what evidence is there to support evolution?

Answer 1

There is really not enough evidence to support evolution. Actually evolution is not even a theory, it is a hypothesis. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory (hypothesis). There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html
With all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution. Evolution isn't mathematically possible. The complexity of life points to Intelligent Design as revealed by such complex structures as:

* Cells and DNA
In Darwin's time, scientists thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm. Since that time the advance of science has uncovered ever more powerful evidence that what Christians believe is true on all levels, including the natural world. And that is becoming even clearer today as scientists learn more about what is inside the cell-and especially the structure of DNA.

According to cell biologist Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines."

Even the simplest cells are bristling with high-tech machinery. On the outside, their surfaces are studded with sensors, gates, pumps and identification markers.

Inside, cells are jam-packed with power plants, automated workshops and recycling units. Miniature monorails whisk materials from one location to another. No such system could arise in a blind, step-by-step Darwinian process.

The most advanced, automated modern factory, with its computers and robots all coordinated on a precisely timed schedule, is less complex than the inner workings of a single cell.

"A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism. One cell is more complicated than the largest computer that man has ever made." - Sir James Gray, from Cambridge University

DNA is like a language in the heart of the cell, a molecular message, a set of instructions telling the cell how to construct proteins-much like the software needed to run a computer. Moreover, the amount of information DNA includes is staggering: A single cell of the human body contains three or four times more information as all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. As a result, the question of the origin of life must now be redefined as the question of the origin of biological information. Can information arise by natural forces alone? Or does it require an intelligent agent?

DNA is composed of ordinary chemicals (bases, sugars, phosphates that react according to ordinary laws. What makes DNA function as a message is not the chemicals themselves but rather their sequence, their pattern. The chemicals in DNA are grouped into molecules (called nucleotides) that act like letters in a message, and they must be in a particular order if the message is going to be intelligible. If the letters are scrambled, the result is nonsense. So the crucial question is whether the sequence of chemical "letters" arose by natural causes or whether it required an intelligent source. Is it the product of law or design?

Since DNA contains information, the case can be stated even more strongly in terms of information theory, a field of research that investigates the ways information is transmitted. The naturalistic scientist has only two possible ways to explain the origin of life-either chance or natural law. But information theory provides a powerful tool for discounting both of these explanations. Both chance and law lead to structures with low information content, whereas DNA has a very high information content."

The sequence of basis in DNA can not be explained by natural law because there are no chemical laws that make any sequence more likely than another. At the same time these sequences are so complicated that they can not be explained by chance.

"Based on probability factors any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10. Such a number, if written out, would read:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression)."—I. L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong, 1984, p. 205.

The study of DNA provides powerful new evidence that life is the product of intelligent design.

Today, holding on to the hope that some natural process will be found to explain DNA is supremely irrational. The elusive process that naturalists hope to find would have to be completely unprecedented, different in kind from any we currently know.

Although humans share about 97% of their DNA structure with some higher non-human animals, those last 3% are so vital that all of human civilization, religion, art, science, philosophy and, most importantly, their moral nature depends upon it.

It is the 3% that distinguishes the theistic view of man's origin from the non-theistic view, as well as from the various societal and cultural consequences distinguishing each belief. As John Quincy Adams warned long ago, without a belief in theistic origins [in that three percent difference] man will have no conscience. He will have no other law than that of the tiger and the shark."

ON ALL FRONTS, scientists are being forced to face up to the evidence for an intelligent cause. Ever since big bang theory was proposed, cosmologists have had to wrestle with the implications that the universe had an absolute beginning-and therefore a transcendent creator. The discovery of the information content in DNA is forcing biologists to recognize an intelligent cause for the origin of life. So, too, the fact of irreducible complexity is raising the question of design in living things.

Your Incredible Brain

Your brain is the most complex mechanism in the world and the most influential organ of your body, enabling your mind to think, remember, love, hate, feel, reason, imagine, and analyze.

The average brain weighs about three pounds and contains 12 billion cells, each of which is connected to 10,000 other brain cells - 120 trillion brain connections! Some have compared the human brain to a sophisticated computer, but technology hasn't come close to duplicating its capabilities.

Your brain supervises everything you do, from involuntary actions such as breathing to the conscious decisions of your life. It controls hearing, sight, smell, speech, eating, resting, learning, prejudices, and everything else that makes you behave as you do. Scientists tell us that the brain is our most important organ because it determines the function of the other organs and systems, including the pituitary gland, heart, and nervous system. Your unique traits, temperament, and even physical growth patterns are all controlled by your brain.

We have little or no conscious control over many of these traits, and scientists still disagree over the extent to which we rule ourselves. Yet most experts insist that we can regulate far more mental activity than we realize.

A major portion of your three-pound brain houses your Intellect. Your intellect has phenomenal potential. Scientists tell us that the average person uses less than 10% of his brain's capability. If that is true, then most people die with 10 to 11 billion brain cells still unused.

