Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The theory is developed to explain the fact.

But a scientific "theory" doesn't mean "random guess," like it does in everyday speech. It is rigorously tested and updated in light of new facts -- in this case, of evolution.

In science, a theory is a framework of thought so widely supported by the evidence that it is regarded as true. If you can provide evidence that falsifies the theory, it won't be considered true. However, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming

Completely right, Joe. It's the same with gravity, it's both theory and fact. Does anybody doubt it's existence?

Jim, and others like you: if you must believe overwhelming scientific evidence is wrong because a pre-scientific book told you so, please just say that, and don't try to cobble together semi-rational explanations for your superstitions. You insult your audience by pretending you can ever articulate any reason beyond "I just believe it because They told me to."

Jim, that is a really dumb analogy, and it's nothing like that at all.

Evolution is a fact! The different mechanisms of evolution are theories. Evolution has as much evidence as any other scientific discovery and more than most. It is a fact. If evolution did not exist most of modern day medicine would not work. I love that people can benefit from science while denying it exists. Now whether God exists is a matter of belief not science. I believe God exists even though there is no scientific evidence for him. I even believe that some science actually implies that he must exist (Physics and collapsing probability waves) but none of this is fact it is my belief only. The argument should not be whether evolution is fact, it is, it should be what role a Divine hand might have played in it. Not a scientific argument for sure but way more enlightening then this nonsense about whether a fact is true or not. And to anybody out there talking about the missing link. They have found them, lots of them. They are all missing links until they are found. There are quite a lot of links, maybe not all but more than enough to show the connection. Not everything fossilizes, needs a unique set of circumstances.

Gravity is just another means for The Man to keep us down!

Maybe both theories can be combined. Darwin was a devout Christian and from his writings it seems that he was implying that evolution is God's blueprint that he/she wanted us to understand. I'm not sure that I believe in God and I believe that science can explain nearly everything in the universe but the big question is still unanswered. Where'd all the matter come from? We can trace the existence of the universe from nine seconds before/after the big bang. Those intermediate 18 seconds are pretty important however. If we can explain that, then maybe we will end this argument. Right now, based on what evidence we have, I'd have to say the Deist belief comes closest to being correct. Some sort of supernatural force, if you want to call it God fine, that's your right, set off the big bang and left a clear blueprint for the universe and life (evolution) for us to figure out and understand and maybe, dare I say it, play God once we fully understand it. Seems to me we should all work with each to broaden our horizons than sit there and blindly criticize the other side.

The definition of theory in the physical sciences like biology is different than the definition in the social sciences like pyschology or theology.

Theory in physical science is similar to fact in social science... it has been proposed and subjected to rigorous testing and has held up to scrutiny.

Theory in social science is similar to hypothesis in physical science.... it has been proposed but has yet to hold up under scrutiny.

Evolution is "just a theory" the same way that gravity is "just a theory"...

I always suspected that people from Virginia were a bit strange, and while "we" (whoever that might be) get together every once so often to "share DNA with mice", I would like to make it very clear at this time that I do not share any DNA with mice, especially when I am barbecuing or doing a bit of indoor grilling . . .

With the economy the way it is today, the reality is that I cannot afford to share DNA with anybody, let alone with mice . . .

And regarding the theory that some of the people on your planet "evolved" from monkeys, I support it fully, so long as it does not require me to share DNA with them or anyone or anything else, except perhaps the Olsen twins, which is fabulous . . .

http://www.surfwhammys.com/music/05_All_I_Want_To_Do.mp3

Fabulous!

P. S. The Theory of Evolution actually is much better as a religion than as a theory, especially when its acolytes are so fervent that they ignore the basic rules of science at every opportunity, which begins by failing to take the time to understand the word, "theory" . . .

I have no problems with the ideas (a) that birds evolve from birds, (b) that mice evolve from mice, and (c) that some of the people on your planet certainly appear to have evolved from monkeys, but connect the dots and ponder how the concept of something evolving from something pretty similar is a lot different from the concept of something evolving from something entirely different in every respect . . .

And regarding the sharing "DNA with mice" aspect, one might suggest reasonably that being omnivores it is not so off-the-wall to expect that the people of your planet--who, when one includes the Chinese, literally eat everything in the Animal, Plant, and other kingdoms--are quite likely retain some of what they eat and to incorporate it into their genetic algorithms . . .

In other words, based on the exhaustive computerized research done on well over several hundred samples of female blood and male sperm, spanning nearly two decades, I am not entirely convinced that any of the information produced so far rises to a level much beyond being patently interesting but mostly goofy in the grand scheme of everything, especially when the same research tended for quite a while to suggest that there was a rather significant amount of "noise" in the DNA samples, with some of the previously classified "noise" more recently being identified as a lot more important, since it now appears that the "noise" is not really noise, at all, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

And regarding the sharing "DNA with mice" aspect, one might suggest reasonably that being omnivores it is not so off-the-wall to expect that the people of your planet--who, when one includes the Chinese, literally eat everything in the Animal, Plant, and other kingdoms--are quite likely retain some of what they eat and to incorporate it into their genetic algorithms . . .

This line of reasoning moves you from the midly amusing to the absurd. We do not absorb DNA from carrots. I won't refute the remainder of your comments because I can't take them seriously.

Believing in Evolution doesn't negate that there is a supernatural creator who started it all.

As a Muslim I believe in God, but at the same time I believe in evolution. I know, how can this be- because I believe God set it all in motion. I know this is my comfort zone but until someone can prove otherwise ...

Even reasonable clergy don't support the notion of creationism/Intelligent design...

http://thecryingprophet.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/09/2663420-theologian-debunks-the-creationist-argument-against-evolution

Is it possible that earth is a laboratory for more evolved life on another planet? Could the species on earth represent different attempts to inject sustainable life onto this planet? Was Christ a representative from this race, trying to explain, how to overcome our issues and have our species survive our human short comings? Are the six to eight different hominoids known to have existed in the last 20 million years all different attempts by the same intelligence to propagate life on earth? Is it possible that what we call God is the advanced species that seeded us here? Is evolution a natural process regardless of our origin? Neither of the current explanations want to except alien life as being less than the supernatural, when the alien species themselves may only be slightly more advanced than our own species, when times is judge by the millions of years.

It Not Fact but Theory...

There is only speculation.

www.drdino.com

Bobbi, take a big boulder and have some one roll it off a cliff on your head. That is a scientific theory at work. Bet you wouldn't try it...

Just like you can tell it is a Picasso by the style, you can tell we have all ( animals and people ) been created by the same CREATOR! Evolution is and will always be a theory. It has never been proven and can never be. The most convincing evidence in favor of evolution have been exposed as fakes. They can't find the missing link because there isn't one! Think about this...if it were true, why aren't we still evolving? Why aren't we adapting to our changing environment? Why are we all freaking out about global warming?

I am one of those people who does not have a problem with the notion that God created the universe and all that. I just believe evolution was his means of doing it. The story in the Bible, which is just a book written by people with an agenda AND no scientific means of explaining the universe, makes no sense. It also asks you to believe that the earth was created mere thousands of years ago, when there is ample evidence its been millions of years.

And oh, BTW, I was taught evolution in Catholic School

A watch is an inanimate object.

