The assumption of evolution can cause problems

[zebraone]

I think you are very generous.

wa:do

True...lol

Christians aren't the enemy...They are the victims of fraud. lol I'm here to help!

 

[cablescavenger]

Like with the adipose fin in fish. Biologists don’t know what they are for so they assume they are vestigial. If they are vestigial then that would mean they aren't used or needed and a leftover from evolution. However we might find that if we “trust science” and assume that there are such things as vestigial structures in organisms and are not structures that were designed by God then things like this could happen.

“Clipping off the seemingly useless adipose fin to mark hatchery-grown fish is common practice in Oregon and across the Northwest. New research published today suggests that clipping off the small, fleshy fin between the dorsal fin and tail might hurt fish's ability to swim in turbulent water.”

Clipping adipose fins on salmon might hurt fish's ability to swim in rough waters, study finds | OregonLive.com

I don't get your point, so it has nerves attached and still has some very minor function. So do goose bumps but they are still classed as vestigial.

 

[Krok]

I don't get your point, so it has nerves attached and still has some very minor function. So do goose bumps but they are still classed as vestigial.

Nobody gets his "arguments" here.

It works like this: Creationists make up their own straw man definitions of the word vestigial, pretend that it is THE "scientific" definition, and then blow the straw man down. It works in some Churches, Mosques, etc.

That's what Man of Faith is trying to do here. Unfortunately for him he deals with a lot of educated people on this forum. Man of Faith, it simply won't work here. Lots of people here are educated. :sorry1: Man of Faith. Education is wonderful. You should try it one day!

 

[Man of Faith]

I don't get your point, so it has nerves attached and still has some very minor function. So do goose bumps but they are still classed as vestigial.

The point is in the article. The fins were considered vestigial and not needed, so they were cut off, and then they were found out to be needed or useful. I'm not making that up, that really happened. If you are saying that vestigial doesn't necessarily mean not needed or used for a purpose then that goes against the reality of the article. And if a structure is used then it being "vestigial", whatever that means now, isn't necessarily evidence for evolution. If a structure is used then it could have been designed with a purpose by a designer.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

If a structure is used then it could have been designed with a purpose by a designer.

No reason at all to think that

 

[Man of Faith]

No reason at all to think that

If a persons worldview is ID then yes there is.

 

[rusra02]

Whereas working on the assumption that Creation happened biologists wouldn't have bothered to learn how germs and diseases evolve and spread, and learn how to develop cures. Oh well, shoot, going on the assumption that Creation occurred we would just have a bunch of people walking around happy to be ignorant and not bother learning about our bodies and the planet and our past and about everything else. In other words, to use the thread title...the assumption of Creation can cause stupidity.

And yet, some of the greatest scientists in history believed in Creation. Sir Isaac Newton, for one. Louis Pasteur, for another, who proved that life does not arise spontaneously (something still believed by "scientific" evolutionists.) I don't think the assumption of Creation caused these men, and countless others, to be stupid.

 

[rusra02]

It wasn't assumed to be vestigial because we didn't know what it does... it was assumed to be vestigial because it is...

Vestigial doesn't mean non-functional.

The poor assumption was that the fin wasn't consequential because they hadn't figured out what it was for. Now they know and it still remains a vestigial organ, but one who's current function (and thus why it's still present in it's current form) is now a little better understood.

wa:do

Wow. I think you have to believe in evolution to understand what you just said.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And yet, some of the greatest scientists in history believed in Creation. Sir Isaac Newton, for one. Louis Pasteur, for another, who proved that life does not arise spontaneously (something still believed by "scientific" evolutionists.) I don't think the assumption of Creation caused these men, and countless others, to be stupid.

It's very interesting, but a year or so ago an e-friend who is a devout Christian, and I concluded a discussion about ID with him sending me via mail several books by actual accredited astrophysicists and a biologist. These books all were similar in that the authors spoke at length on the various interesting phenomena that occurred in their respective fields but then all made the same erroneous leap to the end conclusion that 'God did it!'

A number of scientists who accomplished much for us may have believed in Creation, but you and they share the mistake of abandoning all your previously demonstrated intelligence to engage in wish fulfillment in the end.

That's a problem

 

[Krok]

If a persons worldview is ID then yes there is.

Luckily a person's "worldview" is not considered in science.The scientific method is. We need evidence.

That's why ID is not science. They think "worldviews" count and start with their "worldviews".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point is in the article. The fins were considered vestigial and not needed, so they were cut off, and then they were found out to be needed or useful. I'm not making that up, that really happened. If you are saying that vestigial doesn't necessarily mean not needed or used for a purpose then that goes against the reality of the article. And if a structure is used then it being "vestigial", whatever that means now, isn't necessarily evidence for evolution. If a structure is used then it could have been designed with a purpose by a designer.

Something you may want to consider: a lot of science journalism is light on the actual science and the science news often gets details wrong. Articles about evolutionary biology aren't immune to this sort of effect: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif

Edit: actually, having been in the situation a few times where I've witnessed an event and then seen the coverage of the event later, I'd say it's probably more accurate to say that news in general often gets details wrong, though this problem can be especially serious when the subject matter is technical or nuanced... i.e. much of science.

 

[Krok]

And yet, some of the greatest scientists in history believed in Creation.

A few hundred years ago, they were not allowed to believe in anything else. Ever heard of burning at the stake?

Sir Isaac Newton, for one.

