21 Apr '11 15:09>
Originally posted by Agerga, but there are all kinds of id's. not all dismiss evolution. i for one don't dismiss it at all. ID doesn't equal creationist fundamentalist. they propose that a "god" is behind the last theorem. some, including myself, are quite aware that ID may not ever be proven and shouldn't be considered a scientific theory. if you and i were to have a scientific discussion about how life evolved on earth, you wouldn't ever hear me mention a creator. the fact that you hold rjhinds or robbie (or the morons who insist ID be thought in schools as an equal theory to evoution) as figureheads is a slight limitation of your view on theists.
Firstly, even if it were the case they were never needed, the fact we have 3rd molars wouldn't disprove ID - it would just seriously undermine its credibility.
Taking on board your point that 3rd molars were once needed, your rebuttal still requires that evolution happens (and I would of course agree with this) and this doesn't exactly further the cause of ID, especially when you consider creationists like RJhinds (et al).
if it were the case they were never needed [...] it would just seriously undermine its credibility.
yes, this is what i meant. but since they were in fact needed at some point, no undermining from this point of view is made.