Where do you people get the notion that evolution is a fact?  If it is a fact what did the ape evolve from that humans evolved from?  O yes we came from the ocean.  Where did the ocean come from?  Where did that one little molocule from the ocean come from?  Where did the earth, the moon, the sun, the stars, and the universe come from?  O yes, there was the "big bang."  Where did the big bang come from?  O yes, from nothing.  How can something come from nothing.  nothing is still nothing.  There had to be something before there was something.  What's so hard about that to accept?  So I believe God did it and you don't.  Guess who looses in the end if I am right, guess who has lost nothing if I'm wrong?

This line of reasoning moves you from the midly amusing to the absurd. We do not absorb DNA from carrots. I won't refute the remainder of your comments because I can't take them seriously.~DT609160

Alright let me take a breath....you jackass. Do you know anything about the digestive system? It's all about 'absorbing' food. You should really read up on it.

you mook

That's a great argument except you didn't take to it's next step and logical conclusion which is:

WHERE DID GOD COME FROM? Alternately, who or what created God? And what was she doing for the eternity before the creation? And how can a perfect being create an imperfect world? And why if she's all powerful doesn't she destroy evil? And can she create a rock so heavy she can't pick it up? And how can we have free will if God already knows what we're going to do before we do it? Yes Evolution is FACT backed by overwhelming evidence. You can deny it all you want and continue to live your life base on a book, the Bible, written by men who didn't know where the Sun went at night or you can embrace modern science. It so much more interesting then those silly Bible stories.

If People would like to believe that their ancestor is a Chimp or a Gorilla, than i will definitely have a hard time convincing you other wise... if you would like to get scientific, when any species has evolved it would change slightly to better adapt to it's environment, not change its make up completely and when it did evolve the old design died off because the new design would keep breeding the new design... so once you evolve you can't go back to the original design...so if we evolved from a chimp or gorilla they would have died off because their traits would have changed to human ones and those new ones would continue to breed humans...therefore extincting the chimp or gorilla completely...which hasn't happened...THE WORD OF GOD SAYS WE WERE MADE IN HIS IMAGE, WITH A DIVINE PURPOSE AND PLAN...TO WALK OUT HIS WORKS OVER THIS EARTH...IT SAYS WE HAVE DOMINION (RULE) OVER ALL THE PLANTS AND ANIMALS ON THE EARTH , SO WHY WOULD WE TRY TO MAKE OURSELVES ONE OF THE ANIMALS WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN AUTHORITY OVER, WE HAVE BEEN CREATED WITH A SOUL, A SPIRIT AND WE CAN PRAISE OUR MAKER, UNLIKE THE CHIMPS..I PRAY THAT YOUR EYES AND HEART WOULD BE OPENED TO THE ONE WHO LOVES YOU AND CREATED YOU WITH A PLAN AND A PURPOSE...

Hey did god created DNA, like we created the computer.

Have little doubt my friends that even evolution is part of God's hand and design. For those idiots (yes I can honestly call some of the most brilliant minds that) who believe there is no "God" ask yourself this. A car has a blue print and thousands if not over a million parts. If you were to take it all apart and put it in a big box. How long would you have to shake the box to produce a car? Now, given the known world and mother nature is far more complex. What makes you believe there wasn't a blue print/design or creator? DNA? Yes, I'm sure common DNA can be found in many creatures... just as you'll find blueprints have common formats and products have similar components. Hydrogen is found throughout the universe too! So I guess you could say... we evolved from hydrogen using your "theory" For those hardcore spiritualist who shudder at the mere mention of evolution, stop and ponder if today's humans are the same as those say as little as 500 years ago. What was the average height and weight of man? What was his average life expectancy? Man advanced not only physically but intellectually as well. What other creature can you name that has learned so much and changed it's surroundings to suit itself? All creatures have a purpose in the universe. Some are nothing but part of the food chain, while others amend the soil or help plants reproduce. Many it seem are here to tell you there is no God. Well my friend you may be right and this is it. You live, you die, notta! But, what if those that believe are right and because they believed and had faith their reward is an afterlife? If you are right, they still have nothing to lose... while you on the otherhand... if you are wrong? Well you get my point. :)

... so once you evolve you can't go back to the original design...so if we evolved from a chimp or gorilla they would have died off because their traits would have changed to human ones and those new ones would continue to breed humans...therefore extincting the chimp or gorilla completely...which hasn't happened.

Well you are quite right that is why no one anywhere that knows even the littlest about evolution says that chimps or gorillas are our ancestors. They say that we have a common ancestor that was neither chimp, gorilla nor human.

..I PRAY THAT YOUR EYES AND HEART WOULD BE OPENED TO THE ONE WHO LOVES YOU AND CREATED YOU WITH A PLAN AND A PURPOSE...

I pray that your eyes and mind will be opened to the world around you. God isn't trying to trick us with a bunch of evidence of evolution. It's here because we are suppose to figure out how things work. By the way just because a person believes in evolution doesn't mean they can't believe in God. Quite the contrary. God gave us a brain and expects us to use it. If you stop using yours it seems you are saying that God wasted a brain on you.

Yeah, yeah, I heard it all before. Evolution is fact, baby!

Alright, then. Scientist, sharpen your pencils. Project:

Model any one of the biological development thresholds organic matter had to break to become 'alive'. You all get a mulligen, I won't require the modeling of the first threshold, the 'emergence' of the first cell, since you folks are so sensative about abiogenesis. Forget that development threshhold, then. Let move on the the hundreds more that happened.

Here a basic list:

1. The first cell developing an internal transport mechanism.
2. The first cell developing an internal communication mechanism.
3. The first cell developing a replication mechanism.
4. The first cell developing a defense mechanism (against radiation, extreme temperature, etc)
5. The first cell developing a catalytic system.
6. The first cell developing a optical sensory mechanism.

Now if the first cell's development thresholds, you can move on to the first multi-cell organism breaking the same development thresholds above.

OR if that is too difficult, then how about modeling, say the development and function of the DNA translation/replication system. I know you'll go for this one, right?

Now if you can model any of the above, then you're doing science. Otherwise, a career in motion-pictures would be more suitable.

Some put their faith in God. Others put their faith in science. Yet others put their faith in themselves. All are seeking truth, but all follow by FAITH.

Yes, evolution is well supported by facts. BUT, making the leap to common ancestry has no basis in fact. It remains pure theory. Nothing substantial has been found that supports evolution from one species into another. Yet the same scientific community that claims to seek truth portrays it as fact. Why? They follow Darwinism with the same religious zeal that they so despise in the Christian community. Textbooks still refer to archaeopteryx as a half bird half reptile when in fact the greater scientific community agrees it is a bird. The Miller experiment was debunked decades ago yet it also remains in textbooks as factual. The huge elephant in the room is that the fossil record does not support evolution between species. The Cambrian explosion is unexplained. Even Darwin stated the fossil record was the biggest threat to his theory, but predicted many links would be found as archeology progressed. They have not. (obviously why they are so excited about Ardi) True scientific minded individuals at the very least conclude that Intelligent Design is the most logical conclusion based on all the facts.

Don't be too quick to worship at the feet of Darwin. Modern Darwinism is plagued by circular logic. Half truths that support theory that supports the half truth.

Your points are right on, Steven, but I fear that most of these people (excuse me--descendants of some unkown common ancestor of chimps and themselves) have no clue what they or you are talking about, because their faith in their evolutionary religion is so strong that they have no room for the truth or even for the reality of science's processes of observation, experimentation, repetition, etc.

