ok im so confused right now. MY BRO AND DAD WE where talking about this and my bro said. "If man came from ape/ancestory, wuldnt all the monkeys/apes be gone, right. But then i said something about the dominant and recessive genes that the human gene might be to recessive for it to continue through the apes. But if the human gene became dominant wouldnt the evolution take even more time to devolp into something else. But if the punnet square would in which the human gene would be recessive then it would be a fourth of a percent that the human gene beavle to pass on but then that might nt happen again when or if the mate. The cycle could break and keep on restarting. If the cycle "multi/single cell organisme->something else and so one the chain can be broken when the genes r not beable to produse the living organism. Im just a confused teen who doesnt kno and is hating it for it. I do belive in god, but when i question the evolution i get confused i dont kno what to belive. PLZ comment on my accont to help understand more about this

Just to clarify a few things, we didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from apes,and than the time line goes backwards. The thing is evolution is possible, in the last few hundred years we've seen plant and animal life evolve, yes it wasn't much of a change but there was a change, the thing with human evolution is that (its been going on for hundred of million years), is that we have to find all of the missing links of our evolution and until than it shouldn't be disregarded because from the evidence that we've found so far it shows that the probability is extremely high, but it really cant be proven until we find all of the missing links, or we find a DNA sample of the very first stage of humans or the last stage of an ancient ape.

Unfortunately god is only a theory too, it also cant be proven we can only calculate the probability of it being true or false, major religions tell us that "god" didn't have a creator, which means its a being that was created out of nothing and that knowledge to create the universe and all that is inside, this sounds pretty far fetched, meaning the probability of the "god" that major religions depict is crazy. Since humans began to write down about there beliefs, civilization in any way through out history it is shown that humans place a god, spirit, angel, or any other religious icon in the place of the unknown, Egyptians and Aztecs had a day and night god, they both had a sun god and im sure you understand what im saying, unfortunately one of the big answers that science hasn't proven is how the universe came to be, and thus we place a god in that spot to answer our question, humans seem to need to know everything and fear the unknown, or we're just very freaking curious and stubborn that if we cant answer we'll come up with something radical.

For all of those that are religious this wasnt a hate comment, i have total respect for peoples beliefs, what i'm saying is that if we dont move forward than we'll just stay in the same spot or situation, its important to move forward with caution of course, continue to learn and reach our fullest potential.

blaze it!

The Buddha was the first person to talk about evolution. In fact, he attributed mankind's existence to have evolved over millions of years from a sexless and formless tiny organism.

To add,

In my Science class we r learning about evolution and right now they r telling us we r made in Gods image and not from monkey do u see a difference. If we r made from a monkey we would look like a monkey, we would look ugly not 2 b mean, we would not b this tall or small we would be very tiny. Evolution is stuff people r making and people are not always true. Sometimes like if i say.... Mouses r big... that is not true but If i finish my sentence.... Mouses r big compared to a ant. See the difference they do not finish there sentence. People can not say that we r made from a monkey because that is not true. God made us maybe with the same bone places.
BUT EVOLUTION IS NOT TRUE:)

Seriously...This isn't serious is it? I didn't think people who didn't believe in evolution even existed anymore. See, truth is, your kind is fading out....the whole God thing, is kind of old. Soon, you'll be dead & everyone who is smart enough to believe in evolution will live on. Sorry.

evolution is not true

in my science class, we are studying charles darwin. each student had to write down a question about charles darwin or his research. my teacher gave us each back a question which we have to answer when we get back to school. my question is "if man evolved from monkeys, then what did monkeys evolve from, or how did they even get here?".
i beleive that both monkeys and humans evolved from an ancient common ancestor. but the problem is, our answer has to be a paragraph long, and i'm having trouble writing it. can anyone help me?

Humans didn't evolve from monkeys.

Humans and other animals like chimps and gorillas evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. This has been known for decades by anyone with a passing interest in human evolution.

Its too bad that none of you lefties really know anything. I dont even know anything. You can speculate all you want, but you cant say whos right and whos wrong because unless you are as old as matter, you cant tell us anything. Maybe we arent meant to know exactley where we came from and maybe it is better that way. Now get off your computers, go outside, and have fun with your time here.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416141356.htm

I suppose young earth creationists will always have explanations for the age of galaxies and so forth. Ugh.

