Wow! Why didn't I think of that?

So, I just found this post at http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopicp-269891-Those_crazy_creationists.html

"I was just reading about proofs of evolution, creationist claims, and all that fun stuff. And a contradiction in creationists slapped me upside the head. I have never seen it pointed out before, but it might have. It struck me as so funny, I had to share it.

In one instance you have creationists that love to use the old argument "What use is half a wing?". Right? Basically irreducible complexity before Behe coined the phrase.

They like to say that evolution is impossible because half a wing is no good. Half an eye is no good.

And then we go to another instance, where we discuss vestigials. When evolutionists say that ostriches wings are partly vestigial, the creatonists throw up thier arms and say "No way!" They aren't vestigial, they are useful for "so and so".

So the question is, Mr. Creationist; is "half a wing" useful or not?"

This post really got me because it's so simple. I like the argument. Besides, vestigial organs and such are good refutations of both Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design!