I feel sad that they believe evolution has mountains of evidence, but they cannot even fully describe one bit of it.

Did you notice that the article claimed that a "missing link" was discovered and a gap filled, and yet they stated just the opposite? The "link" was not at all what they expected, the "gap" was not filled; rather, this discovery leaves many more "links" to be found and even more "gaps" to be filled.

How is this "evidence" of inanimate nothingness-to-molecules-to-man evolution?

The difference between evolutionists and creationists are simple:

An evolutionist accepts that he/she foesn't have all the answers, but the facts they do have are wondorous and often times, allows us to ask more questions. There is actual evidence to support their theory. They test everything they believe to be true to LOOK for errors.

A creationist will argue over and over that they have ALL the answers because they feel it is so. When faced with the facts, they will spout absolute unscientific propaganda that has no basis is reality and say, so what about that? in a taunt. They point to the Piltdown man as there entire basis for disregarding the whole theory. There is no logical debate, no evidence and no higher reasoning.

Then there is the blend. The would-be creationist that realizes that they can no longer silence reason and logic. They try a blend of the two, and if it works for them, great. But many, many, once they start down the path of reason and logic, find that a blend doesn't make as much sense as they thought. Because if the implications point toward us being alone in our quest, then we must take fervent steps NOW to ensure our continued survival.

There is no proof to the theory of evolution by mistake. I believe that the lord made us. Though I am not really worried about it. If I am wrong it will not matter. If I am right. You are going to hell.

Don't you just love the compassion and humanity in people of (Christian) faith. They threaten you with hell fire if you don't believe as they do. I thought thier god is one of mercy and understanding. And what about those who still don't understand the meaning of the term theory? The theory of Relativity is just as much a fact as the theory of evolution but they just can't cope with that. Trying to explain the theory of evolution to a creationist is like going to the zoo and trying to explain the theory of relativity to a group of apes. The difference is that the apes have an excuse: they don't yet have the intellectual capacity to understand where as the creationist has (compliment of sorts) but they just don't want to.

It's interesting to note that all these creationists reply to the hard evidence of evolution with "the Bible says...the Bible says..." What if there were no Bible? What evidence would they have then to support their creationist claims? Among the Babylonians, it was believed that the universe was created by the god Marduk killing the goddess Tiamat and that humans arose from the shed blood of her husband, Kingu; should we teach that version of "creationism" as fact as well? Or how about the Egyptian version of creationism, that the god Atum masturbated the world into existence? Or the Finnish version that the universe is the result of a broken egg? Every single one of these "creationist" beliefs is just as valid as the Christian version and based on just as much evidence: myth.

Oh, they also share one other thing in common; if you refused to believe in them their adherents would persecute and even kill you, just like Christians are willing to do today.

i am sorry i really said that wrong, what i ment to say is that even if there is a god, then that god wants us to get more intelligent, to know more and respect what he created (if you believe in him) if you don't, then you have to put up with people who wish to be left in a world of non changing ideas and beliefs. they are the ones that will eventually bring out civilization down, shouting holy, holy while it burns.

its too bad, hope i did not offend anyone.

it's a sin that people who are supposed to be intelligent, still cling to these myths. even God demands you evolve.

I try never to get into these discussions because creationists have no argument that has any basis in reality, whether they are trying to argue against evolution, or for the god theory of human existence. I laugh everytime I think about how they demand proof for evolution, but believe about an all knowing god that makes the sun shine and the water wet. Please, take just a second and see the dicotomy of your issues and stick to religion. Don't try to explain away science, especially not from your vantage point.

You should check out Richard Dawkins. The reality is that "species" is little more than our attempt to explain the world and fit things into categories. Spanning the majority of the length of California there is a valley. That valley is bordered with mountains to the East North and West, but not the South, where there is a gap in the elevated ridge. There is a salamander than can live at the higher elevations, but doesn't live in the valley. What we find is that the Southernmost salamanders cannot breed with each other. But they can each breed with the salamander variant to the North of them, which can breed with the salamander variant just to the North of it. So on and so forth all the way around the elevated ridge. But the two at either end of the ridge, the two Southernmost, cannot. This data suggests they are two different species AND the same species, which doesn't really compute. Or maybe it just suggests our definition of species is quaint and simply a model to explain evolution to ourselves.

Anyway, species do exist (if as nothing more than our arbitrary definition), but I don't think you can definitively determine when ours split from any other. I guess you can give a range, but the date, or year, or generation will never be found.

schanomin... the term species really applies to a collection of individuals, and the organization of groups of organisms into discrete species is not a simplistic matter. many groups of indiduals have degrees of similarity that change depending on location. There are several fields in biology that deal with evolution... population genetics, physiological ecology, taxonomy. It's a complex field that is a lifetime pursuit just to keep up with the advances. Evolution concerns the changes in species' (groups of individuals) genetic composition over time.

Agreed. But many identify "species" as any group that can successfully reproduce to make offspring. But in the real world, there is much more gray area. By that definition, it is true we and chimps are separate.

Are there suddenly two species when a drought finally, irrevocably separates a population in two? That is technically when their genes no longer co-mingle, but none of us would think these two populations being two species until something else happens on the genetic level.

There is a population of seagulls that are the same way only it expands around the globe. Say an east coast population can breed with western Europe species and so on until they meet up again on the east coast where they can no longer interbreed. True that species is a convenient classification tool but in reality there has to be something to help us understand what is going on and no other words exist. It'll have to do for now.

Even reasonable clergy don't support the notion of creationism/Intelligent design...

http://thecryingprophet.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/09/2663420-theologian-debunks-the-creationist-argument-against-evolution

This is all really interesting to see - if truth and fact are observable and repeatable, then there is no discussion about it. The over-abundant defensive and mean comments show a lot of peoples' lack of settled confidence in their beliefs.

The bottom of it all is not determined by our definitions or theories. The latter are simply attempts of making sense of it all. The way that we describe a thing does not change its reality - no matter how hard one protests, gravity is a fact - observable, repeatable, etc.

In fact, the Earth was "scientifically" flat - by all the means necessary to convince people of that time - but we are supposed to have a better definition of science today, are we not?

My point is that there are mountains of evidence everywhere. The interpretations of that evidence are continually changing to "fit" the theories - but are consistently presented as fact. Why? It is not observed, it is not repeated - not in the ways that it needs to be at least.

We simply don't KNOW. Study of origins is not in fact, scientifically repeatable, demonstrable or even completely logical. - which in turn means that whatever your leaning, it is all based on faith in something.

Science as a whole would do well to make objective observations, and present the origins as "perhaps" at its very best. What seems to get passed around as science these days is skewed by the color of one's beliefs instead of letting the facts point to the truth...

The interpretations of that evidence are continually changing to "fit" the theories - but are consistently presented as fact. Why? It is not observed, it is not repeated - not in the ways that it needs to be at least.

There is enough repeatable evidence for evolution for it to be a fact. But since there are obviously many different aspects and circumstances of how evolution happens so theories are drawn up to explain these aspects and they usually stand strong until new evidence is found. Then they are modified or changed completely to explain the new evidence. That is how biological science works, it's how it is suppose to work. It works the same way with physics and if it didn't work for physics much of the technology we have would not work.

Sorry, Tom. You've been had.

There is a mountain of evidence for limited adaptive change in populations. The modern synthesis gave the name micro evolution to this limited adaptive mechanism to try to tag it as the cause of the development of the major phylum seen in the fossil record.

