human tails and the midriff - hiccups, what are the creatonist theories about them?

Hi, thanks for the questions, I am Creationist.first of all we have to observe that there is no "creationist theory" for what might be called a minor problem in a hypothesis.My main answer is that biblical creationism explains that this is not a perfect system. Secondly, it follows that in a fallen world many problems will abound. Animals and humans are now subject to chance and death.Rather than taking on a fallacy of association, we have to observe that all animals and humans share many traits. Logically this does not mean we are necessarily related.It is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle.An example is to find something you share in common, and then fallaciously assign a causal link where no such link exists.For example, certain animals might have blue eyes, does this mean I inherited my blue eyes from such organisms?

Again, I reiterate that sharing traits is not necessarily relevant.Does it prove we came from animals with tails? No. Pigs have eyes, does that mean we came from pigs?Generally we don't have tails. Rather than seeing this "potential" tail-like growth as a sign of evolution, we can see it as a sign of a common designer.Okay - if we were designed, why do lots of glitches happen? This child was probably subject to a mutation or/and a defective deformity, as a result of living in a fallen world where mutations abound.Thanks for showing how mutations infact usually only provide defective unhelpful and tragic results.

Hi.Be fair - "craetionism" has fewer answers as it is relatively "new".This doesn't mean our answers lack truth. Those with fewer answers aren't necessarily in the wrong.You ask why God has genes for tails in humans, but in my post I indicated that I don't see it that way. The defection or mutation that would lead to a mistake creating a useless appendage, is not God's will at all, but infact a result of a fallen system.I can not second-guess God but in my experience, his answers aren't the quick derisive ones that disbelievers come up with.If it's a quick dig at God, trust me, it's usually nowhere near the real answer.

Prove they are descended.All you have is a hypothetical cladogram which is nowhere near logical proof. Bare in mind only logic allows your theory to proceed.This type of evidence that "follows" if evolution is true, is very weak, as you merely have to believe we are related, when the facts themselves do not insist this is so.