Quote:

Oh, one more thing. Conscious, purposeful humans creating things, and mindless random evolution creating something repeatedly is comparing apples to oranges. Evolutionists themselves will tell you that evolution is neutral and has no goal. When we invent something, we have a goal or a purpose. So that can't be used as a parallel.



I'm not quite sure what you mean with this, can you explain this a bit more? I think evolution does have a purpose, or I should say life has a purpose, but both are linked together in my opinion.
I don't believe in a mindless random evolution, infact why should it be random at all? Evolutionary stages of todays species are a result of adaptations to the past's conditions. It's a simple mechanism, the weak will die out, the ones with beneficial properties will make sure a species won't die out, or maybe even evolve into a new species. I'd say that's both the purpose of life and the purpose of evolution, or at least it's result. A result of a simple equation is not a random something. It's a race, the last one's a loser, the first one obviously was either stronger that the rest or had something a bit different that made him the winner.
Human inventions either happen because someone has a 'eureka moment' and suddenly has a crazy idea, ending up in a great invention, or there is desperate need for some problem to be solved. For example certain tools to work the land, instead of doing it all by hand, those inventions are the ones comparable to evolutionary steps. The only way a species would survive, would be to adapt to it's threatning situation, in the example the tools would be the invention that would help out the humans. I think it's infact quite comparable. One invention because there is a desire for a solution to a certain problem or situation. An evolutionary change because the species wouldn't survive otherwise, off course these changes don't come in a christmass package, it's the work of natural selection and mutations.

Btw I don't get it either why certain creationists believe that the eye could never have evolved in steps in the first place because it's function would only become available if there would be enough 'hardware and software' to even be able to use it. Again, this view is way to simplistic. The socalled hardware and software comes gradually, just like the eye itself. Just look at some animals around us, like chickens for example. They've got wings, yet can't really fly, only a few feet above the ground. I know most scientists think this is infact a degradation, but who proofs me wrong that the eye may not actually have had a really handy function in the first stages of it's evolution? Why would that be so odd?

Quote:

Interpreting fossils isn't evolution.



Okey, when I understand correctly, now you are stating it can't be seen by studying fossils, well there are plenty of examples that will prove you wrong. Rudimentary structures, left overs so to speak from other adaptions to different environments. Now why would God add those to a lifeform ... Again, fossils play a keyrole, how else would you propose to study the past?

Cheers

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software