The overwhelming evidence describes adaption, the humble maintenance guy that works in the trenches. He's not programming populations to transform themselves over time from one phyla into another. He's just trying to keep what has been made from breakin' down.

E.coli, peppered moths, finches. They all are evidence that organisms possess a limited adaptive range. They never break it. Anyone that tells you different is simply blowing smoke.

The overwhelming evidence describes adaption, the humble maintenance guy that works in the trenches.He's not programming populations to transform themselves over time from one phyla into another. He's just trying to keep what has been made from breakin' down.

I can not for the life of me understand how you can believe in micro-evolution and not evolution. It shows a complete lack of understanding about how organisms work and what makes a species. If any part of a species adapts to one enviroment using micro-evolution while another part of that species adapts to a different environment eventually, and especially if they are separated by a barrier, like a river or mountain range, those adaptations that keep the system from breakin' down will create two different species. They will have to because they are adapting to two different environments. Eventually they would be so different from each other that they will be unable or unwilling to reproduce with each other. By unwilling I mean like having different mating rituals, in song birds that would be their songs. There are many bird species that look very similar to each other and their songs are very similarbut they are different just enough that females will not mate with the male of that other species. If you believe in micro-evolution there and have even a rudimentary understanding of how species work then you have to acknowledge that evolution is fact.

For God's sake people just ignore anyone from either side that says evolution contradicts your religion. Not TRUE! If you can do that then maybe you can allow yourself to take a unbiased look at the evidence. Although some people who believe in evolution might attack you for your faith it doesn't mean that evolution is an attack on your faith. It just means that some people are @!$%#s who don't like people who see things differently from them. Trust me there are plenty of those on both sides of this issue and many other issues. Do you really want to be one of them or do you want to rise above them all?

Arent you a little old to believe in fairy tales ? Hope Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are good to you !

I'm sorry, can you elaborate on why it takes faith to accept the findings of overwhelming amounts of mutually supportive evidence from multiple fields of science?

I'd argue that the Catholic Church is actually the father of all lies, but you can have it your way.

Personally I believe that belief in Satan is just an excuse for doing unexcusable things.

Science is not based upon faith, it is based upon evidence. Faith is belief in the absence of reliable evidence. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Pharmboy, but I'll go with an evidence-based belief system.

"Faith" is another word for "My beliefs are based on tradition and wishful thinking. I don't need evidence"

Has any of you ever considered just how long is one of God's "days"?  Think about it. 

Faith and science are irreconcilable. Science is the opposite of faith. Please either explain what you mean, with evidence and examples, or stop insulting people with bald-faced lies.

A close reading of Genesis shows two creation stories, and people suddenly appearing in the text  - daughters-in-law, for example. So Adam and Eve were not the only ones created, clearly. What I'm trying to get at is that evolution does not contradict Genesis nor the existence of God. If God created a changing planet, wouldn't God have created a way for His creatures to change along with the planet? Evolution is evidence of a loving and omniscient God. 

This statement is a glaring example of the spectacular ignorance perpetuated in the name of compromise. Science has established an overwhelming body of evidence in support of evolution, making the theory (not hypothesis, as is the idea of creationism) a fact as well as a theory. I have personally met dozens of anti-evolutionists, and my assessment of their position is that, because it contradicts the biblical account of man's creation, it must be wrong. The simple fact is, there is absolutely no evidence for man's creation by a celestial designer-none. Let me put it this way, a demonstrable truth does not need a miracle to advance its veracity; truth scorns the miracle. No truth was ever discovered using a miracle or the supernatural and never will be.

You are so right Judy. I wish more people of faith would let God be bigger than they portray him. He is! But some people of faith want to make him small and simple. For instance by denying how old the earth is they are denying that God is the God of our whole universe not just this planet. And that universe is at least 14 billion years old, think speed of light.

Religion is just a synonym for CULT. I pick education above brainwashing anyday.

Josh - you have misunderstood my statement; perhaps I should have been more clear. I have studied evolution and I agree with it. I am saying that the theory of evolution does not conflict with Genesis or the Bible.

He understood that Judy. I believe he is just like the creationist only on the opposite side. He wants there to be a contradiction between your faith and science so you would chose science over faith. But I'm with you I don't think they have to be exclusive of one another. You may be a bigger fan of the bible than I am which is fine by me but I think he would have both of us be Atheist. But he has no proof that God does not exist any more than Creationist have any proof that evolution does not exist.

I believe Josh's statement is a response to pharmboy.

I'm sorry, can you elaborate on why it takes faith to accept the findings of overwhelming amounts of mutually supportive evidence from multiple fields of science?

DangitAaron, do ya have to ask? Oh well, here ya go. See 1.30 and 3.10 above.

It take a whole lot of faith to believe in evolution where all you have to go on is taking another person's word for it. Which scientist has ever confirmed evolution through the analysis of test results from a series of repeated experiments? Or which scientist has confirmed evolution through the rigorous modeling of aspect of biological change, showing it is the product of NS acting on RM+GV?

All you have is sophisticated guesswork. Nothing more. Just witness the countless qualifiers used in any article that discusses evolution. There is no scientific method being applied here.

AMEN AMEN AMEN to the blindness of our culture, putting their own knowledge and academic accomplishments above the knowledge of God...The Bible says Mans wisdom is foolishness to God...People use knowledge to edify themselves...This whole topic just shows the foolishness of man kind because we have put the Created thing above the CREATOR... God only spent a few chapters in the bible discussing how it was created and spent the rest of the Book showing us how we can be in fellowship with him, he calls us HIS SPECIAL TREASURE (not his soon to be special treasures after they evolve so i can have full fellowship with them)...is it not insulting to our Maker that we have determined we came from a bunch of apes, when he said we were created in HIS IMAGE...when he clearly designed us completely different from them, with unexplainable complexity in our being, specifically designing us for relationship with him, because he deeply loves his creation....that is why we can sing (praise him), talk, even create new things of our own (unfortunately people start idolizing their own creations)...he is an awesome God looking for the ones who truly seek him for knowledge and TRUTH...He is the giver of all things...THE BIBLE says HE is the author and the finisher, the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega...he is all knowing so wouldn't we seek the all knowing for the answers...please please please

Wow...if stupid hurt, 'absolute truth' would be in a coma.

Evolved from a transplanted strand of DNA or an alien bacterium it's possible. But if you believe in little green men you are just as crazy as the creationists.

RE: "Little Green Men"

Not really...

Men exist.

Small, Green colored organisms exist (e.g. lizards, grasshoppers).

Is it really a stretch to believe that in the vast expanse of space, somewhere, there live small, intelligent, male organisms with green pigment?

The existence of little Green Men seem a lot more likely to me than Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc--all the deities humans claim to believe in.

...

But it's more probable still that we evolved right here on this little blue planet and were not some how transplanted from another star.

i think .... someone said something like aliens came to earth took primates or like chimps and apes and @!$%# ...took there dna.. 48 chromosomes and combined it with theres, fused 2 .. making 46... chromosomes , making a better evolved ...humans thats the missing link how humans came about and the aliens are post to come back some time around 2012 , well see if the truth ever comes out ...i think zecharia sitchin is a smart guy, maybe he would know how we were made. lol he can read sumarian tablets there was all of a sudden intelligent life on earth all of a sudden before our time ... before jesus even .. i know im not smart ...but this is what i got off the internet sounds more feasible to me

what world is that then? the scriptures say,"this world is not your own..." i often felt like i came from another planet...and definitely know folks who look like they did...lol!