Well think about it. Nothing can be separated from the mind. The Universe and the MIND the SELF and the ATOM Time/Space they imply one another. You see nothing can just BEGIN Here and Now or There and Then both There and Here imply SPACE and Now and Then imply TIME for WE are the Center of the SPHRE. Havent we learned ANYTHING when they proved the EARTH was NOT FLAT. That's right FLAT it is NOT FLAT not LINEAR but Spherical as is EVERYTHING there is no Begining MARK that leads into INFINITY it is Spherical it is the MIND/ATOM it is BEING. Cause and Effect Time/space All two sides of a common coin. IT IS ALL ONE and we are the INFINITE center of the sphere. Try to think of the SMALLEST Three Dimetional OBJECT. It has to be a SPHERE otherwise the OBJECT would make NO sense if it were a CUBE for instance then there are Differnt Lengths from the center since it is not perfectly symectrical so it coldnt be the SMALLEST or the LARGEST it MUST be prefecly equidistant for a CENTER so it HAS to be a SPHERE but a SPHERE always will have a CENTER so no matter how SMALL the CENTER is smaller THE CENTER OF THE SPHERE IS US. Once you understand the implications of what I am saying and how these should have been obvious upon our discovery of the earth NOT BEING FLAT you will realize how ridiculous the EVOUTION Natural Selection VS Creation Debate REALLY IS. In other WORDS the QUESTION is based on a false premise a way of looking at the world that is not really true. For we often get caught in the trap of language and when we try to answer broad questions such as this we are limited by our language the boundries of our conscous minds and we are part of what we are trying to figure out. Sort of like trying to touch the tip of your RIGHT INDEX finger WITH the Tip of your RIGHT index finger YOU JUST CANT DO IT. ..........Sure there is EVOLUTION and things EVOLVE but no one can explain what LIFE is and where LIFE comes from because WE ARE LIFE and We can not separate what we are from some independent physical MATTERIAL there is no such thing. MIND and MATTER are ONE we are trapped in a SPHREE the SPHERE is GOD and its a CLOSED CIRCLE nothing exists outside except LIES. It is OVER OUR HEADS.

dude i completely understand what u r sayin so like for instance everything is life and life can not be seperated from any other source of maucury such as how we became or what we will become we just adjust throughout our time and even if we don't see that every living thing is connected some how we just are and we can't really prove anything over a cours of a millinium and we just need to try to understand that we are not just a seperate part of life we r life and we need to just let evolution and natural selection just take its course.

Well think about it. Nothing can be separated from the mind. The Universe and the MIND the SELF and the ATOM Time/Space they imply one another. You see nothing can just BEGIN Here and Now or There and Then both There and Here imply SPACE and Now and Then imply TIME for WE are the Center of the SPHRE. Havent we learned ANYTHING when they proved the EARTH was NOT FLAT. That's right FLAT it is NOT FLAT not LINEAR but Spherical as is EVERYTHING there is no Begining MARK that leads into INFINITY it is Spherical it is the MIND/ATOM it is BEING. Cause and Effect Time/space All two sides of a common coin. IT IS ALL ONE and we are the INFINITE center of the sphere. Try to think of the SMALLEST Three Dimetional OBJECT. It has to be a SPHERE otherwise the OBJECT would make NO sense if it were a CUBE for instance then there are Differnt Lengths from the center since it is not perfectly symectrical so it coldnt be the SMALLEST or the LARGEST it MUST be prefecly equidistant for a CENTER so it HAS to be a SPHERE but a SPHERE always will have a CENTER so no matter how SMALL the CENTER is smaller THE CENTER OF THE SPHERE IS US. Once you understand the implications of what I am saying and how these should have been obvious upon our discovery of the earth NOT BEING FLAT you will realize how ridiculous the EVOUTION Natural Selection VS Creation Debate REALLY IS.

