Pal, for a seemingly smart dude you really seem really blinded, and we’re already established that you’re one-side, so I should be surprised. I mean can you not see the flaws in your arguments, by simply looking at the definition you posted, which exists in bubble. That definition means nothing to anyone that is not a scientific person – i.e. it is biased, subjective and one-sided, like your thinking.

Words like “conceived” “imagination” “devised” “scientifically” mean almost nothing in a factual context, and especially to religious people. It’s like scientists that “devised” years ago that the atom was the smallest particle, but years later found out it was not. Science is only based on what you can prod in the here and now, and what you can’t prod now is not fact but is in fact just theory.

Here is another word “assume” – which is a bit unscientific I know, but it fits in with your type of reasoning. For you can only assume evolution is fact, not matter how much you try to use words like “conceived” “imagination” “devised” “scientifically”, it still all boils down to an assumption, whether scientific or otherwise. What is not an assumption and is in no way just “conceived” “imagination” “devised” “scientifically” is human reproduction – Humans make Humans – Evolution doesn’t make Humans. For when a black man fucks a white woman, and a brown baby comes out, those subtle changes are not evolution. They are code that has been put there by a creator. People didn’t evolve into some white and some black, and some fat and some skinny and all the subtle little changes that make up the human race. So why do prod little butterflies for changes and when you find the same subtleties you think its evolution? It has all been coded into what makes us human.

The scientific method is based upon axioms, deductive logic, inductive logic, and experimentation. Asserting that it is assumption shows a complete lack of understanding to it.

The assumption has no impact upon what is experimentally or logically valid. You can't assume something and then confirm it unless it is true. 

i.e. The assumption that the Earth is flat will never be true, whereas the assumption that Humans are primates will be true.

The Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom was posited in 1913, that's far removed from "a few years" ago, and far before we had microscopes powerful enough to confirm the existence of electrons, protons, neutrons...which weren't confirmed until 1932, so I'm not sure where you get your information (your ass?) but it's utter nonsense.

I am not suggesting evolution is a fact, simply that it is the best possible explanation for the procession of life based upon observation, experiment, and logic with quite literally no dispute whatsoever within the scientific community. 

You should invest in an anthropology course if you don't understand why there are some black and some white people. (Hint: regional)

There are certain confirmations about evolution which are proven. While the overarching theory remains as such, the pieces are assembling.

Some facts for you, since you love them:

1. Micro-evolution is confirmed.

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

2. DNA confirms that Humans, Chimps, and Apes share a common ancestor.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

3. Inbreeding poses serious complications ranging from birth defects to death. (Whoops, there goes Creation!)

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

4. Cephalopods have better eyes than humans. (Thank God for the inferior eyes?)

Advantages - No blind spots, can see polarized or unpolarized light, ability to focus at different distances.

http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/cephschool/CephalopodVision.pdf

That should be enough to keep you entertained for a while.

snip

Here’s what your scientist friends say when asked:

Is human DNA closer to chimpanzees or pigs?

Answer:

Humans and chimpanzees share a much more recent common ancestor than humans and pigs. This results in humans sharing more of their genome with chimps than they do with pigs.

Even though a human's genetic code is more like a chimp's than it is like a pig's, all eukaryotic organisms share a significant amount of genetic code, vertebrates share even more, and mammals share even more than that; a human's DNA more closely resembles a pig's than it does a lizard's, and it more closely resembles a lizard's than it does a bacterium's.

How close are pigs to humans DNA?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

if you compare humans to almost any other animal on the planet today, you would find that about 99% of the genetic structure is the same.

The simple fact is that not because a Monkey or a Pig or whatever animal’s DNA says it can have legs, eyes, brain etc, doesn’t make it human, nor proves or even suggests an evolutionary process. DNA that closely resembles human DNA doesn’t make it human or prove evolution. Apparently we could have evolved from a fly or a banana giving the evolutionary opportunity.  Sharing close DNA makeup does not mean that moss evolved into a rose, a gold fish into a whale nor a monkey into a man – that is just want scientist theorise and have been on a never-ending pursuit to prove it as fact, and until then, calls it fact nonetheless.

Anyways, I tire of this discussion.

Here’s what your scientist friends say when asked:

Is human DNA closer to chimpanzees or pigs?

Answer:

Humans and chimpanzees share a much more recent common ancestor than humans and pigs. This results in humans sharing more of their genome with chimps than they do with pigs.

Even though a human's genetic code is more like a chimp's than it is like a pig's, all eukaryotic organisms share a significant amount of genetic code, vertebrates share even more, and mammals share even more than that; a human's DNA more closely resembles a pig's than it does a lizard's, and it more closely resembles a lizard's than it does a bacterium's.

How close are pigs to humans DNA?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

if you compare humans to almost any other animal on the planet today, you would find that about 99% of the genetic structure is the same.

The simple fact is that not because a Monkey or a Pig or whatever animal’s DNA says it can have legs, eyes, brain etc, doesn’t make it human, nor proves or even suggests an evolutionary process. DNA that closely resembles human DNA doesn’t make it human or prove evolution. Apparently we could have evolved from a fly or a banana giving the evolutionary opportunity.  Sharing close DNA makeup does not mean that moss evolved into a rose, a gold fish into a whale nor a monkey into a man – that is just want scientist theorise and have been on a never-ending pursuit to prove it as fact, and until then, calls it fact nonetheless.

Anyways, I tire of this discussion.

But does religion convince people to kill people or does religion just provide an excuse for the action's  for what some bad people do.