Attenborough seeks to prove evolution

[El Kabong]

So Kirkland are you trying to prove evolution or prove there is no God?

[Scrap]

One of the most important parts of are anatomy for are inteligence is the Thumb .

[El Kabong]

One of the most important parts of are anatomy for are inteligence is the Thumb .

"One of the most important parts of OUR anatomy for OUR intelligence is the thumb"

.....sorry my thumbs made me do that

[Scrap]

No it didnt a thought made you do it. .

[El Kabong]

No it didnt a thought made you do it. .

....a thought which evolved from my thumbs

[Scrap]

They say it took 3,000,000 years to evolve to its present form. Now thats interesting.

[El Kabong]

They say it took 3,000,000 years to evolve to its present form. Now thats interesting.

What can I say, I use the microwave (without the door closed) a ton and I'm just plain faster than everyone else

[Kev]

Attenborough was interviewed today and I think the purpose of the documentary was revealed. Creationism is on the rise in America and has been for many years now, and is seemingly growing over here.

It's a propoganda piece in reality, a nice opportunity to present for humanists to present their evolution as fact under the guise of science.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Attenborough on Darwin and creationism

[Kev]

So Kirkland are you trying to prove evolution or prove there is no God?

This kind of 'evidence' when presented really annoys me. It's basically no stronger an argument than a creationist highlighting the complexity of an eyeball and all its component parts and saying it must have had a designer. Apparently that is to be rejected as mere conjecture and wishful thinking but evolutionists are allowed to look at parts of the human body in the same way and see in an appendix for example a vestigial organ that is evidence of our monkey days.

If creationists arn't allowed to use the idea of irreducibale complexity as evidence for a designer then how is it logically consistent for an evolutionist to use their own interperetations of what's vestigial or not as evidence for evolution.

[Kirkland Laing]

So Kirkland are you trying to prove evolution or prove there is no God?

This kind of 'evidence' when presented really annoys me. It's basically no stronger an argument than a creationist highlighting the complexity of an eyeball and all its component parts and saying it must have had a designer. Apparently that is to be rejected as mere conjecture and wishful thinking but evolutionists are allowed to look at parts of the human body in the same way and see in an appendix for example a vestigial organ that is evidence of our monkey days.

If creationists arn't allowed to use the idea of irreducibale complexity as evidence for a designer then how is it logically consistent for an evolutionist to use their own interperetations of what's vestigial or not as evidence for evolution.

Apples and oranges. An eye is something we can show evolving in various species today. We can clearly see how it evolved. The structures that are the remains of our tails are present in tailed animals and primates like monkeys (which we share 97+% of our DNA with) but they still have a tail attached. Why would a creator bother giving us a coxxyx if he wasn't going to give us a tail?

[Kirkland Laing]

So Kirkland are you trying to prove evolution or prove there is no God?

There is no god but we did evolve. Evolution has already been proven.