Its been scientitifcally proved. So, yes, it is.

Beeing scientifically proved means using the scientific method to prove that same thing (proof by experiementation in an envyronment sterile of other influences that can alter the result). It wouldnt be very scientific if you could prove things that arent.
I'm pretty sure Darwin himself presented evidance with a butterfly research he did. Its been a long time... i dont recall the specifics.

But you know... you´re free to believe the version the state of Kansas gives you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVmdCAT7Rc8

Alright then. Explain to us how your alternative is remotely scientific.

This thread needs more cake.

Genetic mutations occur by chance on purpose during the meiosis. If God controlled everything then it makes absolutely no sense at all why he choose for genetic variation in spermcells and eggs.  This is God: 'Oh hey, lets make a few million spermcells with each having different DNA while I actually want this specific cell to be fused with the egg. Also, lets make some individuals with genetic mutations I already know will cause Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis.' 

Another quote from God: 'I'm gonna give Staphylococcus areus a mutation which gives them protein A on the membrane to fight the human immune system I designed : D'. 

God and evolution are impossible to coexist if you know exactly how DNA works (which I do). It's time to get over god and focus on knowledge we know it actually works and exists.

Everything has rules to run by.

When I create a program, I create  set of rules that program has to follow. Why would God not create a set of run rules for this masterpeice of a universe. Granted its a greatly complex program, but its the same general idea.

To create sustaining life that can adapt to changing surroundings, evolution and mutation are what rules are coded in to allow such a change. That evlolution run rule is for ALL life forms, including bacteria.

The constant battle to discredit a belief one has with a God and the study and continous evolution of scientific theories is simply ignorant. They coexist just fine when you consider that a creator of any complex system must have set of boundaries and laws for that system to run with.

The only real question is to ask yourself if you choose to believe the Creator exists at all or if the creation and the creator are one in the same. Creation itself is simply the One.

I think you might have misconceptions about what the theory of evolution is.  It's not some spontaneous change in organisms like suddenly growing an eye, but small incremental change from generation to generation, controlled by natural selection.

There is empirical evidence backing the theories.

• There is the fossil record
• There are footprints in the DNA
• There is evidence of animal populations changing traits in our lifetimes, like moths that turned grey during the coal industrialization
• There is evidence of bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics
• There is evidence of pests evolving resistance to pesticides
• There is evidence in the lab
  • http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.UrR0UfRDsfV

Yes, cells are amazing little things, but that is because they have 4 billion years of evolution behind them. Life on Earth began about 4 billion years ago (4,000,000,000 years). This is such an enormous duration of time that neither you nor I are capable of truly comprehending how huge it is.

 If you saw a painting, you might be impressed by how skillfully it was painted. However, if you later discovered that the artist took 50 years to make the painting, that is not so impressive anymore. If humans are a painting, then they are a painting which took 4 billion years to paint. Considering how long life has been around on Earth, the complexity of humans today should come as no surprise.

The real problem is that when people don't understand something, instead of being honest and simply admitting that they don't understand it, they would prefer to claim that it is the work of god.

The ancient Greeks believed that the winds were controlled by gods. They had Boreas (god of the north wind), Zephyrus (god of the west wind), Notus (god of the south wind), and Eurus (god of the east wind). Today, we know that wind is actually air moving from an area of high pressure to an area of low pressure, and the suggestion that the wind is the work of gods is laughable.

 In the same way that we now snicker at the ancient Greeks for thinking that the wind was the work of gods, in the near future everyone will snicker at the people of today for thinking that cells are the work of a god. In fact, it is already happening now. Already geneticists and biologists are starting to unravel the mysteries of cells and discovering that they are not so inexplicable after all. The suggestion that life is the work of a god is complete unadulterated nonsense.

"The God hypothesis is rather discredited. [...] Archbishop Ussher claimed the world was created in 4004BC. Now we know it is 4.5 billion years old. It's astonishing to me that people continue to accept religious claims."
(Dr Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA.)

"[Religious explanations are] myths from the past. Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely. Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours."
(Dr James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA.)

That's not really a serious question, is it?

Only by reading the thread ttile it is clear it's our resident creatonist that opens another "Darwin is evil" quote mining fest...

What I understand from your comment is that you assume that genetic mutations are necessary to develop human beings and yes, they are. But it is actually God who decided what the laws of nature would be. When he 'decided' atoms and molecules have to behave in this way, he already knew beforehand that mutations can cause all kinds of diseases or resistant bacteria and other million problems like a carcinogenic environment without a magnetic field around the earth. He decided what was necessary in the universe to create humans. That means he had to compromise and he is not perfect at all, although the bible and whatmore are stating God = perfection. If you're perfect, you're able to edit the laws you're creating (although you can't create something without laws already being there, huge flaw in combining God with science) to something that doesn't cause problems. Making games/software still goes together with dealing problems and glitches, because we're not perfect animals at all. We are dealing with these kind of problems because we don't control everything, but God does right (then he made it himself really REALLY hard on purpose)? The computer itself is dependent of laws that already exists. You can't create a software without laws.

I also understand from your comment that he made the universe like a software, made the rules and then let the progress go on its own. The chances that humans will develop yet again on another world are practically zero. When he 'made' the universe and 'decided' what the laws of physics would be, he could impossible be planning to make humans. You know how long it has taken for humans to develop? Why did he take such a long time? Why create dinosaures first and purposely destroy what he made in the first case (1 of many contradictions in history). There are simply too many flaws in Creationism. So many questions that it's useless to continue with it. Especially in this modern society.