Dont even get me started on DNA, that is a different level, and that also points very very stongly towards a creator

Consider how a complex organ such as the eye evolves over millions of years. Let’s assume some mutations have sensitized an area of the skin to light, so that certain areas are more sensitive to light. What good is this? By the theory, this has no benefit to the species so would be selected out. But let’s suppose it survives, and goes on to develop into an eye, complete with lens, retina, and the muscles needed to focus automatically. How this happens over millions of years is unknown, for unless the entire eye is complete, it is useless. But let’s assume it happened; the eye is complete. Without the nerve connecting it to the brain, and the brain being able to process the information, the partially formed eye is useless, and would be selected out since it gives no advantage to the species. Millions of years of mutations and natural selection wasted.

But let’s suppose all this happened over millions of years. The eye is complete, and the connection to the brain works, and the brain is capable of processing the information. How did two eyes develop? What told the species you needed two? Since you wouldn’t know the benefits of two eyes working together to provide depth perception unless you already had two, how did this develop? If it was random, why don’t we find animals with eyes in the back of their head? Wouldn’t that be useful to see what is behind? The more thinking you do on this, the more absurd it sounds. Darwin himself knew this was a problem, and the passage of time since he proposed his theory has not made it any less of a problem.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree. (Charles Darwin The Origin of Species Bantam Books June 1999, page 155)

Darwin explained his problem by making two points he felt would solve this problem:

Numerous examples of species with transitional forms. Unfortunately, this is not the case. As we shall see in another section, the fossil record is silent on transitional forms. Has anything been found with partial eyes?
Each transitional form is useful to the species. This is difficult to imagine. What good is a partially formed eye? A partially formed eye is useless, according to the theory it would be selected out.
The mystery of complex organs poses a huge problem for evolution; partially formed organs are useless. Consider also reproductive organs. If these developed over millions of years the same problem presents itself. What good are partially developed reproductive systems? They serve no purpose so would be selected out. And how did a species reproduce during the millions of years they were developing? If a species could reproduce without them, why would they evolve in the first place?

This is an embarrassing problem

THE FOSSIL RECORD
This is again embarrassing. As evolution has been occurring for billions of years, and we went from goo to single-celled animals to fish to crawling up on land, etc, where are the transitional forms? Where is the half fish half lizard? The fossil record should have hundreds, thousands, even millions of examples. Where are they? Evolutionists mention 3 or 4 highly debatable ones, but why have they only found a few? For billions of years of evolution? Strange. It’s not for a lack of looking — how many people are digging, and for how many decades have they been searching? There is a deafening silence from the evolutionists on this issue, and understandably so. If their theory is correct, the evidence should be there, and it isn’t. Once again, Darwin knew the problem the fossil record posed for evolution, and probably expected later scientists to find abundant transitional forms.

The cambrian period also is a severe problem for darwin

"Darwin said in his Origin of Species, 'If it could be demonstrated that an complex ogan existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' what about irreducible complex machines, take cilium, or even better and more fascinating bacterial flagellum, take away just one of there parts and the whole machine fails as a whole. Darwin is scratching his butt at these sort of problems, and theres alot more. What about fine tunings of the universe which is a totally differnt subject, what about the mind, the conscious

TO ADD

random chance in the beggining : theres a minimal complexity threshold, theres a certian level of folding that a protein has to have called tertiary structure that is necessary for it to perform a function. you dont get tertiary structure in a protein unless you have at least 75 amino acids or so. That may be conservative. Now consider what youd need for a protein molecule to form by chance. First you need the right bonds between the amino acids 2nd amino acids come in right handed and left handed versions, and youve got to get only left handed ones. 3rd the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence like letters in sentence, run the odds of all this falling into place on their own n the probabilities of forming a RATHER SHORT FUNCTIONAL PROTEIN at random would be 1 chance out of 10 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, thats a 10 followed with 125 zeros thats just one protein molecule

and a MINIMALLY COMPLEX CELL would need between 300 and 500 PROTEIN molicules, plus all of this would have to be accomplished in a mere 100 million years, which is the approximate window of time between the earth cooling and the first microfossils weve found

To embrace Darwinism and its underlying premise of naturalism, I would have to beieve that: 1. nothin producs everything
2. Non-life produces life
3. Randomness produces fine-tuning
4. Chaos produces information
5. Unconsciouness produces consciousness
6. Non-reason produces reason

Based on this, i am forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leapof faith that i am not willing to make. Simply put,the central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rot away when exposed to scrutiny. For example naturalistc processes have utterly failed to explain how non living chemicals could somehowself assemble into the first living cell. Not only are there no viable theories, but none are on the horizon. Biochemist Klaus Dose, one of the leading origin of life experts, conceded: "At present all discussions on principle thories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

