In fact, a dogmatic approach to science is not better than religion.

i was going to do a thread like this months ago, but i decided against it. yes i beleave in evolution.

i'm realy starting to think all of this just happened. maybe not in a big bang sence, but it just happened.

My take is this thread will ramble all over and then die, like the other thread. 

As a geneticist, this questions is pretty easy to answer. Yes, I do believe in evolution. 

Why? Because the amount of evidence for it is astounding. Comparable mRNA libraries between archaebacteria, eubacteria and full specialized Eukaryota RNA/DNA shows transpossonic similarities between fossilized bacteria from the early stages of cyanobacteria evolution (those were the bacteria that eventually lead to the appearance of a N2/O2 atmosphere, almost 800 million years ago).

Not only that, there's staggering similarities between Mitochondrial DNA and Rickettsia proteobacteria, like Escherichia, Salmonella and Vibrio strands.

So yeah, evolution is pretty much a given. 

For sure some scientists are no better than a fanatic priest and it's followers. They're all human after all. 

Actually for me the main issue with religions lies with the institutions shoving stuff down people's heads instead of one believing on a God and creationism by it's own pondering and thinking. Making it's own decisions about what believing or not instead of relegating it to others just Because.

Then these beliefs are just as valid and sincere as any philosophical approach. 

I don't believe in current evolution theory.

We've gone through some things before, things i have problems with. Like the lack of evolution in bacteria and even some higher order species (like that fish that hasn't changed in 70 million years or something, forgot the name). The lack of skeletons from humanoids puzzles me.

And I don't trust the guys who reconstruct and interpret these monkey skeletons and postulate human evolutionary trees. Too amateurish. It's too much global warming hoax over it all.

There's the mystery of the conscious mind which evolutionists can't explain.

The mystery of the rapid evolution of human culture and intellect, and it's complexity. How stuff like our interest in art & music etc are explained.

The mystery of human altruism and morals. Even Dawkins admits that it's very mysterious.

Plus I'm a Christian so obviously I have a problem with Darwinian evolution without divine interference. If I wasn't religious maybe I would have just ate it all up without having done any deeper studies.

You're going down roads that you cannot possibly explain. Bacteria are the order of living organisms that suffer most evolution, due to the incorporation of extra set of genomic chromossomes, the plasmids, that confer them evolution patterns way ahead of Eukaryota cells. 

Also, the fish you're talking about, the Coelocanth, isn't an exclusive case of staggered evolution. Sharks have pretty much stayed the same, with very few minute mutational changes in the species range. Crocodiles as well.

And yet Bacteria's can't talk. They're still stuck at the micro level. (don't try with the "evolution has no goal" or "germs are already successful, they own their niche, they don't need to talk or to play video games").

Sharks and Croqs have the same problem as the Coelocanth, yes.

They are already more successful than any other living being.

Why? Because Bacteria are pretty much the most adaptable living being. They can live in environments ranging from pH 1 to pH 14. They can live in temperatures as low as -80º C to as high as 140º C. They can live in extremely low pressure areas like the top of the Himalayas or as high pressure as the bottom of the Marianna Abyss. They range from all the trophic, chemical and non-chemical, sustainable metabolism and pretty much are the only living being that can non-generational shift to adapt it's own genomic resistances 

High though process that Homo Sapiens are capable of is just a by-product of evolution. While it is important for humanity per se, for the ecological super-power, bacteria, it's pretty much useless.

Anyway, this is a pretty useless debate. Me, as a geneticist, have access to a vaster amount of information, knowledge and personal experience in this issue (bacteria evolution and genetic similarities) than you. I'm not saying that you're wrong and that i'm right, i'm just saying that you're debating an issue that you cannot possibly win. And that will only end in fruitless struggle that I won't indulge in this topic. 

Should I write something.....

ah ok,

So the Bible is clearly not a science book; otherwise we would believe that the world is a disk shape, or flat in other words. Or that the world is ~6000 years old, or that dinosaurs once lived along side humans or that an old age pensioner can round up 2 of every animal and put them on his boat... in 2 weeks, etc etc etc.

The Bible is clearly written by people of the Iron age trying to understand the world around them. For thousands of years before Christianity there were other religions with the same purpose; to understand the world around us and what happens when we die. I'm sure we can all agree that they were false and man (woman? :) ) made.

In my opinion all religions are man made - they have always been but now we have a lot of scientific facts to understamd the world and universe around us.

Science answers a lot more questions than religion so yes, I do believe in evolution.

(from Wikipedia: The American Religious Identification Survey gave Non-Religious groups the largest gain in terms of absolute numbers - 14,300,000 (8.4% of the population) to 29,400,000 (14.1% of the population) for the period 1990 to 2001 in the USA. )