Ignoring the fact that the statement you claimed science has to have faith for, isn't even a statement that real science makes!

Way to go voice of intellectual dishonesty.

I feel SO exposed.

You like the scientist you take great faith in, have made several assumptions about me. You ASSUMED because I live in proximity to Kent Hovind that I work for him? HAHAHA!! Thats typical. Lets see, he is in Pennsicola I believe. That is 9 hours drive time from me. How do you figure that that is close proximity? I can get to GA in 4 hours. No wonder your confused. I guess if you go by millions of years, 9 hours is close huh? So guess what, I WIN!! You are DEAD wrong. I have no affiliation whatsoever with Kent Hovind. You ASSUMED. You also assume that because I work at ECCC that Im some wack job religious freak. You think by sharing with all your forum people that I work at a church, Im some hack. Wrong agian. I play in a rock band, have a peirced eyebrow and long hair. I run production at ECCC. Thats sound, video, lighting,graphics. I also fail to see the relevance in what I do for a living and our conversations. I think I bug you Saip, and Im not going anywhere anytime soon. So...deal with it.

You're a very silly person. Yeah, they would. They are both very irrational (mind over matter and thinking will would influence evolution.) Could only be believed through faith. From your statements you obviously have no clue whatsoever about evolution.

So? I know tons of people with pierced parts, long hair and bands. Atheist, christian, pagan, muslim ones. This does not give you "i am not a fundie" status.
Sorry, this just smacks to me of christian rock, "See kids, we're cool! Please like us, our lyrics are about loving Jesus but they are heavy so we are HIP!"
And now you're using the image to try and "throw us off" as it were. Why did we need to know any of that? We're not debating your modern "coolness". This thread is about evolution and the big bang (currently).
The fact that you WORK at a church is directly relevant to this issue...... Do you believe in ID yourself? Or are you trying to prove that because (in your eyes) science requires "faith" as well, that evolution is false or no more reasonable than ID?

Are you shitting me? Scientists typically simply refer to it as evolution. They make no quantifications, because none are needed.

Of course genetics prohibit certain animals from interbreeding, what the fuck do you think is the main criterion for species designation when it comes to taxonomy? Feel free to address my point any time.

Of course not. Man is evolving as we speak. Increases in lactose tolerance in certain populaions and similar phenomena atest to this. You obviously simply don't understand what evolution is, and get angry when I point out your ignornarance.

We have had no reason do evolve wings, now we MAKE wings when we desire them. Why should we adapt them?

Quite the opposite, actuaually.

Yes, that would be the way to go if you wanted to be a stationary being. Photosynthesis does provide energy of course, buy not the sort of energy required for locomotion or to power a brain. Animals have a found a way of living that requires them to ingest more energy than the sun alone can provide.

So tell us why the perfect designer made it so that we can't simply sun bask and survive. What is your "scientific" anwer to that?

We have evolved in the last few thousand years. I've already given you one example, and can give you others. What, exactly, do you think evolution is? You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

I do not argue evolution much, but I may as well use this forum to a possible advantage to learn more about it. But I do have a question, If Microevolution is adaptation, and macroevolution(the big daddy evolution) is a giant series of microevolutions that alter the species, how do you not believe in evolution? ( I had came up with the evolution is a series of adaptations from a small amount of thinking, I had no idea of the actual names though). Adaptation is proven through observation, experimentation, and modeling. If adaptation is proven, obviously a series of adaptations could occur, and macroevolution would take place(for lack of better terms, I am aware it is not an event). How does our reasonable Mr. Peters not understand this? Unless I am wrong or mistaken, but He should be an older more wise, intelligent, and mature man. How can I(a 15yr. old) grasp a concept he can't? He seems to be stupid also, using terms such as horsey, and moo moo cow. My 6 year old sister has stopped saying horsey for about 2 years. I think evolution is not what we should be worrying about. I think our main issue is poor Mr. Peters mental health and development.

EDIT: EVERYONE REST IN PEACE!!! I found a place for our beloved Mr. Peters. !!!!!
http://www.disabilityworld.org/06-08_04/gov/guatemalamentalhealth.shtml
Now we need to work on fundings to get him over there...

because it has always been erroneously presented to him as an event, so as to ease its discreditation in his still-developing mind.

you are mistaken, bud. never think for a minute that because somebody is older than you that they are more intelligent, or even mature. that's just logical fallacy 101. there are 8 year olds out there that are more intelligent than probably 80% of american adults (that's just my own made-up figure, but i'm probably not far off )

tick tock tick tock

Oh, like the reason he isn't posting is because he's busy reading up on evolution. HA! Puhlease.

Eskimos have thicker skin, people that live in high altitudes have bigger lungs than the people in the vally.

Sorry that is called evolution , people have adapted to their enviroments. this didn't happen over night you know.

You realize of course that this would be evidence against an intelligent designer, right? Why would an intelligent designer give an animal wings that it can't use?

What a horribly stupid statement to make. Yes. Organs have purposes some purposes are meaningless concerning the survival or superiority of a species though.
'Structures' don't necessarily have to have a purpose. Ostrich wings are not organs. They're not 'necessary' except in the running and mating of the BIRD. Regardless of whether the wings are evolving into something or evolved from something they still fit the definition that you provided of vestigial.

Also, regardless of what you have asserted concerning the appendix, that structure(not an organ but a piece of an organ) fits the criteria of vestigial as well in that it is either degenerating or imperfectly developed.

Your statement is not a 'fact', Mr. Peters. You simply disregard the examples giving proof of vestigial structures and organs. You have failed to 'address' the fact that there are millions of examples concerning vestigial organs and structures in the present and past creatures that exist or have existed on this planet.

My favorite, most recent example, is that of the tiktaalik rosea which is fish(?) fossil found in devonian rock that links fish to amphibians and/or reptiles. Its 'fins' were found to be transistional appendages in that there were joints forming from straight bones. Please, don't take my word. Google-ing the name only brings up 726 various other reports and pictures. I haven't seen it(the fossil) in person yet but would like to soon.