You have to be more clear about 'problems'. Do you mean the lack of evidence or the existance of evidence contradicting the theory ?
Donald Howes << I think there are problems with both theorys, I've been more of a creation guy because I found problems with the evolution they were feeding me at school and uni, but I know that there are problems with the creations theorys as well.>>
So perhaps one should discuss what the problems are and see if others can help.
Donald Howes: To me at the moment it seems logically impossible for a lung to get a hole
in it and have it still work, unless there was a perfectly designed structure already in place to use that extra hole. So my question now is, is it possible for any major organ or structure to evolve slowly over time? >>
You already limited 'evolution' to instances in which irreparable damage is done to the organ. Why should a lung 'get a hole in it' in order for it to 'evolve' ? You are creating a strawman here.
Donald Howes: ><I know you say that it is, and that there are fossils that prove it, but do
they prove it? Or do they show an animal that just has a different structure? Is a platypus a half way point between a duck and a beaver?>>
Perhaps you should read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html before discussing other 'strawmen' ?
I quote:
What do Creationists say? Scott Huse (1983) starts his discussion of the platypus by saying:
"Evolutionists insist that the duck-billed platypus is an evolutionary link between mammals and birds."
This quote in itself is enough to show how abysmal Huse's knowledge of evolution is. Evolutionists say nothing of the sort. Anyone who reads any evolutionary literature, even at a basic level, will quickly find out that birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs in the Jurassic about 150 million years ago, and that mammals are thought to have evolved from a reptile-like group of animals called the therapsids in the Triassic about 220 million years ago. No competent evolutionist has ever claimed that platypuses are a link between birds and mammals.
Huse may believe that the platypus is thought to be a link between mammals and birds because of its "duckbill". In fact, scientists have always known that the bill has nothing in common with that of a duck except for the shape. The bill of a duck is a hard keratin structure, while that of the platypus is a soft flexible organ packed with electrical and touch sensors. While underwater, the bill is used to explore the
environment and find food. (Thus Huse also gets it wrong when he says the the platypus "uses echo location like dolphins"; it does not.)
Donald Howes: <<Can science show anything by itself? Or does there need to be an understanding from elsewhere to make sence of it? Are there assumptions that we all make that effect our interpretation of science? If so are they right or wrong?>>
Such as ? This could be an interesting thought that needs to be finished. Does there need to be an understanding from elsewhere to make sense of it ? Are there assumptions that affect our interpretation of science ? Care to give it a try ?
Donald Howes: <<If we can get an idea of whether or not evolution is accually possible as process of large scale change, then I think the science will be meaningful. >>
That is quite limiting I would say. That evolution is possible is quite obvious since all the data point to this. Are the mechanisms proposed responsible for the observations ? Or is more needed ?