READ! THIS IT HAS ALOT OF GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MUCH FAITH YOU REALLY NEED TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!! THERE IS A CREATOR, JEHOVAH, WHO SENT HIS SON IN THE FLESH AS A HINT AND IS THE ONLY WAY TO ETERNAL LIFE, READ ABOUT HIM AND IT WILL ALL MAKE SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have a valid argument here. The only problem is that you are thinking in millions of years. Eyes were obviously one of the first evolutionary developments of multi-celled creatures seeing as insects, reptiles, mammals and the like all have them. This being realized they must have all evolved from the same animal. This would have allowed eyes to develop over BILLIONS of years not merely millions. This amount of time is unimaginable to humans so it is understandable to have questions such as these that seem almost unfathomable. Fossils are much less likely to form as you may think as well. Not every dead animal creates one. Very rare. Continue to question beliefs though, it's the only way we move forward in knowledge.

Consider how a complex organ such as the eye evolves over millions of years. Let’s assume some mutations have sensitized an area of the skin to light, so that certain areas are more sensitive to light. What good is this? By the theory, this has no benefit to the species so would be selected out. But let’s suppose it survives, and goes on to develop into an eye, complete with lens, retina, and the muscles needed to focus automatically. How this happens over millions of years is unknown, for unless the entire eye is complete, it is useless. But let’s assume it happened; the eye is complete. Without the nerve connecting it to the brain, and the brain being able to process the information, the partially formed eye is useless, and would be selected out since it gives no advantage to the species. Millions of years of mutations and natural selection wasted.

But let’s suppose all this happened over millions of years. The eye is complete, and the connection to the brain works, and the brain is capable of processing the information. How did two eyes develop? What told the species you needed two? Since you wouldn’t know the benefits of two eyes working together to provide depth perception unless you already had two, how did this develop? If it was random, why don’t we find animals with eyes in the back of their head? Wouldn’t that be useful to see what is behind? The more thinking you do on this, the more absurd it sounds. Darwin himself knew this was a problem, and the passage of time since he proposed his theory has not made it any less of a problem.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree. (Charles Darwin The Origin of Species Bantam Books June 1999, page 155)

Darwin explained his problem by making two points he felt would solve this problem:

Numerous examples of species with transitional forms. Unfortunately, this is not the case. As we shall see in another section, the fossil record is silent on transitional forms. Has anything been found with partial eyes?
Each transitional form is useful to the species. This is difficult to imagine. What good is a partially formed eye? A partially formed eye is useless, according to the theory it would be selected out.
The mystery of complex organs poses a huge problem for evolution; partially formed organs are useless. Consider also reproductive organs. If these developed over millions of years the same problem presents itself. What good are partially developed reproductive systems? They serve no purpose so would be selected out. And how did a species reproduce during the millions of years they were developing? If a species could reproduce without them, why would they evolve in the first place?

This is an embarrassing problem

THE FOSSIL RECORD
This is again embarrassing. As evolution has been occurring for billions of years, and we went from goo to single-celled animals to fish to crawling up on land, etc, where are the transitional forms? Where is the half fish half lizard? The fossil record should have hundreds, thousands, even millions of examples. Where are they? Evolutionists mention 3 or 4 highly debatable ones, but why have they only found a few? For billions of years of evolution? Strange. It’s not for a lack of looking — how many people are digging, and for how many decades have they been searching? There is a deafening silence from the evolutionists on this issue, and understandably so. If their theory is correct, the evidence should be there, and it isn’t. Once again, Darwin knew the problem the fossil record posed for evolution, and probably expected later scientists to find abundant transitional forms.

