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

Uh oh!!! Design?? Did I read design?? Who designed it? <g>

>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.

Yes, poor choice of words from my part, no intention of loading it, the intention was to show that in my opinion the appendix example is flawed, for it does not prove or disprove anything

>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 :)

Wait a minute just there, are you saying that you have scientific, testable and truthful evidence that the universe evolved from... from... err... nothing? Isn't a flawed creator just as good? Yes, not as scientific, but more romantic <g>

I have my own theory about the creation of the universe. Some being just farted. And although the theory looks simple, it explains several things: the Big Bang, the expanding universe and the shi...tty life we must endure <g>