I was with you right up to the point where you suggest that creationism is a theory. It is not. It is, if anything, an unsubstantiated hypothesis. There exists not a single shred of evidence to support that ridiculous idea that this world and its inhabitants were created by a celestial entity.

"There exists not a single shred of evidence to support that ridiculous idea that this world and its inhabitants were created by a celestial entity." True Josh but there are some scientific theories that suggest there might be a God or at least an observer that predates the big bang and there is no scientific evidence that God does not exist. I know, I know you can't prove a negative. None the less God could exist and that isn't countered by anything in science. Just because we are learning to understand the laws of the universe doesn't mean that something else didn't create those laws.

I boldly disagree with you that there are "..some scientific theories that suggest there might be a God.." This is simply not true, in fact it is false. I challenge you to post such a theory, and with it, the supporting evidence that even partially validates such.

Actually Josh, there are two different scientific disciplines... there is physical science under which evolution is a theory from Biology and there is social science under which creationism is a theory under Theology. So, technically, creationism is a theory... albeit one differently defined than a theory under physical science.

I learned this before I ever went to college. 

Adam and Eve began everything at 11 am on Nov 23, 4004 BC and the forbidden fruit was a MacIntosh Apple.  Dipped in Caramel Sauce..

No wonder we went astray.  It was the sauce.

Go to college for 4 years and receive your dose of the brainwashing buffet on so many levels.

Realize you earned a degree to make more money and that not EVERYTHING you learned was of actual value and truth.

If you feel you evloved from a inferior species like a monkey then great. If you feel that all living things came from 1 amebia that was struck by lightining then over millions of years it grew legs, and them millions of years passed by then it grew wings and what grew wings grew feet then it reproduced and what reproduced made a lizard and millions of years passed by again and it made a giraffe, and millions of years passed by and it made a misquito, and so on and so forth to make a man. If that's what you believe about where you came from, then I'm sorry that you feel so little about yourself. When it comes to the universe and how it got there nothing else makes since except that it was created. How else could it have gotten here. Rocks don't just place themselves into perfect orbit with the sun and create a solar system which you just so happened to be on the only planet that's possible to live on. Just ask yourself where things came from starting with humans and go backyard and soon enough you will run out of answers. And when you do just say that it was created!

I think most people have found a way to reconcile a belief in God with the evidence of science. But there will always be people who close their eyes to science and refuse to believe anything that isn't written in the Bible. I think they're afraid to question anything, for fear it will cause them to doubt everything.

I boldly disagree with you that there are "..some scientific theories that suggest there might be a God.." This is simply not true, in fact it is false. I challenge you to post such a theory, and with it, the supporting evidence that even partially validates such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

In quantum mechanics there is this theory that all matter is a collapsed probability wave. Which basically means that everything exist as a probability wave until it is observed at which point it collapses into reality. True I may be using my own opinion as to what this may mean but I am certainly not the only one. If this theory is not proved totally wrong then it would suggest that there had to be an observer before life was here in order to observe the universe into existence. What this observer may be is still an on going debate. I chose to believe that it is what we call God. May I suggest that you realize that you like everyone else here don't know everything. You don't believe in God, fine. But you do not for a fact know that God does not exist. Many people that believe in God have evidence of God that is wholly personal, perhaps that's not scientific but not exactly blind faith either.

W. Pauli, Die allgemeinen Prinzipien der Wellenmechanik, in: Handbuch der Physik, Band V, Teil 1, S. Flügge ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, etc., 1958, p. 73 (referring to L. Landau and R. Peierls, Zeitschr. f. Physik, 69, 56 (1931)). Discussions of measurements of the second kind can be found in most treatments on the foundations of quantum mechanics, for instance, J.M. Jauch, Foundations of quantum mechanics, Addison-Wesley Publ. Cy., Reading, Mass., 1968, p. 165; B. d'Espagnat, Conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics, W.A. Benjamin, Inc., Reading, Mass., 1976, p. 18, 159; Willem M. de Muynck, Foundations of quantum mechanics, an empiricist approach, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, 2002, section 3.2.4.

Specifically, "Although von Neumann's projection postulate is often presented as a normative description of quantum measurement it should be realized that it was conceived by taking into account experimental evidence available during the 1930s, and that many important present-day measurement procedures do not satisfy it."

He proved the possibility of wave collapse, not the necessity of it. Sorry if I just killed your god =/

And some are led astray because they wish to create gods. To believe in something without evidence (faith) is not a good thing. Only the ignorant and credulous can believe such tales.

Yeah, I read it. I wonder who wrote those words. Not scientists, I assure you. And what about all of the stories that were left OUT of the bible.

The bible was written by man, some of the stories were made up to explain the unexplained and some were based on some truth, but years of retelling distorted and exaggerated the facts.

Evolution is evidence-based fact. It doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove the literal translation of the bible.

Are you kidding? Plenty of people have seen one thing become another over many generations.Look at captive silver foxes that have slowly been changing while being in captivity. There are fly species that have changed over the lifetime of people. Maybe not into complete new species but that's only because we don't live long enough. Look at how viruses change even in our short lifespans from one strain to another because of the drugs we use. It is the same with bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics. Evidence abounds that species change over time.

I have also read "Mary had a little lamb." That does not make it true. She may or may not have a lamb.

idiot

"To believe in something without evidence (faith) is not a good thing."

Says who? The person without faith? You have faith your car will start, that you will take your next breath, that you won't die in your sleep, that your heart will keep beating......You have no evidence whatsoever to back up the faith you exhibit on a daily basis - for you that might not be a good thing, but for me I can have faith that things are the way they are for a reason and don't worry whether I will have a next breath or heartbeat. I take it on faith, without evidence, that my heart will be beating tomorrow - and I have faith that it will be just fine if it doesn't.

Journey247 does't make sense. There is plenty of evidence that the car will start most times and that there is going to be a heartbeat, etc. There is plenty of evidence that evolution is the correct explanation to what has been observed. There absolutely no evidence that creation happened in either of the two stories in the Bible. Equally, there is no evidence that creation happened in the multitude variations of the the creation story that are described in the multitude religions in the world.

To put what God has done in a box is an insult to the Almighty. God did create everything, and He did so through evolution. To not believe this is simply trying to tell God how He should have created all things. Fortunately, most people agree with me on this matter. After all, this is completely logical, and God is a logical God.

Thank you all for your insight your faith in evolution is evident! I do not and did not deny that God imparted adaptability into His creation, If that is evolution then I agree, but if your evolution began with a bang and extends to magically produce the most intricate life then I don't. The best minds of men Dr Hawkins, Dr Sagan and Einstein could not explain what preceded the bang? what source ignited it? and where in the known universe is there evidence that such a catistrophic explosion creates anything but destruction? Your faith as I said is evident, if mine is wrong then I qoute Paul the Apostle " If in this life only we have hope in Christ, then we are of all men most pitiable" But if your faith is wrong then you will die in it and stand before Him whom you deny.....

flyingfls, that the car started yesterday and that the heart beat yesterday and that they do so today is not proof that they will tomorrow. All the evidence in the world cannot prove that they will tomorrow. That the sun came up this morning, and that it came up yesterday morning, and the morning before and the morning before that is not proof that it will come up tomorrow. That we believe it will is faith. Faith is not negated by observed behavior, but is instead enhanced by it and moved into the realm of belief.