The cambrian period also is a severe problem for darwin

"Darwin said in his Origin of Species, 'If it could be demonstrated that an complex ogan existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' what about irreducible complex machines, take cilium, or even better and more fascinating bacterial flagellum, take away just one of there parts and the whole machine fails as a whole. Darwin is scratching his butt at these sort of problems, and theres alot more. What about fine tunings of the universe which is a totally differnt subject, what about the mind, the conscious

TO ADD

random chance in the beggining : theres a minimal complexity threshold, theres a certian level of folding that a protein has to have called tertiary structure that is necessary for it to perform a function. you dont get tertiary structure in a protein unless you have at least 75 amino acids or so. That may be conservative. Now consider what youd need for a protein molecule to form by chance. First you need the right bonds between the amino acids 2nd amino acids come in right handed and left handed versions, and youve got to get only left handed ones. 3rd the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence like letters in sentence, run the odds of all this falling into place on their own n the probabilities of forming a RATHER SHORT FUNCTIONAL PROTEIN at random would be 1 chance out of 10 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, thats a 10 followed with 125 zeros thats just one protein molecule

and a MINIMALLY COMPLEX CELL would need between 300 and 500 PROTEIN molicules, plus all of this would have to be accomplished in a mere 100 million years, which is the approximate window of time between the earth cooling and the first microfossils weve found

To embrace Darwinism and its underlying premise of naturalism, I would have to beieve that: 1. nothin producs everything
2. Non-life produces life
3. Randomness produces fine-tuning
4. Chaos produces information
5. Unconsciouness produces consciousness
6. Non-reason produces reason

Based on this, i am forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leapof faith that i am not willing to make. Simply put,the central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rot away when exposed to scrutiny. For example naturalistc processes have utterly failed to explain how non living chemicals could somehowself assemble into the first living cell. Not only are there no viable theories, but none are on the horizon. Biochemist Klaus Dose, one of the leading origin of life experts, conceded: "At present all discussions on principle thories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

READ! THIS IT HAS ALOT OF GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MUCH FAITH YOU REALLY NEED TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!! THERE IS A CREATOR, JEHOVAH, WHO SENT HIS SON IN THE FLESH AS A HINT AND IS THE ONLY WAY TO ETERNAL LIFE, READ ABOUT HIM AND IT WILL ALL MAKE SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Consider how a complex organ such as the eye evolves over millions of years. Let’s assume some mutations have sensitized an area of the skin to light, so that certain areas are more sensitive to light. What good is this? By the theory, this has no benefit to the species so would be selected out. But let’s suppose it survives, and goes on to develop into an eye, complete with lens, retina, and the muscles needed to focus automatically. How this happens over millions of years is unknown, for unless the entire eye is complete, it is useless. But let’s assume it happened; the eye is complete. Without the nerve connecting it to the brain, and the brain being able to process the information, the partially formed eye is useless, and would be selected out since it gives no advantage to the species. Millions of years of mutations and natural selection wasted.

But let’s suppose all this happened over millions of years. The eye is complete, and the connection to the brain works, and the brain is capable of processing the information. How did two eyes develop? What told the species you needed two? Since you wouldn’t know the benefits of two eyes working together to provide depth perception unless you already had two, how did this develop? If it was random, why don’t we find animals with eyes in the back of their head? Wouldn’t that be useful to see what is behind? The more thinking you do on this, the more absurd it sounds. Darwin himself knew this was a problem, and the passage of time since he proposed his theory has not made it any less of a problem.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree. (Charles Darwin The Origin of Species Bantam Books June 1999, page 155)

Darwin explained his problem by making two points he felt would solve this problem:

Numerous examples of species with transitional forms. Unfortunately, this is not the case. As we shall see in another section, the fossil record is silent on transitional forms. Has anything been found with partial eyes?
Each transitional form is useful to the species. This is difficult to imagine. What good is a partially formed eye? A partially formed eye is useless, according to the theory it would be selected out.
The mystery of complex organs poses a huge problem for evolution; partially formed organs are useless. Consider also reproductive organs. If these developed over millions of years the same problem presents itself. What good are partially developed reproductive systems? They serve no purpose so would be selected out. And how did a species reproduce during the millions of years they were developing? If a species could reproduce without them, why would they evolve in the first place?

This is an embarrassing problem

THE FOSSIL RECORD
This is again embarrassing. As evolution has been occurring for billions of years, and we went from goo to single-celled animals to fish to crawling up on land, etc, where are the transitional forms? Where is the half fish half lizard? The fossil record should have hundreds, thousands, even millions of examples. Where are they? Evolutionists mention 3 or 4 highly debatable ones, but why have they only found a few? For billions of years of evolution? Strange. It’s not for a lack of looking — how many people are digging, and for how many decades have they been searching? There is a deafening silence from the evolutionists on this issue, and understandably so. If their theory is correct, the evidence should be there, and it isn’t. Once again, Darwin knew the problem the fossil record posed for evolution, and probably expected later scientists to find abundant transitional forms.

