I was writing my post when you posted yours, so I sort of didn't see it until I had finished writing mine.

Yes, you're right!

Scientists hate this definition, as it implies a value judgement. I propose the definition put forth in my textbook, "Primate Adaptation and Evolution", by John Fleagle:<blockquote><i>Evolution is modification by descent, or genetic change in a population through time</i></blockquote>

The only thing to really argue about is whether or not you require evidence for your beliefs, or whether you take things on faith.

You simply can't argue religion from facts, because religion is bullshit. The only way to be religious is to convince yourself it's not bullshit, and the only way to do that is to not require ample evidence for your beliefs.

By the way, www.talkorigins.org is a wonderful resource for this subject.

Yes things do evolve, I will accept that. Galapagos Islands is a perfect example of evolution. The fact that people are living longer is in a small part another step of evolution. The conditions in which we live in have changed and we have adapted to them.

But to say that millions upon millions of years ago matter just sprang up out of nothing and now I have a big oak tree with squirrels playing in my yard is a little hard to believe.

Where did the matter come from that started the Big Bang?

From relative nothingness to what we see today, it's hard to believe that it is all just random.

If it is random don't make fun of me while we are in the big sleep for wanting to believe a higher power had some hand in creating this.

And if I'm right I'll try to slip some icewater to the non-believers okay?

No one believes that man evolved from apes. Evolution states that humans and apes have a <i>common ancestor</i>. That's a huge difference.

The whole idea of a "missing link" is very flawed. Imagine our ancestral line as a giant genealogical tree with a billion little branches. At what resolution would you like to see the tree in before you believe in evolution? We don't have fossils for every single creature that ever died. But we have enough from each time period to show a very nice, gradual progression, morphologically speaking. The problem is, to be able to truly see how perfect this gradual progression is, you have to have a thorough knowledge of skeletons.

Also, remember that evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. People don't evolve -- populations do. And they usually do it over a very long period of time, so you can't "see" it happening.

Also, I thought you guys might find this chart of interest. It shows the most recent hominid fossil species that have been discovered, and how anthropologists think they are related. Solid lines signify a connection that they are sure of, and dotted lines signify a connection that they are in disagreement over. Even though they're not sure how some of them link up, though, they're so similar to other hominids that it's a sure bet that they link up somewhere in this time frame (otherwise, there wouldn't be so many similarites).

Oh, there is also fossil evidence along the line going way, way back, all the way to when we looked like little rodent creatures 65 million years ago. This chart just shows 5 mya and on. There were also recently two other hominid fossils discovered that are believed to be from 6mya and 7mya. Those are so recently discovered as to not yet be on this chart.

<center>http://comp.uark.edu/~dmorton/images..._phylogeny.gif</center>

Any reasonable person should readily admit that evolution DOES occur. There is a sea of evidence to support evolution, and to refute it would be like claiming that the Civil War never happened. I think the main point of contention in evolution is whether humans evolved from a "lower" life form, or whether humans were plopped onto the Earth, as we are today, by some diety.

I'm a logical person who requires facts and evidence to make conclusions. Based on facts and evidence, I conclude that evolution is a real device used by nature, and/or potentially God(s). I have no direct evidence to indicate whether God(s) exist, but no evidence to the contrary either. So I reserve judgement, but lean towards a no-God(s) mentality. Likewise, I have no direct evidence that humans are descendants of aliens who landed on our planet thousands of years ago, so I tend not to believe that either. And I don't believe that we were all squeezed from a giant pimple on the face of a huge intelligent organism named "Earth" who died long ago and left us to occupy his/her slowly rotting carcass. Just because one belief is more popluar does not make it more likely.

God, particularly by a Christian definition, is such a tangled mess of contradictions and uncertainties that I frankly can't see why anyone believes in him/her/them so fervently. Faith? The dictionary says it best when it defines "faith" as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." I don't choose to believe in anything without evidence. If there is a Creator, he/she/it/they created me knowing that I would not accept them without evidence, so they have no one to blame for my lack of faith except themselves.

I'm normally not once to post a me-too, but this is kind of a poll anyway. I hope no one is hoping for a definitive answer on cosmological questions here at the cellar. ;)

Anyway, I believe in the existence of God ( but don't insist that you do and don't insist that my way is the only way to worship God).

I also believe that evolution is real.

For what it's worth, I went to Seattle Pacific University when I went back to get my CS degree. SPU is a methodist university and you have to take one Bible course to graduate. I took Old Testament (NT was already full). It turned out to be a good choice. The instructor was very knowledgeable and entertaining as well.

The instructor said it was obvious to all bible researchers that the Bible was not the literal word of god. His response to all questions along this line was "These books are in the Bible because they are useful for instruction."

>>> Hot_Pastrami said
God, particularly by a Christian definition, is such a tangled mess of contradictions and uncertainties that I frankly can't see why anyone believes in him/her/them so fervently
>>>

It's not easy to explain the infinite.

Look at science. Science is a tangled mess of contradictions and uncertainties (and many truths that took years and years to discover). It too is an attempt to explain something infinite and extremely complex, in this case the universe. I'll admit the analogy is not perfect, but it's the best I can do at the moment.

That's trollbait, and not worth flaming you over, you'd probably just laugh at anyone's attempt to respond to you're comment, so I won't bother.

My point is that religion is based on faith, and science is based on facts and evidence. They're two fundamentally different ways of looking at the world, and this is <i>the</i> main difference between the two camps. Whichever path you follow, the appropriate belief system also follows.

If people are going to try to use the bible as evidence of creation, then I feel it's fair to say that it's not evidence at all, because the whole thing is BS. It's based on faith, not fact.

Well, there is a distinct, important difference here... when science does not have enough information to answer a question, the hypothesis is not touted as a fact, regardless of how long or how fervently someone believes they know the answer. Firm, convincing, consistent evidence is required for anything to go beyond the realm of theory. When there is a contradiction between theories, the scientific community at large does not label either a "truth," they label both as "possibilities."

The polar opposite is religion... where firm, convincing, consistent evidence simply does not exist... but depite that, in the minds of believers, these "facts" are completely irrefutable. Add to this a God from whom believers are not allowed to ask evidence of his existence, and you have what appears to a be a circular problem. But really, it all amounts to the fact that people who believe in God do so only because they want to. And that's fine... it doesn't make them right or wrong, it just makes them naive and illogical... Even if it turns out they're right. Especially if it turns out they're wrong.

More on Micro and Macro Evolution: