Go to your local field museum, I won't even debate with someone that says scientist don't believe in evolution.

On October 1, 2009, paleontologists formally announced the discovery of the relatively complete A. ramidus fossil skeleton first unearthed in 1994. The fossil is the remains of a small-brained 50-kilogram (110 lb) female, nicknamed "Ardi", and includes most of the skull and teeth, as well as the pelvis, hands, and feet.^[9] It was discovered in Ethiopia's harsh Afar desert at a site called Aramis in the Middle Awash region. Radiometric dating of the layers of volcanic ash encasing the deposits suggest that Ardi lived about 4.4 million years ago. This date however has been questioned by others. Beagle and Kappelman suggest that the region in which Ardi was found is difficult to date radiometrically, and they argue that Ardi should be dated at 3.9 million years.^[10]

The fossil sheds light on a stage of human evolution about which little was known, more than a million years before Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis), the iconic early human ancestor candidate who lived 3.2 million years ago, and was discovered in 1974 just 74 km (46 mi) away from Ardi's discovery site.

Researchers infer from the form of her pelvis and limbs and the presence of her abductable hallux, that she was a facultative biped: bipedal when moving on the ground, but quadrupedal when moving about in tree branches.^[2][11][12] A. ramidus had a more primitive walking ability than later hominids, and could not walk or run for long distances.^[13] The teeth suggest omnivory, and are more generalised than those of modern apes.^[2]

Since the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859, the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has slowly been refined. For about 100 years, there was no authoritative pronouncement on the subject. By 1950, Pope Pius XII agreed to the academic freedom to study the scientific implications of evolution, so long as Catholic dogma is not violated ^[1]. Today^[update], the Church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. No infallible declarations by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council have been made.

I'm not an atheist because i think that atheism brings certainty to people about something, religion has that too, just in the opposite direction, and i think that there is no definitive answer. But i agree in a lot of things with atheists. 

I think there is an entity that we could call God, but no one knows which/who/what it is, and i'm not sure of that either, and i simply don't let the thoughts of it run my life, i try to run it with a compass instead of a crystal ball or a magic book.

Oh god there we go again.

Someone writes a lot and no one will read it -_-

In every other instance scientists would conclude that the odds are so astronomical, and I'm talking ridiculously high that they would discount it and would throw it out without another thought.

And scientists are so critical of their studies that they play devils advocate, trying in fact to disprove info so they can be very sure of there conclusions. But this doesn't happen in the study of evolution.

It's like numerous scientists question man made global warming but they are ridiculed if they don't follow the company line. I believe it is also true of those scientists who question the evolution. 

No evolution is faith based just as  the belief in a God . And atheists are also extremely arrogant. As it sounds like some on this post are ready to open a can on believers. Just as religious fanatics are judgmental  

the study of evolution is highly competitive science and it means a lot of prestige this has led to some faulty and outright lies on some of these studies.

And the thing that really gets me is the brain.  It is capable of so much more info gathering and recording.  But in our lifetime a small part gets used.  Why would evolution design it like that.

And the fact that scientist use the word design when referring to the wonders of the body and how evolution designed it.  That is a contradiction  

Gonna try to not get drawn into the debate about the 'spark of life' argument, however, genetic change over time is inevitable, good or bad. It is literally inbuilt into how life functions. Mutations, are random change, most of them bad indeed, some of them good.

Ok, so i'll say only one thing about the spark of life thing. Life is merely a very complex set of chemical reactions, in which these reactions are dictated/run by DNA. The simplest organism on the planet is not that far removed the a crap load of random chemical reactions meshed together. Given that, its not necessarily impossible that such 'soups' have been or even now can be found on the earth.

Granted, such supposition not evidence and not much better than claims of god. The problem only arrises in the god argument, when lots of completely unfounded claims are added to the question of whether god or gods do or do not exist. 

Darwins central theme is indeed believed by modern scientists. That being change over time. All the rest can be easily discarded as a man at the forfront of a fields not yet mature or even invented yet. That being genetics and biodiversity.

I don't know what is true but I know at the age of 51 in my heart I want to believe that death leads to something better. Not a worm infested corpse then dirt.

Don't mistake me. I want more than to end up being a worms lunch, even though there is a certain beauty to the fact that we come from the earth and the stars and will eventually go back into the earth and the stars.

But wishes and wants don't make it so. I dunno the truth of god or gods, but I cannot fathom most peoples beliefs. At best, it seems to me, that god has unleashed existence upon us to do as we see fit, rightly and wrongly, to share the fact that existence is far better than non-existence, and does not give a fig about all this religious stuff. My heart tells me that stuff only matters if _you_ need it to matter.

This will end well...

I'm an atheist and so are the vast majority of my friends. I respect that other people believe otherwise and in turn I expect them to respect me for not believeing in a diety or supreme being.

You know, I don't normally find myself meeting in mind or agreeing entirely with the required vocational stratagem to label myself an atheist. I mean I'm most definitely not a monotheist but there are certain specifics of an atheist that negates me from fitting into that category either.

For example what would make an Atheist not a Mono or Ditheist is because they do not believe in any form of intelligent design. Yet they will allow for reasonable and testable hypothesis and theory. For the sake of example and perhaps its necessity I'll observe the arguments from both sides regarding the big bang:

A Monotheist will associate the big bang to going back to the point of not knowing how, to be clear on this aspect I'll say that science to a point has back tracked the big bang theory far enough in time to believe in its conclusive arguing point; while still in theory that the universe was nothing and that infinite mass with zero volume suddenly erupted. A monotheist however will ask, well "what made this mass" the deliberate nature of the question is from a belief that all things follow back to the algorithm of a god’s hand designing something with an intention and perhaps purpose. However pressed further a Monotheist will not apply the same line of logic to the creation of a god or whatever the bull is because god cannot be created and so they shoot themselves in the foot with their own argument.

Yet an Atheist will argue the material fact and also (the important part) the testable or tested theory. This is where I do not fit the bill. I can accept measurement but only measurement based on a preexisting value, such as there are 5 million people in NYC and 20% of them are left handed. Such a statistic and all interpretations and elaborations are fine but I cannot agree with evolutionary sciences that cannot be proven here and now, even if the theory is very sound.

I hate religion. I do not believe I know