The cambrian period also is a severe problem for darwin

"Darwin said in his Origin of Species, 'If it could be demonstrated that an complex ogan existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' what about irreducible complex machines, take cilium, or even better and more fascinating bacterial flagellum, take away just one of there parts and the whole machine fails as a whole. Darwin is scratching his butt at these sort of problems, and theres alot more. What about fine tunings of the universe which is a totally differnt subject, what about the mind, the conscious

TO ADD

random chance in the beggining : theres a minimal complexity threshold, theres a certian level of folding that a protein has to have called tertiary structure that is necessary for it to perform a function. you dont get tertiary structure in a protein unless you have at least 75 amino acids or so. That may be conservative. Now consider what youd need for a protein molecule to form by chance. First you need the right bonds between the amino acids 2nd amino acids come in right handed and left handed versions, and youve got to get only left handed ones. 3rd the amino acids must link up in a specified sequence like letters in sentence, run the odds of all this falling into place on their own n the probabilities of forming a RATHER SHORT FUNCTIONAL PROTEIN at random would be 1 chance out of 10 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, thats a 10 followed with 125 zeros thats just one protein molecule

and a MINIMALLY COMPLEX CELL would need between 300 and 500 PROTEIN molicules, plus all of this would have to be accomplished in a mere 100 million years, which is the approximate window of time between the earth cooling and the first microfossils weve found

To embrace Darwinism and its underlying premise of naturalism, I would have to beieve that: 1. nothin producs everything
2. Non-life produces life
3. Randomness produces fine-tuning
4. Chaos produces information
5. Unconsciouness produces consciousness
6. Non-reason produces reason

Based on this, i am forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leapof faith that i am not willing to make. Simply put,the central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rot away when exposed to scrutiny. For example naturalistc processes have utterly failed to explain how non living chemicals could somehowself assemble into the first living cell. Not only are there no viable theories, but none are on the horizon. Biochemist Klaus Dose, one of the leading origin of life experts, conceded: "At present all discussions on principle thories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

READ! THIS IT HAS ALOT OF GOOD INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MUCH FAITH YOU REALLY NEED TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!! THERE IS A CREATOR, JEHOVAH, WHO SENT HIS SON IN THE FLESH AS A HINT AND IS THE ONLY WAY TO ETERNAL LIFE, READ ABOUT HIM AND IT WILL ALL MAKE SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you all dont have lives :]

Look, I know thwt most of you out there are athiests so try to wrap your minds around this. If you are right and everything happened naturally and at random where does that leave us Christians? In the same boat as everyone else. It wont matter in the end because we will all die and then what? But, on the other hand, if Christians are right and the people who dont believe go to eternal hell, what then? Think about it.

Wouldn't you be shocked if you find yourself face to face with Zeus or Ra after you die. You might suffer eternal punishment anyway, for worshiping the wrong god.

thats what i tell people
it is so right
we dont have anything to worry about

if everyone here doesn't believe in science and evolution, go bin your iPods, turn off your tv, stand well away from the computer you're using, go make a candle from natural things, try and make a fire out of twigs and go sit in a forest thinking about how far we've grown as , because if things were created with no evolution, we would have always had what we have, and there would be no change in the world. because wasn't it created 4 billion years ago? right? think about it. i'm not saying that there isn't a god, or that there isn't several gods, i'm just saying, that you really can't say it doesn't exist, because you're not 4 billion years old, and you can't say it does because you don't want to think your religion would become the latest addition to the fiction section of a library, there is hope in that we can find answers, there isn't hope is crying because Shiva, God and Zeus are watching.
i'm done ranting.

it seems narrow minded people have the broadest of opinions,

Consider how a complex organ such as the eye evolves over millions of years. Let’s assume some mutations have sensitized an area of the skin to light, so that certain areas are more sensitive to light. What good is this? By the theory, this has no benefit to the species so would be selected out. But let’s suppose it survives, and goes on to develop into an eye, complete with lens, retina, and the muscles needed to focus automatically. How this happens over millions of years is unknown, for unless the entire eye is complete, it is useless. But let’s assume it happened; the eye is complete. Without the nerve connecting it to the brain, and the brain being able to process the information, the partially formed eye is useless, and would be selected out since it gives no advantage to the species. Millions of years of mutations and natural selection wasted.

