It's irrelevant if I say one way or another.  The point is that the theory of Evolution is most definitely supported by tangible evidence.  Making it seem like a bunch of hogwash is what's foolish here.

So I should continue living the life I am living right now? I can do that.

(PS: I'm not the person you were talking to)

Its Scientific Fact...although I'm not really sure why you are trying to boil anything down to semantics. That is probably the weakest anti-evolution argument possible. Like arguing that evolution is "just a theory" and forgetting that so is gravity...

I'm not an atheist, but I am arguing in favor of evolution...should I leave?

But seriously, there is nothing to discuss in the OP and I find the evolution discussion much more interesting. I think the thread has every right to evolve (lol) into something else over time............ :3

Please scroll up and read my last comment if you missed it ^.^ 

im not saying its hogwarts lol but im also saying its not fact.

Then discus about the RCC. No need to get this thread out of topic.

Not saying you should, but you have free-will to make your own decisions.

Either way, that didn't have anything to do with what I said. I was asking for an Atheist to do something like "Bible exposed".

Oh, fair enough I suppose. I don't think anyone here has the time for that but there are tons of Youtube videos that discuss that.

The same science that discovered evolutionary principles also discovered the principles of electricity/electronics. If you're being honest with yourself, and true to your beliefs, you should also be rejecting everything electronic, including both videogames and the internet.

Since you're not doing that, I can only conclude that you are deluding yourself into believing that the things you don't like must be the work of the devil because you don't like them. Stick your head in the sand all you want, but your entire belief in this context is rooted in ignorance, not fact. I recommend you actually read up on what evolution actually says (it doesn't say anything about "being as gods").

By the way, are you saying that sin is part of god's "perfection"? Remind me, wasn't Satan supposed to be a fallen angel? If god's creation is so perfect, why could angels he created go bad, then start screwing with his creation? Simply put, you're not just deluding yourself, but you're blaming everything bad on "satan" to justify holding god as perfect... when logically, god would have had to create satan.

Something to think about.

EDIT: Also, something else to think about - you are applying your own definition of "perfect" to god. That's quite egotistical. Perhaps god created life so that it would always be changing, adapting, and growing. Perhaps a perfect creator wants its creation to be a living masterpiece rather than a static one, and that means creating the universe in such a way that it grows and changes. Look around at the world - things that stay constant end up decaying. Still water gathers bacteria and algae. Rocks crack and crumble. Societies form, thrive, stagnate, and then die. Life is a great dance, a great harmony of motion, and staticness is death. So why wouldn't this same concept also apply to species?

In short, you are arrogantly assuming that you know god's concept of "perfection", and it flies in the face of the world itself.

Mudskipper. Fish that have grown legs and walk on land and can even breathe on land (as long as the climate is humid and can keep them moist). Happy?

But the "between" argument is still flawed because as soon as you find "Species 2" between "Species 1" and "Species 3", you'll just say, "well, we should be able to find an animal 'between' "Species 1" and "Species 2"". And when you find "Species 1.5", you'll just say "well, we should be able to find an animal 'between' "Species 1" and "Species 1.5"". 

With the "we should find animals 'between' two species" argument, you'll never be satisfied, because you actively don't want to accept evolution, you'll look for every "gap" until none can be found and say "Huzzah! Evolution is wrong!"

Shame that position can be so easily (and accurately) parodied

1. I don't believe that there aren't aliens. I simply have no reason to believe that there are. Without evidence of it, I will operate on the assumption of nonexistence, but I don't particularly believe that there aren't aliens. I don't just ignore the possibility that they do, however. Belief is, at its root, a state in which somebody considers something to be "known" in the absence of objective evidence. Atheism comes in many forms, and there are forms of atheism that constitute a belief... but atheism itself is not in any way a belief. It lies quite close to agnosticism, with the key distinction being that agnostics believe that you can't know, whereas atheists simply assert that it isn't currently known.