You mean the same Isaac Newton who believed in the Philosophers Stone?

Louis Pasteur, for another, who proved that life does not arise spontaneously....

Are you telling untruths again? Louis Pasteur proved the "Law of Biogenesis", where organisms such as mice, flies and bacteria do not spontaneously appear on food. It was a long-standing belief that these organisms did, known as spontaneous generation. Pasteur stated: La génération spontanée est une chimère ("Spontaneous generation is a dream"). Mice, flies and bacteria do not arise spontaneously from meat.

... (something still believed by "scientific" evolutionists.)

Are you telling untruths again? "Scientific" evolutionists can distinguish between the ToE and abiogenesis. Why do creationists always lie?

I don't think the assumption of Creation caused these men, and countless others, to be stupid.

It is my observation that modern creationists, who write here, really are stupid. Others do it for the easy money.

 

[Krok]

Wow. I think you have to believe in evolution to understand what you just said.

No, you need a very basic education in biology to understand what painted wolf just said. A few days of very basic education would do.You should try education one day. Education is wonderful. Imagine what you would know after a few years of it!

 

[McBell]

If a persons worldview is ID then yes there is.

Thus proving that the assumption of Creation causes problems.

Funny how every time you present an "ace in the hole" against evolution you are completely shot down with truth and facts.
Sad that you still fly home claiming victory.

 

[cablescavenger]

The point is in the article. The fins were considered vestigial and not needed, so they were cut off, and then they were found out to be needed or useful. I'm not making that up, that really happened. If you are saying that vestigial doesn't necessarily mean not needed or used for a purpose then that goes against the reality of the article.

And if a structure is used then it being "vestigial", whatever that means now, isn't necessarily evidence for evolution. If a structure is used then it could have been designed with a purpose by a designer.

Your OP title says the assumption of evolution can cause problems.
I do not see that.

As I read it the article you have presented states nothing that might support the the OP title.

Your link says:
"New research published today suggests that clipping off the small, fleshy fin between the dorsal fin and tail might hurt fish's ability to swim in turbulent water.

Not all fish have adipose fins, but salmon and trout do. Many biologists believe that while the fin may have been useful at some point the evolutionary history of fish, today it is vestigial -- lost its use because of evolutionary change."

Note the words in bold and underlined; suggests, might, many. There are certainly no definites in there.

 

[rusra02]

It's very interesting, but a year or so ago an e-friend who is a devout Christian, and I concluded a discussion about ID with him sending me via mail several books by actual accredited astrophysicists and a biologist. These books all were similar in that the authors spoke at length on the various interesting phenomena that occurred in their respective fields but then all made the same erroneous leap to the end conclusion that 'God did it!'

A number of scientists who accomplished much for us may have believed in Creation, but you and they share the mistake of abandoning all your previously demonstrated intelligence to engage in wish fulfillment in the end.

That's a problem

What you call 'wish fulfillment' is simply following the evidence to it's logical conclusion. "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4) Just as a house or even a small portion of a house, such as a door with it's hinges, requires a maker, so the brilliant design and construction of "all things" demands a maker. That's a problem for evolutionists, but not for those who are willing to accept the evidence. (Hebrews 11:1)

​

​

 

[rusra02]

A few hundred years ago, they were not allowed to believe in anything else. Ever heard of burning at the stake? You mean the same Isaac Newton who believed in the Philosophers Stone? Are you telling untruths again? Louis Pasteur proved the "Law of Biogenesis", where organisms such as mice, flies and bacteria do not spontaneously appear on food. It was a long-standing belief that these organisms did, known as spontaneous generation. Pasteur stated: La génération spontanée est une chimère ("Spontaneous generation is a dream"). Mice, flies and bacteria do not arise spontaneously from meat. Are you telling untruths again? "Scientific" evolutionists can distinguish between the ToE and abiogenesis. Why do creationists always lie? It is my observation that modern creationists, who write here, really are stupid. Others do it for the easy money.

Despite your attempt at misdirection, the point made is that faith in God as the Creator does not hinder brilliant scientists, past and present, from pursuing scientific truth. I am sorry you believe people who believe in creation are stupid. Your name calling does you no merit.

 

[Dan4reason]

And yet, some of the greatest scientists in history believed in Creation. Sir Isaac Newton, for one. Louis Pasteur, for another, who proved that life does not arise spontaneously (something still believed by "scientific" evolutionists.) I don't think the assumption of Creation caused these men, and countless others, to be stupid.

And some of the greatest scientists didn't believe in creation. And Newton died before evolution was discovered. He was a genius but was also a little crazy. He was an alchemist.

Pasteur died in 1895, the origin of species was published in 1859. However, at that time, the evidence of evolution was still weak.

 

[Dan4reason]

The point is in the article. The fins were considered vestigial and not needed, so they were cut off, and then they were found out to be needed or useful. I'm not making that up, that really happened. If you are saying that vestigial doesn't necessarily mean not needed or used for a purpose then that goes against the reality of the article. And if a structure is used then it being "vestigial", whatever that means now, isn't necessarily evidence for evolution. If a structure is used then it could have been designed with a purpose by a designer.

Vestigitality doesn't necessarily mean useless. So these fins were not thrown away because they were thought vestigial but because they were thought to be useless.

 

[waitasec]

I think you failed to demonstrate that all/most vestigial are assumptions...

what else do you expect from a man of faith?