But let’s suppose all this happened over millions of years. The eye is complete, and the connection to the brain works, and the brain is capable of processing the information. How did two eyes develop? What told the species you needed two? Since you wouldn’t know the benefits of two eyes working together to provide depth perception unless you already had two, how did this develop? If it was random, why don’t we find animals with eyes in the back of their head? Wouldn’t that be useful to see what is behind? The more thinking you do on this, the more absurd it sounds. Darwin himself knew this was a problem, and the passage of time since he proposed his theory has not made it any less of a problem.

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree. (Charles Darwin The Origin of Species Bantam Books June 1999, page 155)

Darwin explained his problem by making two points he felt would solve this problem:

Numerous examples of species with transitional forms. Unfortunately, this is not the case. As we shall see in another section, the fossil record is silent on transitional forms. Has anything been found with partial eyes?
Each transitional form is useful to the species. This is difficult to imagine. What good is a partially formed eye? A partially formed eye is useless, according to the theory it would be selected out.
The mystery of complex organs poses a huge problem for evolution; partially formed organs are useless. Consider also reproductive organs. If these developed over millions of years the same problem presents itself. What good are partially developed reproductive systems? They serve no purpose so would be selected out. And how did a species reproduce during the millions of years they were developing? If a species could reproduce without them, why would they evolve in the first place?

This is an embarrassing problem

If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

PS: Please don't lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

Conditions on this planet were much different when the first living cell came about, and there were no bacteria or other organisms around to kill it, because they hadn't evolved out of the first life yet.

Goddamn.

If you told me before this that the yankees rank last among industrialised nations for high school Maths and Science I wouldn't have believed it but now I have no doubt.

There is a reason why christian apologists are not taken seriously. You cannot assume that there are only two options for every question
-
`Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further`

Well-said, Visceral

OK I am not going to try and discount any assumptions already made because I'd be forced to type for hours and I don't have that sort of time. I personally don't believe evolution's been proven as a fact because most claimed "evidence" has been very unreliable. I know all the atheists reading this presently are going to try to force "talkorigins.org" down my throat but that is a flawed way to do anything. It's a biased web-site written by one-sided people who make opinionated claims that sound good. They may tell you that they are not biased but if you wanted people to believe you I'm sure you would say that too. One flaw about evolution is it's dating process RADIOCARBON DATING IS UNRELIABLE. They base the age of something on the amount of detectable 14C left in it. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old. If the unreliable theory of evolution were true it should take millions or even billions of years to reach this point but considering the amount of 14C found in most claimed "evidence" the world has been shown to only be about 5 or 6 thousand years old. An age that perfectly fits the biblical account. On top of that considering our constantly growing universe and the laws of thermodynamics everything must have had a starting point and there must have been a time where there was absolutely nothing but an infinite (supernatural) energy source that started everything and that source must have had no beginning (God) and been outside of the boundary of time (God) because time began on earth with the seasons and days. This also fits the biblical account in Genesis. God, who has no boundaries but rather is the creater of boundaries, created time when he created the seasons and the days. We get the idea that God should have had a beginning but in doing so we are attempting to force our limits on God, limits that he created. In science an unlimited source is necessary. God fits that source. So many biblical accounts have been proven correct that it should be considered the most historically accurate book on the planet. People, in their ignorance, try to limit an unlimited God to a religion rather than an unfallable truth and that is simply wrong.

Amazing, this debate is still going on after more than one year.

lets not forget that neither are proven facts but in my opinion evolution is more likely. We have seen evolution happen but we have only read about god. I am still a believer in god but i would have to take evolutions side.

So if man evolved from apes, what did apes evolve from? Or did mutation begin only from apes? If so, then why?

If evolution makes sense, then there must have been something from which all things began evolving from right? If not, was it a big bang? How did the big bang happen?

Evolution theory is just as dubious as atheists claim the existence of God is.