I don't believe in any god, yet I also don't believe in no god. I simply operate on the assumption that there is no god for the same reason why I operate on the assumption that gravity won't suddenly invert and send us all hurtling into space, or why I operate on the assumption that there isn't about to be a nuclear holocaust in the next 10 minutes. I don't particularly believe that such a holocaust won't happen, but without any evidence to support the idea that such a holocaust will happen, I'll assume it won't for the sake of being able to live my life.

I don't believe a plane won't crash when I decide to board it - there's a slim chance that it will. I don't get into my car to drive believing that I won't get into an accident. Life isn't black-and-white, it's a whole spectrum of not just shades, but colours. It is entirely possible to simultaneously not believe in something and not believe its opposite.

2. Being a scientific theory, "proven" is a nonsense term. One can prove nonexistence of some things because of logic - for instance, a completely omnipotent god cannot exist, because they would have to be able to create a rock that even they can't destroy (because they can do anything), but then they'd have to be able to destroy it (again, because they can do anything). Therefore, such a concept is contradictory, and such a being cannot exist... the solution, of course, being that complete omnipotence is a contradictory concept, and an omnipotent god would be bound by logic but be all-powerful beyong that. But when it comes to the universe itself, we operate on evidence, and there are three basic principles that get applied:

Occam's Razor: With two explanations for the same thing, all other things being equal, the explanation requiring fewer assumptions is preferred. That is, one could assume that all signs of evolution were put there as some sort of grand deception... but that requires far more assumptions than evolution itself, which only requires that things we have directly observed be extended into the past as applying then, too.

Extraordinary Evidence: When you have a large weight of evidence supporting something, you need to provide a large weight of evidence contradicting it in order to indicate it to be wrong. Otherwise, the logical conclusion is that there is merely something missing. For instance, if your model predicts that it will rain for 5 hours and 1 minute, and it rains for 5 hours and 2 minutes, it's probably just a minor influence you neglected (like, say, someone burning some wood in the area). To indicate that your model was completely wrong, you'd need to have it fail multiple times in a way that demonstrates a problem, with no indication of a reason for it. Evolution has a MASSIVE weight of evidence, and every time it has been challenged, it has met that challenge (for instance, people keep coming up with new "missing links", which keep on then being found - the first one, which Darwin didn't live to see but he did postulate the existence of, was the "missing link" between reptiles and birds - a few years after he died, I believe, they found the fossil of Archaeopteryx).

Statistical Significance: Whenever evidence is collected, there is always allowance for error, and extensive statistical analysis. This allows us to determine what the chances are that something would be the way it is if the theory in question wasn't in action. For instance, genetic analysis of animals of various types allows us to observe genetic connections - strands of genes that are common between various animals, etc. As we have a solid number for the rate of mutation of genes (observed directly), we can determine how much of a change needs to have happened in order to match up genes more concretely. It's this same method that also allows us to determine the "genetic adam" and "genetic eve" - that is, the timeframe in which the male from which all human males are descended (that is, a shared ancestor), and similarly for human females. Interestingly, they're at completely different time periods, with the genetic eve naturally being further back. They were not the first humans, to be clear - just that other humans of the time of the genetic adam didn't end up having their Y chromosomes survive to the present day.

With those three considerations in mind, evolution is as "proven" as one can get with physical things. Note that there were actually quite a few holes left to fill in Darwin's time... but it's been quite some time since then, and our ability to analyse has improved dramatically - we can now look at DNA code - in Darwin's time, DNA hadn't yet been discovered. And quite a few of the postulates Darwin put forward ended up being inaccurate... we've since corrected them.

For you see, science adapts. It evolves, itself. When evidence arises that challenges something that science "believes", it analyses the evidence, it analyses the "belief", and determines whether the "belief" needs tweaking and/or discarding. Of course, the word "belief" in this context is being used only informally - the appropriate term would be "has strong evidence for".

So when you say "Darwin said it wasn't proven", you're demonstrating your ignorance of what science is.