not sure if that was directed at me, but i have said i believe in evoltuion, but the proof is simply not there for a 100% verification that that is what happened to humans. Its a sound and thought out theory we simply can't proove withh 100% certainty at this point in time. So for me that makes it easier for me to understand how some people can not believe in it. That is all.

Bloody hell xD I keep forgetting to go back and edit that post. I've explained this a few times now, those are reasons why a christian who literally believed in the creation story would reject evolution, I know plenty of christians believe in evolution and the big bang, I know plenty of christians see genesis as mostly metaphoric. 

How can you believe in evolution, but then say humans exist outside the scope of evolution?

I do believe in evolution, I also think humans evolved as well. I can just understand how some people can not believe in evolution as there are some missing pieces (which is understandable as we do not have every fossile ever made) and it can't be proved through experimentation at this point in time.

Or are you simply saying that the most likely thing is that humans evolved, but there is not 100% proof? Basically this.

A big problem with the anti-evolution crowd is that they deny every solution. A lot of the same people think radiocarbon dating is faulty. They also think the clonal tree ages are too complicated to be true. They reject using rock formation and things found on different layers of the earth's crust. They reject ice core dating. Pretty much everything that is used for dating which determines a timeline for human evolution is denied simply because they say that dating is accurate, but there is no way to tell whether dating before a certain time is reliable or not.

Especially for things like tree ring dating they say, the rings are accurate, but we don't know if some event caused them to grow rings faster or not. (a phenomenon which has never been recorded)

There will never be enough evidence to convince people that humans evolved. Even if we evolve in the distant future, there will be argument that it was our first time, and somehow predicted by the Bible or some such new religion.

I somewhat agree, I think we are almost there, which is why so many people do believe, but at the same time I would not be caught off guard if we are missing something. I do think over time as we get a more complete fossil record and perhaps experiment more with DNA we may find the final answers we are looking for. It has also been a very long time since i have had any contact with these kinds of topics as I have not been in school for years, but it does interest me.

Adam & Eve are a parable and not to be taken literally.  Same for the age of the earth.

Most Catholics who are educated in their own faith know that evolution is real.  It is the extreme Christian off-shoots that scream about taking every aspect of the bible literally.

Most christians do not believe in pure creationism.  Usually the centralist point of view is taken.

I would say that when 70% of the portion of the electorate votes for people that have a particular agenda, then they are supporting that agenda.  70% of Christian voters that accounted for the largest demographic of voters in the 2010 elections voted for politicians that support Right Wing Christian principles ( http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1791/2010-midterm-elections-exit-poll-religion-vote )  .

And how does that prove that America is involved because of religion? If majority of people are christian and majority of people voted for so called ''right wing christian principle''s (waging or promoting war is in no way a christian principle) then american officials would have absolutely no problem TELLING THEIR PEOPLE THE REAL REASON behind the involvement, instead of lying them about war on terror or securing a land for the jews.

The war against the Taliban has a very strong foundation in religion:

"Jewish, Muslim and Christian groups invoke religious arguments for their uncompromising positions.^[3] Contemporary history of the Arab–Israeli conflict is very much affected by Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious beliefs and their interpretations of the idea of the chosen people in their policies with regard to the "Promised Land" and the "Chosen City" of Jerusalem"  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict )

Yet christians havent waged war on Jerusalem for over 700 years...instead they (together with jews) try to find a compromise for both jews and muslims that live there, and completely ignoring the christian minority that lives there. Yeah...sounds like a true crusade to me

 Also your post seems to indicate that you think think Israel should simply have the right to conquer someone else's country because they underwent a lengthy period of persecution as they were allowed to conquer the Palestinian's land in 1948.  Are you in favor of the American Indians being allowed to do the same thing at some point in time to the ancestors of the white colonists in America?

I never stated my opinion on the conflict in this thread. I believe in compromises for both groups

Just because people don't state all of their motivations for doing things doesn't mean that they don't have unstated motivations for doing them.  Neither of the Bushes ever said that going to war with Iraq was because they wanted to increase the amount of money they got from their oil holdings however one of their principle motivations for going to war with Iraq was to increase their oil holdings.  It certainly wasn't for the stated reasons of fighting Al Qaeda or stopping Iraq from having weapons of mass destruction as no Al Qaeda operatives or WMDs were ever found in Iraq.

I was talking about Afghanistan and Al qaeda actually, not Iraq