The ultimate difference? Faith is accepting an idea without proof or observed behavior, Belief is accepting an idea as true based on observed behavior, though not necessarily with proof.

To reiterate. You have no proof that just because the sun came up today, just because it came up yesterday, and just because it has come up every day for the last 40 million days that it will tomorrow. You can INFER that it will, you cannot PROVE that it will. THAT is Faith.

Personally, I have faith that it will, just as I have faith that God is sitting back laughing at all of us for this silly argument about where everything came from. It is the journey of discovery that is so great, that we have the capability to even come up with the questions. Does anyone here even wonder if a dog ponders where it came from, what its purpose in life is, where it is going when it dies? Only humans have ever shown any interest in KNOWING. And the first step in knowing is Faith.

Carbon dating is only one kind of radiometric dating, and it is only accurate to a few thousand years. There are other kinds that are accurate to millions, or even billions of years.

They now can establish the the date and place of origin of rocks base on how the magnetic field of the rock is aligned, when it solidified the trace iron in it is locked in stone. Carbon dating is only for thing that were alive at one time. The oldest hominid bones to be found are 4.4 million years old. They have teeth that are 6 million years old. Preserved by a layer of volcanic ash. They date the ash by decay rates of isotopes contained with in the ash.

I strongly believe in God, but I don't believe that the world was created in a few thousand years. The first verse says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That could have been billions of years ago. It then goes on to say how he made the earth inhabitable for man in the next seven days. We have no idea how long a day is for God.

Yep, better convert to Islam before Allah throws you into hell.

Or, better convert Hinduism so you can be reincarnated as a higher being.

Or whatever set of beliefs your parents taught you are "true".

"pharmboy",

It's juvenile for you to equate anyone who uses the brain that God gave them to evaluate facts that "homo sapien", man, developed through an evolutionary process. Furthermore, there's no claim in any religious scripture that a person will be damned if he or she believes in education and science. In fact, if you are a Christian, the Bible has many passages in it were the virtues of science and technology are professed.

God doesn't mean for people to be mindless robots, not using the intelligence He/She gave us to develop the awesome advances we've had in the history of modern mankind. Since the sin of superstition has been wiped from the minds of the majority population of the world, look at the technological advances we've made with our God-given talents. Fundamentalism, coupled with the inherent superstition and falsities that goes with the ill-driven adherents, is what has caused the foolish statements coming from those who believe they are creationists. They don't realize that they are committing sins against God, by attempting to keep God's children from reaching their highest potentials, and that is what you are espousing also.

Being a pharmboy I'd think you'd understand selective breeding whether it be in livestock or plants - breed the best qualities of one with the best qualities of another to create an even better vesion.

pharmboy: Please stop posting the same thing. #9 is the same as #4, and my response to it is the same: Science is the opposite of faith. Please demonstrate otherwise or keep your opinions to yourself.

I wish I had a nickle for every time I've heard this idiotic little line.

No, evolution requires no faith whatsoever. All you need in order to understand that evolution is a fact is to open your eyes and look at the evidence that the world provides. There are mountains of evidence, the least important of which is the fossil record.

Human and chimp DNA is 98% identical.

There are viruses that inject their own DNA into the DNA of a host. This causes a sort of 'scar' in a random spot in the genetic code. There are no less than seven of these 'scars' in the exact same places between humans and the other great apes. The ONLY way this could happen is if they were caused before humans and apes split off from each other.

Humans have 23 chromosome pairs. Other apes have 24. When we mapped out the human and ape genomes and looked at them, we saw that human chromosome number 2 is actually two chromosomes fused together. Those two chromosomes are separate in other apes.

Not to mention the fact that evolution has actually been observed, not only in the lab but also in the field.

All this evidence practically screams out that evolution is true. But you don't care about evidence, do you? You don't care about facts. You have decided what it is that you believe and you refuse to allow anything to challenge that.

And, sadly, you are actually dumb enough to believe that is a good thing.

Hey Mark, if this is true then what chimp colony are you from? Or better yet dont' we use chimp blood and organs for transplants. Sure they may be similar to use but in the same breath they are totally different. I can not believe that you would give credit to your existence to a ape. Something we now go see at zoo locked in a cage. The Bible says that we were maid in the image/likenss of God (Gen 1:26). If that be the case then are God-like being on earth and should think of ourslves as such. We are unique creatures with the ability to think and make choices; not live soley on instincts. I would rather think of myself as God-like rather than ape-like. The Bible also says that we have the rule of all the animals on earth (Gen 1:26). If that be the case, then every man that see himself as God-like has the rule over every man that see himself as ape-like.

There has plenty writings and artifacts found thru the years to support the Bible. The most recent find was the discover of chariots wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea where it is thought to be the locatation where Moses cross the Red Sea. All the evidence you showed is all circumstantial evidence that can hold no water with all the holes in it. That's the FACTS!

Yes some animals do evolve, because they have to in order to continue to exist. Human being on the other hand are perfectly made (by God) to adapt to this world without having to go thru some form of physical metamorphosis.

Dumb, no I wouldn't call you that; just someone who week mided and easily persuded;one who would rather take the easy path.

Mark,

You accuse pharmboy of deciding what it is that he believes and then refusing to allow anything to challenge that.  But isn't that what you do also? (as well as probably all of us)  For example, you mention that human and chimp DNA is 98% identical.  You use it to support what you decide to believe - evolution - while I use it to support my belief that there was a common creator.  Kind of like when Company A builds a bridge - they will mainly use concrete and steel.  Company A then builds a building - using mainly concrete and steel.  98% of the basic material in these two structures will be the same.  Does this then mean that the building used to be a bridge that "evolved" over time or vice versa?  No.  It means they shared a common creator.  And while we're on it, what is the genetic similarity between humans and mice?  I could be wrong but I bet it's above 90%. 

You mention the fossil record and you are right in not giving it too much importance.  For if evolution is so true, one would expect the fossil record to show a gradual simplyfing of the fossilized creatures the further down you go.  But that's not what you find.  You find an explosion of both complex and non-complex organisms at the bottom of the fossil record.  I take this as evidence for the great flood of Noah's day.  I'm sure you can come up with some other explanation for this which fits what you have decided to believe.

Lastly, you say that evolution has been observed not just in the lab but also in the field.  If you're speaking of micro-evolution (changes within species), I don't know of anyone who would disagree with you there.  But if you're talking macro-evolution (one species changing into another), which I think you are, please tell me where this is documented.  And if this if your idea of documentation (i.e. 'real' science), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyjufVuQZ48, please, give it up and just admit Pharmboy's point that macro-evolution takes a lot of faith (because you have never seen it happen, have you!!).

Troy,

I do not use that evidence to support what I believe. I use it to determine what I accept. If the evidence pointed away from evolution, I would go wherever it went.

In your example, we know that both Company A and Company B exist. There is no evidence for a god, therefore is is not a rational conclusion. So many people before you have fallen into the fallacy of comparing natural organisms to man-made constructions. You can not compare the two. Complexity is not an issue because evolution is perfectly capable of producing massive amounts of complexity. Man made constructions do not evolve because they do not reproduce and mutate. They do not compete for resources.

You might have heard of the Watchmaker argument. Person finds a watch on the beach.. etc..? Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0 The fact that it is a computer simulation is irrelevant. It is still random mutation and natural selection. The exact same thing is going on there as goes on in the real world.

