wow. where is all of this cold hard eveidence than? Fact is evolution is still not a fact. Let alone a proven fact. It is just the only viable theory we have on how life came to be, but it is most certainly not a proven fact. Yes there is evedence for it, but to be a proven fact it takes more than evidence. It has to be undeniable and overwhelming eveidnece or reproducable in a controlled enviroment. which we do not have yet. Its very closed minded to take snippets of information and form a "fact" from it that you can not prove.

EDIT: I do believe in evoltion myself so i am not going to argue against it. But i do realize there are some holes in it, and it isn't reproducable in a lab experiment as far as i know.

Absolutely not! Have we ever observed bacteria evolve into something else other than bacteria? Nope.

What about fruitflies? Nope. Still the same even after decades of fruitfly experiments. Sure the mutants have a different form and such (albeit more sickly and less fit) but they are still fruitflies.

Have we ever observed a reptile evolve into a bird? Have we ever observed molecules evolve into a life form? Nope and nope.

Evolution is not based on hard science but made up stories by people who spent thousands of dollars to get a title on their name. Don't be deceived. You are not the result of billions of years of evolution.

That said there are hardcore skeptics who say they only believe what they see but they have never seen evolution. A cat gives birth to a cat. A dog gives birth to a dog. People give birth to humans. Yet these same skeptics believe all life evolved from some primordial cell without ever observing it. Talk about being inconsistent and loopy [[confused]] ·It takes a lot of faith to believe the evolution story.

This is all I'm going to say:

Microevolution = Fact, and not up for debate.

Macroevolution = (Unsubstantiated) Theory.

that is what i meant. No one was talking origin of life so i din't clarify that well. I dont argue that we can't manipulate it and that it hasn't occured. I completly agree. I am only saying it is very close minded to not acknowledge that we have not been able to proove and recreate evolution so we can not say it is an absolute fact. Doing so makes science into more of religion or faith based instead of fact based. I dont want science to go down that path. When we can proove it with out any doubt by recreating it than it will be a fact. Faith should be left to religion not science.

Its been observed, but not tested and proven.

Absolutely not! Have we ever observed bacteria evolve into something else other than bacteria? Nope.

What about fruitflies? Nope. Still the same even after decades of fruitfly experiments. Sure the mutants have a different form and such (albeit more sickly and less fit) but they are still fruitflies.

Have we ever observed a reptile evolve into a bird? Have we ever observed molecules evolve into a life form? Nope and nope.

Evolution is not based on hard science but made up stories by people who spent thousands of dollars to get a title on their name. Don't be deceived. You are not the result of billions of years of evolution.

That said there are hardcore skeptics who say they only believe what they see but they have never seen evolution. A cat gives birth to a cat. A dog gives birth to a dog. People give birth to humans. Yet these same skeptics believe all life evolved from some primordial cell without ever observing it. Talk about being inconsistent and loopy [[confused]] ·It takes a lot of faith to believe the evolution story.