>Why do you think it is a backup system? Two lungs give you more air capacity, two eyes give you stereoscopic viewing, two ears give yor stereoscopic earing, maybe the two kidneys are there not as a backup, but to clean your body faster. The fact that you can live with only one of them do not convert them as backup systems.

OK. A decent explanation. Makes sense. So it's a design for capacity and not for backup. I'll buy that.



>About the appendix, if you believe in evolution, then it might have had it's use in the past, right? Well, maybe not, after all nobody claims that evolution is perfect, but if it is there is very likely that it had some purpose in the past, right? So, how is that different of a creationist theory? After all, the creator might've thought of this, forseeing that the organ will not be required after some eons, but no removal was necessary. I do not think I am expressing this well... Let's say we send a rover to Pluto, the rover will have some non refillable fuel tanks to move around when there is not enough solar energy, but when there is enough of it, the rover will use it instead. Fast forward a couple of million of years when some alien race finds the rover with empty fuel tanks, which they will believe it was "bad design" or unnecessary, if they do not realize it's original purpose.

That one is loaded. First, I do not "believe" in evolution. It is not a matter of belief. It is based on observable science and a testable theory that can predict future results. It has been seen in action countless times in many different species. No "belief" whatsoever required.

Second, there is no such thing as "creationist theory" as you caled it. It is not a theory but a belief. Every postulate and hypothesis in science aspire to become a theory. That's the highest achievement you can obtain for anything in science. If then it turns out that there is another postulate that is proven to better explain and predict the results and the facts, then the old one gets thrown out or ammended and the new one adopted.



>Oh, one last thing. Maybe the creator was not perfect. It might have been very good, good enough to create the universe and all, but it was not perfect

Now you are talking of a flawed creator. Besides having no scientific, testable and falsifiable evidence of it, all you are doing is asking for the wrath of the fundamentalists calling their creator flawed or imperfect :)