Well.. I do not think it is about "believing" it or not; it is more about being in denial or not at this point :)

There are plenty of very compeling evidences and even things happening in real life about it right now that we can observe (and not just based on theories); so why would someone not "believe" in it?

It is like saying "do you believe the sky is blue?"...

There is nothing to be believed, evolution is a genetically and scientifically proven fact, all the mechanisms are known, even though our understanding lacks detail, especially in regard of the environmental impact and the level of randomness in genetic improvements over time. We do not know enough to accurately simulate a single cell and the complete mechanism in detail, so there is a lot of room for future scientific discoveries. The existence of genetic switches, genetic memory, CRISPR and the absence of genetic garbage are just a few recent groundbreaking discoveries.

The only question is where the original genetic code mechanism that can be found in every known form of life, originally stems from and who made it. The idea that it formed itself in the ocean is bullshit in my opinion, more likely it came from somewhere in space with an asteroid impact. The genetic code system may even be some form of artificial alien technology that landed on earth by pure accident and evolved itself, we may never know.

I am replying so that it be known that I was being a facetious cad with my comment, and I do not believe the earth to be flat.

If you had read anything about Darwin, you would know he was a deeply religious person, and avoided publishing his "theory of evolution" for over 2 decades because of the implications it had upon a "godless creation".

I am baffled. Surely you can't be serious? I have to legitimately ask if you are actually trolling?

Because there is evidence to support evolution, both Micro and Macro Evolution, Fossil Records, Micro-Biology, various breeding traits...
Did you know there is even a fly that after awhile will evolve to be extremely distinct from it's ancestors and be incapable of cross-breeding with it's ancestors?

The Bible... Is not evidence.
There is no evidence of God.

Faith by it's very definition is belief in something without evidence, regardless if it is true or not.
Ergo, something without evidence shouldn't take precedent over something that fundamentally has evidence, otherwise you are being irrational.

So... Kony and the Lords Resistance Army, Ku Klux Klan are not Christian and are not mass-murdering, terrorists/extremists, despite the fact they use the Bible to justify their garbage?

And that the Westboro Baptist Church aren't a bunch of homophobic religious Christian nuts who protest and wish harm/death upon those who support/are homosexual? Even if they are fallen soldiers that served their country?

Let's not ignore the fact that the Bible cannot even get basic math like "Pi" correct or the fact that the entire Genesis account is extremely erroneous... Or that it states Homosexuals should be put to death, that it's okay to own slaves, stoning of unruly children is fine... I could go on.

Yes I can see how Atheists are evil and the Bible is good. (Note: Sarcasm.) You should try fixing the hate that it is in your own backyard first.

No.

As for Abortion... Not only has that got NOTHING to do with this entire topic... But I'll bite.

If I had a disease which I couldn't survive without a bone-marrow transplant... And you were the only person on Earth that was compatible to do the Transplant... Could I force you to give up your bone marrow, despite the fact that there could be extensive risk to your own health? That answer would be a "no".

And in the same way... A Fetus cannot force the owner of the body to give up their rights to dictate what they can and cannot do with their own body.
The Fetus if it cannot survive by it's own capacity... Has no right to live at the expense of anyone else.

Besides, Sin is a religious invention, it's not applicable to me as I don't believe in it. I do believe in right and wrong, but not sin.
Satan is also religious invention and I am not obligated to believe in that either.


But here is the real crux of the issue, before you can start making radical, insane claims about various dietys, what someone should/shouldn't do and other such crap... You first need to prove our God exists with this little thing called "evidence". - In thousands of years not a single person has been able to provide any that Proves the existence of your God.

Whilst he was a Theist... He did question religious texts, especially the historical context within the religious books such as the Bible.

So we can stipulate that he was a man of logic and science and not of blind indoctrinated faith... He wasn't afraid to question, he wasn't afraid to reinterpret  what he read in the Bible.

Evolution itself has nothing to do with religion though, it's not an "Atheist" invention, it's a theory backed up by evidence, it doesn't care what God you do/do not believe in.

Neither of those is a reason to believe anything.

This would have been funnier if you had some some other random shape... like a tedrahedron.

Consider this:
When scientists were trying to find what happened to dinosaurs, they looked at bone structures, considered their sizes and blood temperatures, used hundreds of different analytics to come to a very disagreed with theory:

Dinosaurs evolved into birds.
This was a theory that came to fruition decades ago, with no evidence to support it whatsoever other than by looking at evidence surrounding the possibility. It was still not accepted as of 20 years ago. Archeopteryx was the first "bird" that scientists had ever found, and it suddenly appeared in the fossil record hundreds of millions of years ago.

We discovered just recently, proof that dinosaurs had feathers. Imagine that.
Anyway, moving on, we also have overwhelming evidence of feather evolution.
It took millions of years for feathers to come from simple insulation properties, into actual flight capability.

It's really sad that people simply discount the entire fossil record simply because it goes against religious beliefs.

No believe is required. All you need to do is accept the fact and the scientific theory that explains the phenomena. The same scientific method that was used to discover evolution and the scientific theory that describes how it is achieved using natural selection is the same scientific method that was used to develop things like bridges, household electricity, automobiles, apache attack helicopters etc.

