Quote:

Those leg nubs on snakes have been known to be used during mating. They have a purpose.



On almost all snake species, leg nubs disappear long before the snake mates.

Quote:

The whole point of this argument is to attack my belief that God created anything.



I don't want to attack your belief, but I thought the main goal of creationism was to get accepted as a scientific theory, not a belief.

Quote:

Typically flightless birds have uses for their flightless wings. In mating rituals, intimidation of predators, etc.

.

Mating seems to be a handy argument to explain vestigial limbs. The wing stubs are not even visible on the Kiwi without a close examination, and thus can hardly be used in mating rituals.

Quote:

The coccyx is used to aid in the birthing process, as well as adding support to our skeletal structure.



Can you explain how a bone dangling from the end of the spine can "support our skeletal structure"? At least, according to Wikipedia it can serve as a sort of shock absorber when someone violently sits down - maybe creationists should update their websites.

Quote:

Its an interesting tactic of evolutionists to change the meaning of a word like vestigial to mean



I was referring to organs inherited from evolutionary ancestors that do not fulfil its original purpose anymore. Call them whatever you want. If we were designed, then how could we have those organs, whatever their name?

Quote:



Evolution is founded on materialism because it lacks physical proof. Materialism is what keeps it going. You try and prove that nature created life because you can't believe God did it.

-----------------------------

I'm very much enjoying the fact that you guys have given up on defending evolution, and have instead turned to attack my faith in God



Irish, I had also enjoyed this debate so far. Unlike other creationists you had at least attempted to give some serious arguments for your point of view. You're the last remaining creationist here and such steadfastness is admirable. Nevertheless, I think most people following the threads would agree that your arguments were refuted so far and you've withdrawn to repeating your belief that "good mutations don't exist". This is normally where the debate ends. Belief can't be discussed.

That you're now coming with the crap we had "given up on defending evolution, and have instead turned to attack your faith" is far below the level of your previous posts.

In case you've forgotten: The debate about mutations ended with some estimates about the probability and time scale of what you call "progressive mutations". The result was that large scale mutations can happen within 100,000 years, which is an instant compared to the 2 billion years of life on earth. As you haven't come forward with any arguments against that - please correct me if I'm wrong here - the normal conclusion would be that such mutations, and thus evolution, indeed were possible. If you still believe otherwise, that's cool - but then it's a matter of belief and not of science.

If you think that the evolution discusson is not over yet, then it's time to come forward with some proof or evidence whatsoever that mutations can't happen.

Also you're invited to come forward and explain the becoming of life other than by evolution. I would have a large list of questions for you. But if as you say discussing it would be "attacking your faith", it's ok with me and I'll stop. This thread, as mentioned in the first post, is about discussing scientific arguments and not faith.

And please get informed about materalism. It might prevent that you expose yourself to ridicule by posting such nonsense like "evolution is based on materialism". I accept science and evolution, but I'm not a materialist and most scientists aren't either.