Let's think about it Evolution isn't really proven. Those who just listen to just what the scientist don't actually think about other possibilites. But they also forget that scientist are human they make mistakes and have flaws so saying the theory is just their opinion not actaully fact. But gotta admit shows some creativity.

Look at the Laws of Thermodynamics, and Pangea basically says we grew Mexico, and they reduce the size of Africa by 40%. Please idiot.

The Pangea didn't grow. It was not a living thing. It was broken up into continents.

I thought the Pangea shifted due to movement of tectonic plates.

Do you even know the law of Thermodynamics? Where did the "Africa by 40%" come from?

Evolution has been proven as much as gravity, thermodynamics, erosion or continiental shift is. However, I take it that what you mean is that "we have not witness evolution taking place, thus it cannot be proven".

Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.

1. All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.

2. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.

3. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.

4. Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.

5. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.

6. Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.

7. Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.

8. The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.

9. Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.

10. The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.

11. The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.

12. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed.

13. The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).

The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

To dismiss evolution based on that "Scientist are also humans, thus they can be wrong" is an arguement from ignorance, and a strawman fallacy. Most of the the different fields of research has supported the theory of evolution.

At least, all of these made more sense than someone creating the universe in 6 days, and "breathing" some life into sand or clay models to create humans.

Hello, Evolution is proven FACT.

The "theory" in "Theory of Evolution" refers to the mechanism of the evolution. It is a theory because one could only theortized (guesed) how it actually happens.

We know Evolution happens. We just dont know how.

Buddhists shoud stop saying bad things about Christianity. It is highly possible that Christainity is Buddhism interpreted in the mid-eastern way.

Prove? Bible mentions "silk", and in Jesus's time (and even today?) only China and Korea produce silk. There was no "silk" in the mid-eastern world. Jesus must have been to or very near to China, like India or Tibet in his "missing 13 years". What happened there? He learnt Buddhism and Hiduism.

In Hinduism, there is Shiva, Creator, and his other half the Destroyer. In Buddhism, there is faith (but not obssession), heaven and hell. In Taoism Peng Gu, a male created the world, and Nv Wa, a female with a serpent body created men and women. Creator = male and bible also mentions a serpent. Could Jesus have confused his learning of 3 religions and preached his own mix in mid-east? You cannot negate the possibility.

Err, what bad things have you heard?

Ah, what is truth?

its also possible that the earth is round, but its futile to grasp at straws. we should not harp on the implausible or the infeasible if we expect things to improve
-
`The teachings of Gotama the Buddha grows out of the eager and baffled asceticism and speculation of his time, and it is not easy even now to define exactly what was new in him except his attitude` Nock, Arthur Darby. 1933. Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexandar the Great to Augustine of Hippo

Lastly, beowulf, you are clearly an intelligent and rational person, I sincerely hope that you are just playing Devil's advocate.

If so, he's not being a very good one.

So don't go on and on and on about how it is not fair to teach evolution in school. You don't see us demanding evolution be taught in Sunday school, do you?

To be consistent, what should have been "demanded" in Sunday school is that Christianity NOT be taught because there are other belief systems that are contrary to Christianity, and is in effect, against the wishes of some people who are in the Christian church.

I believe you have an improper understanding of the Sunday School. The role of the Sunday School is to teach the infallible Word of God, that is the Bible. Of course, other belief systems are covered under Christian apologetics.

I believe you have not read my post.

The point is when you ask evolution not to be taught in science class, that is equivalent to asking Sunday School NOT to teach the Word of God. (What's wrong with saying Christianity? Or are you just throwing around synonyms?). Remember it's an analogy so don't go ape on me because you think it does not apply or whatever.

Your contention is that Christian Children should not be taught evolution--but what if we flip the situation around now, and you have non-Christian Children in Sunday School, and people are now "demanding" that Sunday School to stop teaching the Word of God because these children should not be subject to teachings of such belief.

What now?

How can you simply flip like that? Common sense will tell you people who are found in Sunday school are there to learn about God and christianity, whether or not they are forced by their parents. Sunday school is not compulsory. Going to a public school is compulsory. Don't like Sunday school, you can stay away, don't like public school you still have to go.

Want to flip, somersault or whatever also must do with common sense mah. Not everything can flip one.