The vast majority of what we know about the intellect has been discovered during the past 100 years, yet scientists believe that even greater discoveries await us. Thinking and memory are the chief functions of the intellect, but it also affects our intuition, conscience, , and much more. Recent studies indicate a difference between the minds of men and women, providing scientific support for the traditional claim that the sexes think differently.

The second significant part of your brain is what the Bible calls your "heart," your emotional center. It's not heart-shaped, but looks instead more like a walnut. Tied neurologically to every organ of your body, it activates both feeling and movement. The mind is to the emotions what food is to the body.

The third characteristic of the brain is the will, which makes human beings unique from all other living creatures. No one knows where the will is located, but we suspect it resides in the brain, because it so depends on the mind and emotions. Many dying people have displayed a strong will long after most other bodily functions have ceased, but when the brain ceases to function, the will vanishes.

It is difficult to imagine how such a complex organ as the human brain could have simply evolved.

Neurotheology

Andrew Newberg, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania has developed a biological theory of religion, which he believes provides a neurological basis for the great human hunger for God. The theory has made Newberg a leading figure in the emerging science of neurotheology, which explores the links between spirituality and the brain.

He says that a "higher reality" is real and not inconsistent with science.


Using an imaging technology called SPECT scanning to map the brains of Tibetan Buddhists
meditating and Franciscan nuns engaged in deep, contemplative prayer, he photographed blood flow-indicating levels of neural activity-in each subject's brain at the moment that person had reached an intense spiritual peak.

When the scientists studied the scans, their attention was drawn to a portion of the brain's left parietal lobe they called the orientation association area. It is this region that is responsible for drawing the line between the physical self and the rest of existence, a task that requires a constant stream of neural information flowing in from the senses. What the scans revealed, however, was that at peak moments of prayer and meditation, the flow was dramatically reduced. As the orientation area was deprived of information needed to draw the line between the self and the world-the scientists believed-the subject would experience a sense of a limitless awareness melting into infinite space.

It seemed they had captured snapshots of the brain nearing a state of al transcendence-described by all major religions as one of the most profound spiritual experiences - a " al union" with God.

Newberg's research suggests that spiritual feelings are rooted not in emotion or wishful thinking, but in the genetically arranged wiring of the brain.

"That's why religion thrives in an age of reason," Newberg says. You can't simply think God out of existence, he says, because religious feelings rise more from experience than from thought. They are born in a moment of spiritual connection, as real to the brain as any perception of "ordinary" physical reality.

His research suggests that our brains have been wired to experience the reality of God

.The Eye

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin

An eye is completely useless unless all its parts are fully formed and working together. Even a slight alteration from its current form destroys its function. How, then, could the eye evolve by slight alterations? Even in Darwin's day the complexity of the eye was offered as evidence against his theory, and Darwin said the mere thought of trying to explain the eye gave him "a cold shudder."

Darwin would have shuddered even harder had he known the structure of cells inside the eye. Contemporary Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins have tried to solve the problem by tracing a pathway to the evolution of the eye, starting with a light-sensitive spot, moving to a group of cells cupped to focus light better, and so on through a graded series of small improvements to produce a true lens.

But as Michael Behe (author of Darwin's Black Box) points out, even the first step-the light-sensitive spot is irreducibly complex, requiring a chemical chain reaction, starting when a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, that changes to trans-retinal, which forces a change in the shape of a protein called rhodopsin, which sticks to another protein called transducin, which binds to another molecule ... and so on. And where do those cupped cells that Dawkins talks about come from? There are dozens of complex proteins involved in maintaining cell shape, and dozens more that control groups of cells. Each of Dawkins's steps is itself a complex system, and adding them together doesn't answer where these complex systems came from in the first place.

The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists still do not fully understand how it works. The eye completes 100,000 separate functions in a single day. While we sleep the eye conducts its own maintenance work. Considering the number of complex structures in the eye, as well as the highly integrated synchronization, it is difficult to understand how the evolutionist can believe that the eye emerged from a natural trial-and-error process.

Great numbers of trilobite fossils, ocean bottom dwelling creatures now thought to be extinct, have been preserved. Trilobite eyes had lenses made out of calcite. Because these lenses are made out of "rock" and therefore don't decay, paleontologists have been able to study the design of trilobite eyes. Unlike human eyes, which are composed of a single lens, the trilobite eye is composed of a double lens with up to 15,000 separate lens surfaces in each eye, allowing the trilobite to see under water perfectly without distortion. Precise application of several laws of optics, including Abbe's sine law and Fermat's principle, is inherent in the design of these lenses. How did a trilobite grow a second lens? How did the eye function before the second lens was present? Did a grand engineer design the eye or did it develop by chance?

Researchers have found striking similarities between the compound eyes of these trilobites and those of modern insects. For instance, according to Riccardo Levi-Setti, "Trilobites could see in their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes. ... The number of individual optical elements in the compound eye could vary from approximately one hundred to more than fifteen thousand in a single eye, a range not very different from that found in modern insects."

