Do creationists accept biology?

[Subduction Zone]

So let me understand something from you. Do you believe the tonsils are useful? If you say yes, what do you think they are useful for?

Yes, they are useful. The articles you linked explained that. They are not necessary which was your claim.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope, that does not say necessary. Nor does it say that it is not vestigial. Why don't you look up what a vestigial organ is?

Don't rely on creationist sources since they tend to be dishonest. And of course you avoided the main fact. There is no scientific evidence for creationism.

Dr. Salk's vaccine had nothing to do with creationism or non-creationism. The idea scientists had (and probably some still do) that tonsils were not "necessary" has been overturned lately. Same with the appendix. Would you say the following is a "creationist" publication? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-all-our-organs-vital/
"Take the appendix. ...Many of us learned in school that this... is a useless, vestigial remnant of our evolution... But that idea has been debunked, says evolutionary biologist Heather Smith, director of Anatomical Laboratories at Midwestern University in Arizona. A 2017 study led by Smith reviewed data on 533 species of mammals and found that the appendix appears across multiple, unrelated species. “This suggests there's some good reason to have it,” she says."
So the road appears to be bending about the appendix. And the tonsils. What organs can you live without anyway?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they are useful. The articles you linked explained that. They are not necessary which was your claim.

I made the claim that the tonsils were not necessary? Please refresh my memory where I called the tonsils not necessary.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they are useful. The articles you linked explained that. They are not necessary which was your claim.

I'll wait for your answer to my other query to you in which you say I claimed tonsils were not necessary. But you say tonsils are useful. Please explain why you believe they are useful. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope, that does not say necessary. Nor does it say that it is not vestigial. Why don't you look up what a vestigial organ is?

Don't rely on creationist sources since they tend to be dishonest. And of course you avoided the main fact. There is no scientific evidence for creationism.

OK, I see where you're saying I said the appendix was necessary. Yes, I said it. You're saying it's useful but not necessary, is that right? Are you also saying the tonsils are useful but not necessary? And then again, the question comes up: useful for what? Not necessary for what? Because if I understand you correctly, you believe the appendix and tonsils may be useful but not necessary.

 

[YoursTrue]

@SZ: Would you say the following is from what you call a "creationist site"? "Researchers deduce that the appendix is designed to protect good bacteria in the gut. That way, when the gut is affected by a bout of diarrhea or other illness that cleans out the intestines, the good bacteria in the appendix can repopulate the digestive system and keep you healthy." https://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20071012/appendix-may-have-purpose#1

 

[YoursTrue]

@SZ: I love the next part. I hope you don't call the BBC website a "creationist" source. But here's what it says:
"You can still have a fairly normal life without one of your lungs, a kidney, your spleen, appendix, gall bladder, adenoids, tonsils, plus some of your lymph nodes, the fibula bones from each leg and six of your ribs. Losing your uterus, ovaries and breasts, or your testicles and prostate, is also quite survivable, although you might need hormone therapy to avoid other long-term problems, such as brittle bones.

If you allow yourself artificial replacements and medication, we can go further and remove your stomach, colon, pancreas, salivary glands, thyroid, bladder and your other kidney. Still not enough for you? Theoretically, surgeons could amputate all of your limbs, and remove your eyes, nose, ears, larynx, tongue, lower spine and rectum. Supported by machines in an intensive care unit, they could also take away your skull, heart and your remaining lung, at least for a short while."
My comment in the form of a question: So what organs are necessary? Another comment--most persons are born with bladder, thyroid, salivary glands, stomach, lungs, kidneys, etc. Are they necessary?

 

[YoursTrue]

The source of that quote from BBC is:
How many organs in the body could you live without?

 

[YoursTrue]

True, although it does in the majority of cases, so it's understandable that people will generally make that assumption. Unfortunately for you, that means you'll probably always have to go out of your way to differentiate yourself from your science-denying brethren.

So are you saying that because I believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," I do not believe there have been benefits to scientific research? Let me make this clear. I go to the doctor. I don't BELIEVE everything a doctor says. I decide if I will take a medication he recommends, or have an operation. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. What a doctor may recommend may not have the best outcome. And it is possible he can have been taught as truth errors with serious consequences, later "proven" that the taught way was wrong, now a new way is better.
So how often does medical consensus turn out to be wrong?
(What doctors learn in school as "Truth" is often reversed within a few years, and what was taught by scientists can be detrimental. Do not take this to mean I do not go to doctors when I feel the need to. I do.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I made the claim that the tonsils were not necessary? Please refresh my memory where I called the tonsils not necessary.

No, you made the claim that they were necessary. A claim refuted by countless tonsilectomies. I am the one saying that they are not necessary. Useful, yes. But necessary no.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@SZ: I love the next part. I hope you don't call the BBC website a "creationist" source. But here's what it says:
"You can still have a fairly normal life without one of your lungs, a kidney, your spleen, appendix, gall bladder, adenoids, tonsils, plus some of your lymph nodes, the fibula bones from each leg and six of your ribs. Losing your uterus, ovaries and breasts, or your testicles and prostate, is also quite survivable, although you might need hormone therapy to avoid other long-term problems, such as brittle bones.

If you allow yourself artificial replacements and medication, we can go further and remove your stomach, colon, pancreas, salivary glands, thyroid, bladder and your other kidney. Still not enough for you? Theoretically, surgeons could amputate all of your limbs, and remove your eyes, nose, ears, larynx, tongue, lower spine and rectum. Supported by machines in an intensive care unit, they could also take away your skull, heart and your remaining lung, at least for a short while."
My comment in the form of a question: So what organs are necessary? Another comment--most persons are born with bladder, thyroid, salivary glands, stomach, lungs, kidneys, etc. Are they necessary?