If you don't accept evolution, then how can you accept the science behind how your house is powered? It's the same methodology. So if they're wrong about evolution, how did they get it so right with electricity, and so wrong with evolution.

Side note: For clarification - a scientific theory is not an idea as it is used with many lay people. It's a means of explaining phenomena using scientific data. We have tomes of data to support the theory of Natural Selection used to describe the mechanisms that allow evolution to occur.

There is evidence but a lot of it questionable. First I want to say I don't believe in life evolution. The big bang theory is pretty good but it still leaves room to someone causing it. I'm not a young earth creationist who believes that the bible says the earth is a little over 6000 years old. It doesn't if you read the first two chapters of Genesis a few things become obvious. 1) The earth and universe where already in existence before the days began. 2) The word day is being used in it figurative sense. As brought out in the beginning of the second chapter when it referred the first seven days as a day. 3)While it wasn't made to be a scientific book, it is pretty accurate when it does touch on scientific things. The events in chapter one are supported by the fossils as to when they appeared. Also if you remember that these passages where originally written for farmers several 1000 years ago, the event is written in the view point as someone on the planet. So you can call me more of an intelligent design person, which most scientist believe in. (Time magazine had a survey where they polled scientist, 80% of them believed in some form of intelligent design, while only 20% where stanch evolutionists.)

To make it short you can disprove creationists using the bible, you can disprove prevailing scientific theory using science.


The fossil record doesn't support it, it still in trees instead of inter-tanged with no species to tie the trees together . (There are more bones but less entact "in between" specimens then in Darwin's time)

The genetic evidence is based on almost totally disproven ideas on DNA: The charts that show how closely the DNA is to each other is just based on less then 25% of the DNA map. Scientist use to think that 70-to-80% of DNA is vestigial and the only used DNA is the stuff that runs the cells. But the Human Genome Project has found that less then 1% of DNA is actually vestigial so the 99.9% closeness to chimpanzees is at least 24.9% since we would have to do complete genome mapping of other species to find out how they relate to humans.

The three drivers of evolution also have major faults and almost no empirical data via experiments to tie them together:
Natural Selection: Is the most recognizable tenets on which the entire argument of life evolution is built. Unfortunately while it is proven that it causes variations in individual species, it isn't proven to cause new species to arise. And there is now evidence that Natural Selection is a 2-way street. "Darwin's" birds, finches I think, have been being monitored since the early 20th century, and with the environmental changes that humans are making the traits that were once thought to be bread out of the birds are making their come backs.
Genetic Mutation: This is what scientist sell as the other important driver, unfortunately it has a major problem. With each genetic mutation the chances that resulting offspring will be able to pass on the trait falls, in other words the higher chance that the child will be sterile unable to have children. Every one remembers the fruit fly experiment, where you get blind flies if you breed them in the dark. The hole in the experiment is if you allow the experiment to continue, the flies will die out because of the population becoming sterile.
Species Interbreeding: This one was on the way out when I was in high school so it was only a footnote in the lesson. The premise is simple that a new species can be made by two different parents having a child across species lines. The problems with this is that even among familia members, there are cases of species being totally incompatible for breeding. (example Canidae: Foxes and other "dogs" are not able to mate successfully) And even when they are able to mate successfully there is a high chance you wouldn't be able to make a new line because the resulting child would be sterile. (example Equidae: Horse and Donkey to make a mule. Mule are all sterile so to get another you have to do the same cross breeding.)

The experimental empirical evidence ends before life begins. In the earily 1950's Stanley Millar ran an experiment that proved that amino acids, which are required for the foundation of life, could occur naturally. While there are poblems with the results of his experiement. (One is the ratio of right-to-left handness of the amino acids were 50/50 and in nature it is more along the lines of 20/80 on earth and in space, another is the basis of the expement was based on what they thought the earth was like back then but new evidence even puts that in question.)

They thought the next two steps would be simple, but almost 65 years later they have yet to have a successful experiment showing the next step from there. Because even though it sounds simple creating chains of amino acids to form simple proteins, unfortunately there ran into a scientific Zen riddle. "To create even the simplest of proteins you need other specialized proteins to exist." On top of that the problem is a chemical as well as a mechanical problem. Not only are proteins chains of amino acids, they are made of only one handiness of amino acids, and they have to be folded in a particular way. Without this step life evolution couldn't even happen.

In addition there is a problem with the mind set of scientists themselves. If you question standing reasoning when their is evidence you can and will be shunned as an 'extremist who has no right to call themselves a scientist'. A good example of this would be the Clovis first theory. I have a news paper clipping of this story. When Clovis First started to be the prevailing theory, he was rising questions on the discrepancies in the theory. And he was essentially black listed so he had troubles getting published which put his job at risk. Fast forward to the aughts, 2000's, and a big blow came that essentially destroyed the theory which put into doubt that the Clovis where first. So this should be a lesson even though a theory looks good has great evidence to back it up, it can be wrong, and scientist can be as bad, if not worse then religious zealots when it comes to free thinking.