How does creationism explain?

Question

How does creationism explain the appendix, tail bone, fingernails, or wisdom teeth?

Also why do we need a new flu shot every year?

Genetic mutation is a vital part of the theory of evolution. The concept is that the flu virus mutates enough to evade people's immunities. When people have that immunity (flu shot), that mutation dies. The flu mutates again and again as to avoid extinction. Eventually it ends up extremely different than what it used to be due to all these mutations (evolution).

One years mutation is not evolution. The combined mutations of mutations of mutations is evolution.

I believe that in 10,000 years or so there will be a virus quite similar to what we have today as the flu, though a few symptoms will have changed. Perhaps the more obvious symptoms will be invisible.

As for different species. Let's say that there is a specific breed of chipmunk. It only lives in this one forest. All of the sudden, for no apparent reason, a river appears and divides this breed of chipmunk's habitat. Half on one side, half on the other. There are now two groups of the same chipmunks. These two groups mutate SEPARATELY. The mutations of mutations of mutations on one side by the year 20,000 are probably going to be reasonably different that the mutations of mutations of mutations of chipmunks on the other side of the river. And I also doubt that either one will be the same as they were 18,000 years before.

Answer 1

If you are going to have a list of vestigial organs, you need to make sure that the items on it really are vestigial.

Fingernails can be very useful. I don't see how anyone can reasonably consider them to be useless.

Wisdom teeth are also not vestigial. Many people have plenty of room in their mouth for them. For example, I have all of mine and have been told by multiple dentists that there is no reason to ever have them removed.

Even people who don't have room for their wisdom teeth would have room for them if they had lost a few other teeth before their wisdom teeth grew in. Wisdom teeth can then serve as valuable replacements for those which were lost. They don't become vestigial just because you happened to be lucky enough not to lose any teeth before they grew in.

There is plenty of solid evidence which debunks creationism. You shouldn't have to falsely claim valuable organs are vestigial to do that.

Answer 2

Ummm you can believe in adaptation and still believe in creationism


Do you really think that creationists dont believe in genetic mutation and genetic adaptation? Noone is arguing those points.
I dont know that flu virus mutations and changes would be considered evolution considering that part of the def of evolution is over a gradual period of time and a mutation in a virus can be fairly quickly.



I understand genetic mutation is key to evolution, but my point was, is the flu virus mutating each year considered evolution since it is so quick and not over a gradual period of time. It continues to mutate at a very quick rate, yet it still stays the flu, hmmmmm. Can this maybe poke a hole at the idea that mutations overtime divert into a new species? (I had to take that shot at evolution between species, lol)


That has happened and what you get are new and different breeds of the same species. That is a proven phenomenon. Changing so much that they no longer are considered the same species is far from and hardly a proven phenomenon.

Answer 3

It doesn't.

Neither does it explain what we observe in the rocks, the hills, the mountains, the ocens, the skies, or the depths of space. Creationism stops at "Goddidit" and doesn't go any further. "Goddidit" in fact demands that you cease asking questions altogether...accept that "God made it this way" and that is all there is to understand.

Except that is not all there is to understand.

"Goddidit" may have been an adequate explanation for illiterates who struggled every day for mere survival, but it is not nearly so now. Today, our quality of life and prosperity depends on knowledge...knowledge that only increases in quantity and complexity every day. A populace that insists on embracing "Goddidit" as any kind of acceptable explanation is a populace that will quickly find itself inhabiting a third world country with a government very much like Iran or Afganistan.

"Intelligent Design" is Creationism in a cheap lab coat trying to pretend it's not what it really is--religion. Superstition. Dogmatic tenets of a very conservative, very narrow-minded, very provincialistic people.

Answer 4

We need a new flu shot every year because the pharm companies need to make money. Do you really think they can accuratly predict which 3 (yes 3 out of how many strains?) are going to be the worst this year? I don't have much faith in the flu shot.

Answer 5

i'm curious as to why thoughts could help survival as a results of fact i could think of thoughts, extremely love could get a team in complication greater beneficial than chilly good judgment. How does it help survival to be self sacrificing, this is mindless. Creationism explains love in that God loves us first. all of us understand approximately love as a results of fact we are enjoyed and the area human beings this is in a lifeless ringer for God tries to reciprocate that.

Answer 6

For your "bad design" argument, go here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/vestigialorgans.asp

The question is, can random mutations produce new creative information? Obviously the evolutionists try to argue against this, but listen to what some scientists have said:

Dr. Lee Spetner (a biophysicist who taught at John Hopkins University) in his book Not By Chance analyzes examples of mutations that evolutionists have claimed to have been increases in information, and shows that they are actually examples of loss of specificity, which means they involved loss of information. He concluded, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”

He also said, “The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume.”

Dr. Ray Bohlin (who has a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology) said, “We see the apparent inability of mutations truly to contribute to the origin of new structures. The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information—a must for any theory of evolutionary mechanism.”

And Dr. Warner Gitt (an information scientist who was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology), in answering the question (Can new information originate through mutations?) said, “...this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.”

Mutations can cause an increase in amount of DNA, but they have not shown to cause an increase in the amount of functional genetic information.

Even the somewhat beneficial mutations they point to like antibiotic resistance in bacteria are always a rearrangement or loss of information, never a gain. For instance, a mutation that causes the pumps in its cell membrane not to work in a certain way so it doesn’t suck in the antibiotics we try to kill it with. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the bacteria, rendering it unable to kill the bacteria. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new genetic information.

Sickle-cell anemia is often used as an example to support evolution, but the mutation causes a loss of normal function with no new ability or information.

Wingless beetles on a windy island and blind cave fish may have a survival advantage, but it comes from a loss of information.

This kind of stuff is used as evidence for evolution, but in every mutation (even the beneficial ones), this seems to always be the case. As Dr. Michael Behe (who has a Ph.D. in Biochemistry) said, “...most evolutionary changes are ones which either break or degrade genes—and these are the helpful mutations! But you can’t build new molecular machinery by breaking genes.”

All we see is a downhill change that fits with the fall in Genesis 3, headed in the wrong direction. Evolution requires new creative information, not a loss of information. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into more advanced forms.

Answer 7

It's called dualism. Squeeze any square evidence into that round hole.

And still get the flu shot, even though it's evolution.

Mommy2Be, science explains it. Creationism is religion, not science, and not an explanation. See Kitzmiller vs. Dover case of 2005.

gwwhz, it's a DEAD virus that stimulates your auto immune system. Sheesh, study up, will you?

Answer 8

Creationism is an explanation of how the world works before the dawn of modern science. It's like the Greeks explaining hurricanes by saying that Poseidon is angry. People just haven't grown out of it yet.

Answer 9

I am not God,I can not explain these things,I can say fingernails are use full and the hand would look lousy with out them.I have never in my life had a flu shot,I do not want live
virus injected into me.

Answer 10

If we knew all there was to know about God He wouldn't be worthy of our praise and worship. He states that the wisdom of man is foolishness to the Lord!