waiting to here back ...
Still waiting ...
??? ...

So far, they don't even have a "could have"!

[Solar]

Not according to Dr. Liu, Harvard's "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative".
So far, they don't have a clue how life could exist without God creating it, but they're working on it.

David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

They started that project over six years ago to find "a very simple series of logical events."

Still waiting to here back from those folks ...
Still waiting to here back from those folks ...
Still waiting to here back ...
Still waiting ...
??? ...

So far, they don't even have a "could have"!

Sounds exactly like the UN IPCC global warming initiative, all theory without proof.

[Sci Fi Fan]

Why is this in science, when your argument is about a creator?

So you admit that creationism is not science?

That's a rather large blunder, even for you.

Occams Razor is philosophical. It is not scientific.

...

I'm just going to ignore this.

The most simple reasoning for how plants and animals are the way they are is through intelligent design.

Wrong on at least two (very obvious) accounts.

1. Creationism postulates the existence of God, a being more complex than the entire universe by infinite orders of magnitude, and gives no explanation or evidence for his existence.  This outstrips evolution by natural selection in complexity.

2. Occam's Razor refers to the most simplistic theory that successfully explains the empirical data.  Creationists have no explanation for vestigial organs or dinosaur fossils.  Their theory, even if it were simpler, does not fit with observable evidence.

And how do you explain away a heart, that if changed only slightly, will kill, not adapt?

It's very simple; evolution is a very imperfect process that is bound by the laws of physics and can only make adaptations that arise from realistic mutations.  You might as well ask why evolution does not make us sprout wings and fly.

But on that note, I can easily ask the same question for God, who has no such limitations; why does he make our bodies so fragile, to the point where babies can die before ever experiencing God or getting a chance to live?

[IBeMe]

Again, in the words of a real evolutionary scientist, working on the leading "Origins of Life" project;

David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

There's currently no working theory of how life could exist without God.

They're looking, but so far, no cigar.

[Sci Fi Fan]

There's currently no working theory of how life could exist without God.

...yes, there is.  It's been around for more than 150 years.  >99% of geneticists and biologists with doctorates consistently indicate in polls support for evolution by natural selection.  You obviously don't understand the quote you cite.

[IBeMe]

You obviously don't understand the quote you cite.

David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

Oh, I undedstand it real well, it means they don't currently have an explanation of how life could exist without God creating it.

It's real simple.
It means they're looking for "could have" and expect to find "could have"; but currently they don't have a "could have".

Over six years later, still looking for "could have".

[Solar]

So you admit that creationism is not science?

That's a rather large blunder, even for you.

No, you want it to be scientific, but every time you open your yap, it's to slam Religion.
Grow up Punk!

[JustKari]

So you admit that creationism is not science?

That's a rather large blunder, even for you.

...

I'm just going to ignore this.

Wrong on at least two (very obvious) accounts.

1. Creationism postulates the existence of God, a being more complex than the entire universe by infinite orders of magnitude, and gives no explanation or evidence for his existence.  This outstrips evolution by natural selection in complexity.

2. Occam's Razor refers to the most simplistic theory that successfully explains the empirical data.  Creationists have no explanation for vestigial organs or dinosaur fossils.  Their theory, even if it were simpler, does not fit with observable evidence.

It's very simple; evolution is a very imperfect process that is bound by the laws of physics and can only make adaptations that arise from realistic mutations.  You might as well ask why evolution does not make us sprout wings and fly.

But on that note, I can easily ask the same question for God, who has no such limitations; why does he make our bodies so fragile, to the point where babies can die before ever experiencing God or getting a chance to live?

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. 

Second, creationism does not discount dinosaurs, some Christians do not believe in dinosaurs, but the Bible does describe dinosaur type animals.

[MFA]

How do you explain that blind animals that live underground/deep underwater and have no need for eyesight, often times still have eye sockets?

How do you rationalize a Creator's decision to make sea creatures that can drown?

What purpose would a Creator have in putting appendixes and tailbones in humans?

Evolution not only has a very simple solution to this phenomena, but is actually actively supported by it.  Does Creationism have a logical answer that can beat Darwinism in the context of Occam's Razor?

Can you clarify what you mean by "creationist"?

[Sci Fi Fan]

No, you want it to be scientific, but every time you open your yap, it's to slam Religion.

Interesting accusation.  Now feel free to cite where in the opening post I slam religion.

David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. But "my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

Oh, so you're appealing to the God of the Gaps mentality.

You won't accept Evolution until it has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, yet you accept Creationism so long as it hasn't been disproven beyond any shadow of a doubt.  In other words, you conveniently have diametrically opposed standards of evidence for two competing theories, and given your preferred one every possible benefit of the doubt.

[Solar]

Interesting accusation.  Now feel free to cite where in the opening post I slam religion.

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