K. 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>

I meant design as shape, form, and function, not as a conscious design by a designer. But you knew that. <g> Natural selection over long p[riods of time favors better, more adapted forms to their environments. But you knew that too.


SNIP
..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

Ok. I see your point. Mine was that an appendix, being today a remnant and a useless organ, disproved his assertion of perfecton IMO.


>>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>

No. That is still an open question. I was talking about species (plant and animal) evolutiuon on Earth, not the growth and expansion of the Universe.


>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>

That is actually a very nice theory that I have not heard before. Of course it begs the question of who is/was and who created that being. Again, I was not talking about the origins of the universe, but what we have in this planet in particualr. That's broad enough a subject.

For the other one, I could postulate the FSM as the "farter", maybe.