Neither do I . You merely did not understand it. And no, artificial replacements are not allowed.

At any rate I never claimed that the tonsils were vestigial since I do not know if they had a different prior use. That is not the case with the appendix.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So are you saying that because I believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," I do not believe there have been benefits to scientific research? Let me make this clear. I go to the doctor. I don't BELIEVE everything a doctor says. I decide if I will take a medication he recommends, or have an operation. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. What a doctor may recommend may not have the best outcome. And it is possible he can have been taught as truth errors with serious consequences, later "proven" that the taught way was wrong, now a new way is better.
So how often does medical consensus turn out to be wrong?
(What doctors learn in school as "Truth" is often reversed within a few years, and what was taught by scientists can be detrimental. Do not take this to mean I do not go to doctors when I feel the need to. I do.)

Nope, and I do not know how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@SZ: Would you say the following is from what you call a "creationist site"? "Researchers deduce that the appendix is designed to protect good bacteria in the gut. That way, when the gut is affected by a bout of diarrhea or other illness that cleans out the intestines, the good bacteria in the appendix can repopulate the digestive system and keep you healthy." https://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20071012/appendix-may-have-purpose#1

Not the best of sites since they foolishly used the word "designed". And the writer of that unfortunately displayed some ignorance. The appendix originally probably helped in the digestion of tougher vegetable matter. What so many article ignore is that fact that organs are regularly repurposed. That an organ has a use does not mean that it is not vestigial. If it not longer does the job it used to do it is vestigial. There are bones in whales that are left over from its land walking ancestors. They have a different use today than they had in the past. Again, the fact that they are useful does not mean that they are not vestigial. Just see if a whale can walk on land, even though it still has some of those bones. It will not be able to do that. Yet those bones are not "useless".

It is an error to think that vestigial has to mean useless.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you made the claim that they were necessary. A claim refuted by countless tonsilectomies. I am the one saying that they are not necessary. Useful, yes. But necessary no.

Yes, I made the claim they are necessary. You said I said they were not necessary. But I did not say that. You said they are not necessary, not me. Now --
Did you answer what they are not necessary for? Also, did you read how many body parts are said to be "not necessary"? Again -- what do you claim the tonsils are not necessary for ??

 

[YoursTrue]

Not the best of sites since they foolishly used the word "designed". And the writer of that unfortunately displayed some ignorance. The appendix originally probably helped in the digestion of tougher vegetable matter. What so many article ignore is that fact that organs are regularly repurposed. That an organ has a use does not mean that it is not vestigial. If it not longer does the job it used to do it is vestigial. There are bones in whales that are left over from its land walking ancestors. They have a different use today than they had in the past. Again, the fact that they are useful does not mean that they are not vestigial. Just see if a whale can walk on land, even though it still has some of those bones. It will not be able to do that. Yet those bones are not "useless".

It is an error to think that vestigial has to mean useless.

So you are saying that terminology is very important, am I right about that? Meaning the difference between useful and necessary, as if to say tonsils are vestigial organs NOT NECESSARY in the human body. Yet for some funny reason the evolutionary structure according to you has not eliminated them. Or have they? It's just one of those things that keep duplicating but not necessary. (Right?)
You also say that useful is not necessarily necessary in terms of biologic importance, is that right according to you? So please -- try to answer what is it that you say tonsils are not necessary for? Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not the best of sites since they foolishly used the word "designed". And the writer of that unfortunately displayed some ignorance. The appendix originally probably helped in the digestion of tougher vegetable matter. What so many article ignore is that fact that organs are regularly repurposed. That an organ has a use does not mean that it is not vestigial. If it not longer does the job it used to do it is vestigial. There are bones in whales that are left over from its land walking ancestors. They have a different use today than they had in the past. Again, the fact that they are useful does not mean that they are not vestigial. Just see if a whale can walk on land, even though it still has some of those bones. It will not be able to do that. Yet those bones are not "useless".

It is an error to think that vestigial has to mean useless.

Um -- did scientists always understand, think, imagine, or know what the appendix is now surmised to be useful for?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not the best of sites since they foolishly used the word "designed". And the writer of that unfortunately displayed some ignorance. The appendix originally probably helped in the digestion of tougher vegetable matter. What so many article ignore is that fact that organs are regularly repurposed. That an organ has a use does not mean that it is not vestigial. If it not longer does the job it used to do it is vestigial. There are bones in whales that are left over from its land walking ancestors. They have a different use today than they had in the past. Again, the fact that they are useful does not mean that they are not vestigial. Just see if a whale can walk on land, even though it still has some of those bones. It will not be able to do that. Yet those bones are not "useless".

It is an error to think that vestigial has to mean useless.

If it is not useless then there MUST BE a REASON these so-called vestigial organs are there. Which some scientists are beginning to come to grips with. And, as some point out, because they have not FOUND the reason does not mean there IS no reason. Surely as an "advanced thinker" you can understand that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope, and I do not know how you came to that conclusion.

Did you read the article I quoted from and gave the source of? I'm guessing, surmising, that you did not. BUT maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe you DID read it and then wondered how I came to that conclusion.
Showing that medical teaching changes rather rapidly and can have seriously disastrous consequences because they were taught as scientific teaching (truth you might say) but were seriously (later proven by experience and outcomes) wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Anyway, to SZ, our conversation has been interesting and helpful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I made the claim they are necessary. You said I said they were not necessary. But I did not say that. You said they are not necessary, not me. Now --
Did you answer what they are not necessary for? Also, did you read how many body parts are said to be "not necessary"? Again -- what do you claim the tonsils are not necessary for ??

Are you trolling?