[Wakeup Sleeper]

Name one imperfect design! In the early 1900s evolutionists use to make claims that there were all kinds of vestiages of sorts and they have long been shown to be false. From the appendix to well we have a tail bone so that must mean we at one time had a tail, no evidence junk science, thats all evolutionist ever come up with!

[Coyoteman]

Name one imperfect design!

1) Knee.

2) Lower back.

(Do I get any change?)

[voltaires_zit]

> Name one imperfect design!

Human eyes have a blind spot where the optic nerve meets the retina. Also, the image on the retina is "upside down", requiring an inordinate amount of processing power in the brain to straighten out and interpret.

Wisdom teeth, for which the human jaw is too small.

Having testes form inside the body, then descend, leaving two very thin and vulnerable holes in the abdominal wall.

Hip bones in whales.

Genes for teeth in chickens (yes, they exist).

The panda's thumb.

Wings on flightless birds.

[unlearner]

Name one imperfect design!

Are you sure you intended to direct your post to me?

I am not an evolution proponent even though I think the theory contains many factual elements, i.e. observations, and has some interpretive power, many assumptions are made by the current flavor of it (as always has been the case) which contradict my axiomatic beliefs (e.g. the truth of the Bible). I realize science is not required to comply with articles of faith, but it is also not required to contradict them. Look at Pasteur's work. He was a great biologist, even more than Darwin, but his more practical discoveries were the result of his hypotheses conforming to his Biblical faith.

My point was about ID (a view which I am not committed to defending as science, but perhaps could be scientific rather than philosophical, if it is postulated correctly.) Evolution proponents attack ID as not falsifiable on the one hand, and as falsified on the other. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. These contradictory attacks demonstrate that the evolution proponents are indeed agenda driven whether they admit it to themselves or not.

I pointed out before that one of the best arguments of evolution proponents against ID has been greatly diminished. They argued for years that genetic "errors" could be identified that were common between man, apes, and other animals, demonstrating that we had common ancestors. Recent developments in genetic research have shown that it is likely that many genetic "errors" were propagated through viruses rather than inheritance. Score one for ID.