And while we're on it, what is the genetic similarity between humans and mice? I could be wrong but I bet it's above 90%.

Yes. The genetic similarity between all mammals.. all vertebrates for that matter, is fairly high.

For if evolution is so true, one would expect the fossil record to show a gradual simplyfing of the fossilized creatures the further down you go. But that's not what you find. You find an explosion of both complex and non-complex organisms at the bottom of the fossil record.

No one has ever suggested that evolution progressed in a straight line from simple to complex life forms. Evolution is not like a tree, progressing in one direction, it is more like a bush, growing outward to more and more variation, whether those varieties are simple or complex.

If you're speaking of micro-evolution (changes within species), I don't know of anyone who would disagree with you there. But if you're talking macro-evolution (one species changing into another), which I think you are, please tell me where this is documented.

Booya

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

As for the video, please tell me exactly where you think it is incorrect in its explanation. Sure, it's simplistic and cartoonish, but I find that creationists generally can't handle serious and professional explanations of evolution. (Which is why I will assume that you will take one glance at the talkorigins link and immediately close the browser window.)

But if you're talking macro-evolution (one species changing into another), which I think you are, please tell me where this is documented. And if this if your idea of documentation (i.e. 'real' science), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyjufVuQZ48, please, give it up and just admit Pharmboy's point that macro-evolution takes a lot of faith (because you have never seen it happen, have you!!).

I've never seen the formation of a canyon from a ditch. However, the processes of erosion still exist. It takes several million years, but it happens.

I've never seen the formation of a complex organism from a single-celled organism within a human lifetime. However, the processes of evolution still exist. It takes several million years, but it happens.

If you believe that one genetic mutation can occur, then N changes can occur. Once you get to 3.6 million, you've got the number of changes between homo sapiens and chimpanzees. There is no 'micro' vs. 'macro' concept.

I'll start with DT - a canyon is still a ditch. Not sure what point you're trying to make but as for your comment, "I've never seen the formation of a complex organism from a single-celled organism within a human lifetime. However, the processes of evolution still exist. It takes several million years, but it happens." That's a statement of faith if I've ever seen one.

Mike Smit,

B.S. Your mountains of evidence is for adaption, the mechanism that is responsible for limited adaptive change in an organism. The modern synthesis co-opted this mechanism, tried to puff it up by calling it micro evolution in order to tie it into macro evolution. There is not one shred of evidence that adaptive mechanisms can transform an organism from only phyla into another.

It is purely sophisticated guesswork. Nothing more.

Mark,

As for the video, it's an entertaining video on how an artist can gradually change a cuite smiley face into a cuite ape face but that's about it. Hey, an artist can gradually change a drawing of a pig into a drawing of a fly if they want. Not sure what that has to do with genes or biology though.

The watchmaker video, nice lesson on how traits that are already programmed into an organism can become dominant over generations but does nothing much else. I don't believe in his experiment he ever got say a 'door knob' to come out or even a digital watch. Only what was programmed into the original 'gene' pool ever came out. A watch is still a watch is still a watch. Just like a duck is still a duck is still a duck.

As for the talkorigins study, I'll admit I didn't read it all (got job and family after all), but I did read parts of it and skimmed most of it. Seems like he does a nice job of proving micro-evolution but not much else. Much of his argument seems to rest on the fossil record but

1) how is the fossil record dated? Correct me if I'm wrong but there's a lot of circular reasoning going on with the fossil record. Question - "How do we know this fossil is 20 milliion years old?" Answer - "Because of the layer it was found in?" Question - "How do we know how old the layer is?" Answer - "Because of the fossils that are found in it?" ... Huh???

2) and this goes back to my original post - but I can just as easily take the fossil record and use it as proof that there is a common and creative Creator for all of this.

3) again, the fossil record isn't quite so simple as evolutionists have tried to lead us to believe over the years. (doesn't go from simple to complex - as even your talkorigins article seems to suggest)

Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion, maybe narrow down the talkorigins article to just one or two of its 'absolute' proofs for macroevolution, that might be easier to do given the length and given the fact that this is only Newsvine.

Troy

I have a better idea. How about you learn what evolution actually is, first.

The animated video wasn't supposed to be proof of anything. It was supposed to be an explanation.

In the Watchmaker video, no traits were preprogrammed. If you had been paying attention, you would have realized that.

One thing I notice about creationists is that they change the definitions of 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' whenever it suits them. The talkorigins page was talking about speciation. That is macroevolution. I would love to hear an example of what you think macroevolution is.

The fact remains that there are mountains of evidence for evolution, including speciation, that you refuse to look at. You are sitting in front of a portal to the sum total of human knowledge. You could look it up any time you want.

But no. You choose to ignore naturalistic, well supported explanations and believe in supernatural explanation (read: magic) with absolutely no evidence supporting it whatsoever.

Our conversation is done. I am convinced that you don't care about what is true.

Mark,

Fair enough with the animated video.

With the Watchmaker video, perhaps I should have used the term "parts" instead of "traits". I can see how you misunderstood what I meant. My point is that in his computer program he gave each "clock organism" 30 gears, 1 ratchet, 7 hands, 1 spring and 1 housing. All the needed parts are there from the beginning. Nothing new ever arose just a rearrangement of parts with slight changes that continued to produce clocks, and more clocks, and more clocks. Again, a duck is still a duck is still a duck and always will be a duck.

You're right, this conversation is done as my original comment will probably continue to be true. "You accuse pharmboy of deciding what it is that he believes and then refusing to allow anything to challenge that. But isn't that what you do also? (as well as probably all of us)" You've confined yourself to "naturalistic explanations" and won't hear any other. I believe in a God whose fingerprints I can see all over this incredible world and whose Word is supported by that world. Do I have all the answers? No, certainly not. But you, whether you want to admit it or not, don't either.

Best of luck though as you pursue the truth.

Troy,

Perhaps you don't understand how the mechanisms apply to known biological organisms. We are all made from the same four parts: G, A, T, and C; just in a different configuration. That's how the watchmaker applies. "A duck is a duck" just as a DNA based-organism is a DNA-based organism.

There were mammals during the time of the dinosaurs, especially rodents like rabbits. Finding such a fossil would in no way disprove evolution, it would just add another piece to the puzzle. Now finding a modern human skeleton with a dinosaur fossil would be a significant find.

hmmm... a homo sapieadactyl. I'd like to see that one!

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. There are millions of christians in the world who have no problem with evolution whatsoever.

What is at issue here MJ is not your faith in "God" you get to keep that - the question is your faith in a book - if you believe "God" wrote it you have a problem - but I don't think "God" is into literature - so evolution doesn't conflict with God so much - it conflicts with your book.

The problem I have always had with faith in God is that it makes all of us unaccountable for what we do to this rock we're living on. Why care when God will fix it for us? I would rather go with the idea that if God exists and gave us a brain to problem solve, then he expects us to USE it.

MJ: How about not putting your faith in anything, and instead insisting on evidence before you accept something as true? No one puts "faith" in science. Science is the opposite of faith. Anyone who speaks of "faith in science" speaks out of ignorance.

Actually we do put faith in science too - the big bang theory is something we pretty much put faith in - a break in the space-time continum - there's a little faith there along with some speculative physics - with either God or the big bang we get something from nothing - so he can keep God and I'll go with science - but it's a leap either way. For me it's not so much they believe in God - it's that they believe in a book - no matter which religion it is.

