Originally posted by Mr Awsm
It'd impossible for evolution to of created life. If life is something that can just happen then we would be able to do it now. After all, if something just sparked millions of years ago and made life then we could do it now too. and we could bring people back from the dead too. Sure if someone dies then they would of have some organ damaged and without it t have life given to us, not formed over time.
Wow I'm going to get bashed for this >_
Well, no you shouldn't get bashed, you just haven't understood evolution, and to clarify that point is in part what a science forum should be about, provided you're willing to attempt to clarify for yourself the arguments you are making, and ground them in good reasoning, which is something I hope you are willing to do. If your argument is based on a scriptual understanding, well, I'll see you in spirituality.
When you say "It'd impossible for evolution to of created life" you're absolutely right, evolution did not
create life, what you're referring to there is
abiogenesis, which is a whole other kettle of fish, and an active area of research. No scientist is making concrete claims as to the process of abiogenesis, though there are very promising areas of investigation.
Evolution however, in relation to your other points, is an established fact, there is no "logic" behind it, it has been observed to occur not just in the fossil record, but also in the lab with life-forms with a sufficiently short generational lifespan to make it practical. What you are calling into question and where the logic comes into play, is evolution
by the process of natural selection. To question that model is possible, though would require that you can undermine the mountains of evidence in its favour. In your post, your attempts to do so have involved little more than incredulity rather than actual criticism that can be worked with.
Case in point: "It's illogical that we grew and got rid of organs since we didn't need them", why? evolution by the process of natural selection makes the point that to maintain an organ which is not required for the organisms survival or successful competition with other organisms is costing that organism resources which could be put to better use. A small organism with a simple renal system (it's primarily the kidneys which keep the blood clean, not the liver, but I can see the point you're making), just a few cells which are more efficient at removing toxins, would do better than it's peers, successful improvements on this simple system would be passed on, unsuccesful modifications would result in the death of the organism and the coding for that modification being lost. Thus, the environment "selects" those organisms with successively positive improvements to its survivabilty.
The next point: "Basically we have to have come in a perfect design somehow"
Our "design" is far from perfect, take the eye, having the optic nerve have to travel through the retina rather than be placed behind it is a terrible design, but to change that to an optic nerve which lies behind the retina and does not need to travel through it, giving our blind spot, requires huge changes to our embryological development, such massive changes are so improbable in the evolutionary model as to be statistically impossible, so if there were a designer who made us perfect, why the terrible cameras?
The appendix, a repository for gut bacteria which helps us regain our gut florae and fauna after a bout of dyssentry has been virtually unnecessary for thousands of years. The costs of having a large efficient appendix were worth it back in the savannah; were less than the costs of infection of that organ. Nowadays, the balance of costs is in the opposite direction, with the costs of maintaining the organ being higher than of losing it, hence it is as vestigial as the toes of a whales rear legs.
I think you simply need to understand which claims the evolutionary model is making and which it is not. I hope you're willing to do that, but I'd be perfectly willing to get into a pm session to clarify the issues for you on only one condition, that the discussion be based on that which can be verified to both of our satisfaction, which I think is a fair condition.