Attenborough seeks to prove evolution

[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?