Well. another fun thread. With creationists i usually used one very specific example that would at least make them think about the validity of evolution.

Here's the thing: Suppose that god created all and that evolution didn't exist. The only logical reason as to why animals that currently are alive even exist is that they were created along with the now extinct animals, like dinosaurs.

We cannot say that our dogs and goats and elephants were created after the dinosaurs because it would make no sense from the biblical point of view. Humans were created by God first and then animals were created to accompany them in life. So by going along with bible standards Adam and Eve were playing with Brontosaurs and velociraptors as well as dogs lions camels or whatever other animal that you can think of.

Now we know that dinosaurs existed, we have their bones and we can date them, correct? we know that they existed some milions of years ago. We also know that Wooly mammoths existed, we have their bones and some semi decomposed specimens were found in glaciers, tar pits, other places. we know as well that they existed some tens of thousand of years ago. We know of a lot of animals that existed through finding their fossilized remains.

So...why can't we find the fossils of our current animals from some couple thousand, tens of thousands, hundred of thousands years ago? Why can't we find a lion skeleton dating back 15,000 years ago? What about our current squirrels? Rats? Camels anyone?

What about a fully developed (by todays standards) human dating back to 100,000 years ago?

Why is it that all we can find is something that RESEMBLES the currently existing fauna and flora? And finally, why the hell are people of different skin color, if we know that the first humanoid species that we discovered came from Africa? Why am I white? why is Obama "black"?

Something changed, didn't it? Maybe these differences are what we call evolution.

Evolution happens every day in the viral world. You know how virii and germs gain "immunity" to things?
Where do you think new viruses and flus come from? You think Spanish flu came out of nowhere?

Look, I'll level with you. Evolution is 100% proven to occur. However, the only thing we cannot prove is that humans specifically evolved. We can look at evolution and look at the fossil trail and say, "there is a 99% chance that humans resulted form evolutionary processes".

So while we cannot prove humans evolved for sure, we know empirically that evolution exists. Until further scientific discoveries are made, in the way of gene change, that will be the only thing christians can say against evolution, which boils down to "there is a 1% chance that science is wrong about human evolution".

When the discovery finally is made, expect conspiracy theorists for the next millenia.

Where do new species come from then?

I know, sure there's the whole thing about "oh tectonics and pressure and rainwater make strata only "appear" to be millions of years old". So why were only specific animals found in each strata?

Looking at the Earth like a pile of pancakes, how come we find oil at the bottom (dead animals), old ass fish and primitive life on the next one up, dinosaurs on the next, mammals on the next, etc etc etc? How come the ones we do find on different layers always end up being one in a million? Understanding that, where the fuck did these new animals come from?

It's worth pointing out that evolution is a scientific fact in that it is an obeserved phenomenon. It has been observed both directly and through the fossil record that species change over time. The theory of evolution is the explanation of why the observed changes occur and the theory of evolution is not a fact.

The entire scientific fact/theory thing is a bit confusing =P

I don't care anymore :P. I exist, therefore I am.

Though I have a viewpoint I will keep it to myself on the interwebs.

Honestly, I should have just quit this thread after my first post, as I REALLY do not want to be entangled in a battle of semantics, but whatever...

Microevolution generally refers to small changes over shorter periods of time, macroevolution consists of a series of small changes that amount to a larger change over a longer period of time. The only difference between the two is the scale at which you are observing.

I also question why you think evolution is a theory without a great deal of evidence? It is considered in the scientific community to be one of the theories with the greatest deal of evidence behind it. To take a quote from the National Academy of Sciences

"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong."

Guys, Facts are 95% true. That 5% might be the real truth.

Dude, I didn't ask for basic definitions. I mean, give an example. Explain the scale of these changes.

And as far me not supporting a theory (i.e. Macroevolution) without concrete evidence even though the scientific community says otherwise? That's a completely different story, and one best kept to myself.

This may have been posted in the thread already but it needs reposting as much as possible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment