How do creationists explain the nasal bones?

The realm of God and Christianity is of a spiritual nature. You ply Christians with non spiritual questions while requiring them to give answers according to the rudimentary elements and limitations of this world. You ask worldly and scientific questions to Christians supposing that that are indebted to give answers outside the boundaries of their stated doctrinal beliefs. You take someone with a belief system and ply them with questions about a different belief system and marvel that they cannot give you an answer that harmonizes with your position. Ask Christians Christian questions.

Just because this is such an intellectually interesting question, let me play devil's advocate (where the devil, in this case, is Creationism).

The first point is that your question needs to discuss the match of form to function. If structure A serves function B, then the question is whether A is the *only* structure, or the *best* structure, that serves that function. If so, then there's your answer. But in this case, clearly, a nasal structure with one bone, or three bones could serve the function (opening the nasal passage) just as well, and in many situations better, than the two-bone structure ... so that it why common ancestry provides a better explanation. The same analysis is true of other structures such as the bones of the inner ear in mammals and reptiles, the five fingers in the vertebrate forelimbs, or four limbs in land vertebrates ... i.e. there is no reason there should not be six-legged vertebrates, or two-legged ... but the fact that there are none is evidence of common descent.

The mistake of many Creationists is to labor under the idea of "perfection" in nature ... that all structures are "perfectly" suited to their function. People who believe this just don't know nature very well. Structures in nature are incredible, beautiful, amazing things .. but "perfect"? Not even close. To pick a simple example, it is not possible to have both a "perfect" disease and a "perfect" immune system ... so logically, "perfection" is not achievable. (Creationists will respond that disease itself is a consequence of human sin, but they have yet to explain why the same disease-to-immune-system struggle exists in apes, earthworms, oak-trees, and bacteria themselves ... what kind of sin can oak trees commit?)

But the better answer, which I have never actually heard a Creationist actually articulate well, is the idea of *aesthetic* commonality. All Frank Lloyd Wright buildings are different, but they have certain structures, certain aesthetic decisions, in common ... even when those architectural decisions are flawed from an *engineering* point of view (as when Frank Lloyd Wright's domed roofs have a tendency to make leaky roofs). In other words, two nasal bones, four limbs, and five fingers per limb, are just the Designer/Creator's "artistic signature" ... He just thinks they look cool, so He sticks with that "design."

Perhaps the reason Creationists have not attached themselves to this explanation, is that the flaws in these structures point to a God who either makes aesthetic decisions at the expense of function ... or a God who is actually somewhat inept. I.e. a God that makes "aesthetic" decisions that produce imperfect designs, is Himself revealed to be imperfect.

So they prefer to stick with the "form-to-function perfection" concept.

-- P.S. ---

Does joe b not notice that you asked about Creationists and he turned it into a question for Christians ... as if the two are synonymous. "Ask Christians Christian questions" misses the point that Creationism is the claim that the scientific concept of evolution is false, and replaceable by a scientifically more defensible concept of divine Creation. It is Creationists (not Christians) who are bringing faith into the scientific arena ... but you don't then get to claim immunity from scientific questions.

Anyway, that's the best answer I can come up with.

The whole idea of an Intelligent designer itself can be supernatural or not based on different points of view. One thing is for sure; that Tetrapods had probably more than nasal bones. Most likely cells too. Some had vertebrates and even feet. It seems that if we have 1 intelligent designer then it is obvious we will see similarities in his design. Whether they are cells feet or anything else.

P.S sorry if i did not target your question right. Would you mind paraphrasing if i did?

So then the question has to be asked: What kind of changes have occured in the nasal bones in modern species as compared to their ancestors? You mentioned 'little evolutionary changes', which I assume mean there have been some changes.

Radiocarbon relationship isn't proper for time spans previous approximately one hundred,000 years. the reason in the back of it is by using the fact there are no longer many times sufficient of the stuff left whilst in comparison with what began out to produce an precise statistical inference (it is what one does in finding out to purchase the date). it is a critical (and difficulty-loose) matter of information that it only makes precise inferences on "super" pattern sizes. the dimensions of a "super" pattern is defined by making use of the point of accuracy wanted of the inference. Now, the place radiocarbon relationship could be valid pertaining to to fossils could be find out the hypothesis that all of us fossils are just some thousand years previous at maximum, and radio carbon relationship could be _very_ precise and incessant contained in the dates that it returns for samples IF the literal biblical advent chronology have been genuine.

Do you understand the fallacy of your question? You ask us to defend our position that we were created supernaturally, yet you put a disclaimer on your request by saying we can't offer a supernatural explanation.

Also, Naturalism isn't the law of science, it's a particular philosophy that is popular in most scientific communities today

That would suggest a common designer. As far as evolution, does the fact that we have 2 eyes suggest we came from rattlesnakes?

Nasal bones are necessary to keep nasal canals from collapsing on themselves and asphyxiating the individual

I would like to know how the explain the appendix and the coccyx as well

The same way that creationists explain everything. "God made it that way according to His plan. It is not for us to question God's plans." It is a lot easier than actually thinking about it.