Revolutionary new food item! :D

[Lori P]

Ahhh... I've been sitting here sipping my coffee and having a ball reading thru this. You guys rock. What a great discussion. I have nothing of value to add, just love watching your minds work. :-)

[Garter_Gertie]

If there's no evolution, why do I have an appendix? And why did my little toe get little?

I love the way Stefan thinks because I can't think like that. Very intelligent and articulate. WoW!

[Stefan-A]

why do I have an appendix?

The deadline closed.

[Zephyr]

Also, not to be too personal, but are you an atheist Stefan?
If so, this conversation will continue to go back and forth. I've tried showing atheist friends that evolution doesn't exist, but always to no available.
If not so, technically, I don't believe in evolution as a force by itself. Hence the intelligent design. There is evidence, as you've said, of things changing, but we don't have all the little bits in between and have not observed the change of one organism into another in the natural world or in a synthesized environment. (YET, might I add.)

So, if you'd like to continue our discussion I'd be more than happy to, but for now I'm putting the heavy artillery fire away. (The sound of rattling mental machine guns tends to scare the baby garters. :P )

[Zephyr]

The deadline closed.

I had to stare at that for a minute before I got it. XD

[Stefan-A]

Also, not to be too personal, but are you an atheist Stefan?

It really shouldn't matter what I am.

If so, this conversation will continue to go back and forth. I've tried showing atheist friends that evolution doesn't exist, but always to no available.

You're using stock arguments against evolution, but the problem is that they are easily refuted. There are two reasons why that is. The first, is that the people who came up with them know absolutely nothing about science, they are simply trying to convince people who are poorly educated and they are therefore prone to resort to a lot of fallacious arguments, especially straw man arguments, as well as direct lies. They're admittedly more proficient at convincing people than evolutionists are, since they're appealing to ignorance and emotions, while evolutionists are forced to appeal to knowledge, which isn't going to work if the listener isn't familiar with certain scientific concepts. The second reason, is the refusal of creationists to discard failed arguments. After a while it's like shooting fish in a barrel for those of us who aren't creationists.

If not so, technically, I don't believe in evolution as a force by itself. Hence the intelligent design. There is evidence, as you've said, of things changing, but we don't have all the little bits in between and have not observed the change of one organism into another in the natural world or in a synthesized environment. (YET, might I add.)

Actually, we have. The problem is that creationists keep moving the goal posts to come up with new excuses not to accept the evidence that they are presented with.