But man wrote the bible. They wrote separate pieces and then held a conference to determine which pieces would make it into the bible. Lillith was Adam's first wife and there is no mention of her in the bible.

So you are putting your faith in man by accepting man's bible.

Santa Claus has always been good to me, so I will take my chances there. The medeival church demanded ignorance of the masses, what a lasting legacy.

It doesn't take faith to accept the big bang theory. Track a bunch of stars and galaxies and you'll discover that they are moving away from each other. That means they were closer together before. Extrapolate backward in time.

"Lillith was Adam's first wife and there is no mention of her in the bible."

Hmmm - why would one think that Lilith was Adam's first wife if:

a) the bible isn't true, so there is no Adam, so who cares about Lilith
b) The bible is true, Lilith is not mentioned, so why would one think she was his first wife?
c) Lilith is actually a mythical legend, IS mentioned in Isa. 34:14, and has absolutely nothing to do with Adam or Eve - meaning this question presents a mute point.

"It doesn't take faith to accept the big bang theory. Track a bunch of stars and galaxies and you'll discover that they are moving away from each other. That means they were closer together before. Extrapolate backward in time."

Oh but one has to have faith when they are presented with the quandry that the big bang means there WAS indeed a beginning, by your own admission. If there is a beginning, there is a cause. What is that cause?

Still believe in the big bang theory?

It doesn't take faith to accept the big bang theory. Track a bunch of stars and galaxies and you'll discover that they are moving away from each other. That means they were closer together before. Extrapolate backward in time.

Astronomers have also found entire galaxies moving perpendicular to the path of universal expansion, they're labeled "anomalies" because they don't fit into the big bang theory. There's the elusive dark matter and dark energy, neither of which have ever been proved, let alone observed directly, but they're being figured into calculations because without them the scientific laws covering universal expansion would fall apart. There's also the question of the infinitely dense, infinitely small chunk of matter that caused the big bang came from. Where did it come from, or was it just always there? That question is used to discredit the belief in God, so without an answer shouldn't it also discredit the belief in the big bang?

Personally I believe in God and evolution. There will be a bit of uncertainty in the evolutionary chain until the day all the links are found, which may never happen. Not that it happend, but how. Was it a smooth transition or did something, divine or alien, give it a nudge. To me some parts of the big bang theory make sense, others not so much, but it seems like astronomers are uncovering as many holes in it as they are evidence to support it, so yes, it does take a bit of faith to believe in the big bang.

American education has miserably failed....

Yes it has. But what does that have to do with this thread?

If you can't figure that out, angryirish, then 'american education' has failed you too.

This country is such an embarrassment.

I'll go you one better and say we are animals. Watch the fundies squirm at THAT one. We eat animals, we are edible by animals, our bodies work like animals' bodies do. We should all just get used to saying that: "I am an animal." Say it out loud, and you'll find that nothing has changed. We're different only quantitatively; otherwise, we are just highly developed and specialized beasts. And I am 100% fine with that.

There are a few differences. We are self aware. A few other animals might share that quality. We point when we teach. I know it sounds small but it is overwhelmingly important. And we have faith, not hope but faith.

I am a creationist and celebrate your freedom to hold your view. Just don’t think it is a fact. Original matter it's self is proof that in order for evolution to make since, be rational, it must have faith that original matter existed. Now you have a religion just like me.

Two other points that might be interesting to you. I don't squirm at being in a category with animals and my second toe is longer than my big toe. Might that be an evolution too? Not likely.

Original matter [itself] is proof that in order for evolution to make [sense], be rational, it must have faith that original matter existed.

That makes not a shred of sense. A scientific theory cannot have "faith," since faith is the opposite of science (and a theory, being inanimate, can't have a belief anyway). The theory of evolution is not concerned with where matter came from. Evolution doesn't exist until organisms do. Besides - if you're trying to score points by saying that matter can't have existed forever, therefore there must be a god, that's a nonsensical argument, too, because you're right back into the same trap, having to explain where God came from. If God can exist forever, so can the universe (more so, since the universe is provable fact).

Chuck

You just can't handle the idea of someone not having a religion, can you?

'Not self aware' is not part of any definition of the word 'animal' that I've ever heard. There are differences between elephants and snails, yet they are both animals.

What do you mean by 'original matter'? About eight billion years separate the origin of matter from the formation of life on earth. Probably around a billion years separate the formation of the heavy elements that the solar system is composed of (carbon, oxygen, silicon, iron. Before that it was hydrogen) from the formation of life on earth. The matter that life on earth is composed of was already here before life formed, and how it formed makes absolutely no difference to evolution.

"I am the way and the truth and the life..." Jesus said this in John 14:6. You don't need religion to believe in, you need a personal and intimate relationship with God.

I wish people would at least try to educate themselves before they spout off.

Evolution did NOT stop with apes. It is still going on.

Atoms did not create the big bang. Atoms did not not even exist yet.

Evolution hasn't stopped. In fact, it's been observed in laboratory conditions with Drosiphilia (fruit flies) by Thomas Dhobzhansky. It's been observed everytime microbes attain resistance to our antibiotics. Evolution continues.

You don't want to die and never have tried to search for the truth.

The best argument I've heard yet to study science. The search for truth involves scientific observation and research. Not closing your mind to possibilities by ignoring facts in favor of a fairy tale read in a book as a child.

I'd rather believe in Zeus than Darwin.

Seriously, Zeus is WAAAY more powerful than Darwin. He creates lighning bolts with his fists!!

All Darwin did was write a bunch of stuff about animals.

Believe in Zeus and his Son Jesus Christ, and ye shall be saved!

Your creator is God and there are way more facts to support that!

Such as...? Show me one single repeatable, peer-reviewed fact that disproves a single scientific theory, let alone evolution. You say there is evidence; let's see it.

Sorry buddy - there are NO facts to support a creator. Just wishful, mythological thinking on your part. Educate yourself.

"You don't want to die and never have tried to search for the truth". Would it not serve you well to heed your own advice. I know so many people that seriously question their faith, but cannot proclaim themselves atheist solely out of fear.

in support of a creator is faith. that is the base of religion. No reason to attack on a well know primes. Whereas; evolutionists base everything on reason and fact, but when it comes to original matter it is a leap of faith. So, Evolution is also a religion and not a science.

chuck.h: Let me be the first to say: that is an utterly idiotic thing to say, as written. Because you are clearly smart enough to find your way here in the first place, I will offer you this opportunity to attempt, again, to make the slightest shred of sense. What I am getting at is this:

what?

"

Carl W

I'd rather believe in Zeus than Darwin.

Seriously, Zeus is WAAAY more powerful than Darwin. He creates lighning bolts with his fists!!

All Darwin did was write a bunch of stuff about animals.

Believe in Zeus and his Son Jesus Christ, and ye shall be saved!"

My god is Thor. He carries a hammer. Your god was nailed to a cross.

;)

You said anyone with an "open mind", there in is the rub, you won't find that amongst the creationists. To have an open mind you must be able to think freely and anyone who feels that dinosaurs and man shared the earth 6 thousand years ago just doesn't think period. Now here's the really scary part, some of these creationists are actually serving in our congress!

yeah that was scary during the presidential republican nomination debates when it was asked "who doesn't believe in evolution" and half of them raised their hands! it made me scared for our country.