The Human Ear

The ability of our ears to detect sound is much greater than the minimum expected requirement for survival had man simply evolved.

"The ear is capable of sensory response to sound whose pressure at the ear drum is no greater than two ten-thousandths of a millionth of barometric pressure. This pressure moves the ear drum about one one-hundred-millionth of an inch. That dimension is approximately one one-hundredth the width of a hydrogen molecule, the tiniest of all known molecules. Therefore, throughout a significant portion of the ear's dynamic range, it is moving in sub-molecular dimensions." - Hearing Conservation in Industry, Schools, and the Military, edited by David Lipscomb, 1988

To illustrate this incredible sensitivity in visual terms, imagine a six-foot man, standing on the surface of the earth, shrink to only one one-hundred-millionth of an inch. The earth, shrinking also - but still enormous when compared to the man - would proportionately reduce to a tiny ball no bigger than the small letter 'o' on this page! The man would become utterly invisible, even to the powerful microscopes of today.

With this example, a person can begin to appreciate the way God has created the incomprehensibly tiny, as well as the unimaginably large things of this universe. It also helps us to consider the miracle of hearing with which our Creator has blessed us.

Vestigial Organs

"Vestigial organs" in the human body were thought by evolutionists to be remnants of formerly important organs. At one time, more than 200 organs of the human body were classified as such. However, in the last 100 years, these organs have been found to have important functions for the body. It appears that every part of the human body has functionality. This implies masterful design, not chance evolutionary processes.
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm

* Science itself refutes Darwinism

• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.

• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute

• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."

• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:
• Scales had to have mutated into hair.
• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.
• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.

• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.

• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

* Biological Evidence
Evolution - Fact or Faith?

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither up to the present has been capable of proof."
L. Harrison Matthews FRS - Introduction to Darwin's Origin of Species - 1971 p.11

"It is incredible that most leading scientists dogmatically insist that the molecules-to-man evolution theory be taught as a fact to the exclusion of all other postulates. Evolution in this broad sense is unproven and unprovable and thus cannot be considered as fact. It is not subject to test by the ordinary methods of experimental science - observation and falsification. It does not, in a strict sense, even qualify as a scientific theory." Dr. D. Gish (biochemist) Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! p.12-13 (1995)

Points to Ponder
Under the right conditions, enzymes have the ability to bring about a combining of otherwise reluctant ingredients and enzymes are able to do this at speeds which get the job done almost instantaneously. Without the thousands of different enzymes within every cell, life would just not be possible. Cells are unequalled masters of efficient chemistry, but for a cell to produce just one enzyme it requires the action of at least 50 different other enzymes. So enzymes are needed to produce enzymes. This fact places us on the horns of a dilemma, for "How did the first enzymes … ever come into being in the first place?" Lester J. McCann - Professor Emeritus in Biology, Quoted in Creation - July 1996 - p.10

This is your life!
A single cell in the human body contains 2 metres of DNA packed into a nucleus only 5 thousandths of a millimetre across. DNA has been described as the 'marvellous message molecule' for it is a vast library of coded commands. Its job is to store the genetic blueprint safely and pass it on unchanged from cell to cell and from generation to generation. The information travelling on the DNA from mother and father is the 'instruction manual' which enables the machinery in the fertilized egg to construct the new living organism from the raw materials. It determines whether the final product will be a hippo, a hamster, a hyena or a human.
If you attempted to store the information packed on DNA on to video tapes it has been calculated it would take a million million (a trillion) tapes!!!!
New Scientist - Nov. 26th, 1994 - p.17
There are estimated to be 75 trillion cells in the human body. If we were to unravel all the DNA and place it end to end it would stretch 90 billion miles (150 billion kilometres). That is the same as travelling from the earth to the sun 1000 times!!! If you attempted to cover this distance travelling at 100 mph non-stop it would take you an estimated 106,000 years!!!
The question therefore arises, 'Where did this code and information come from?', for information never arises spontaneously but originates from a mind. God is the Great Programmer and the amazing DNA molecule is just one of His masterpieces.
http://www.case-creation.org.uk/biolo1.html

* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:

* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm

* Living "Fossils"
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm

* The Cambrian Explosion
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm

* New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm

* "Missing Links"
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm

* Anthropic Principle
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm

* Irreducible complexity
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm

* Biological Evidence
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm

* The Moon
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm

* Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm

* Scientific arguments against evolution:
Science itself refutes Darwinism
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

* The Origins of Darwinism
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/origins.shtml

* Darwinism is Racist
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtml

* Evidence for Intelligent Design
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/intelligent-design.shtml

* Creation Science
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/creationscience.shtml

* Evidence For A Young Earth and Universe
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/youngearth.shtml

* Age of man:
The Race of Man Is Younger Than Previously Thought
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/ageofman.shtml

* Darwinism Is Strongly Rooted But Is Being Challenged
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/summary.shtml

* References
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/references.shtml

* Do real scientists believe in Creation?
Partial list of Creation Scientists
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

* http://www.drdino.com/

Answer 2

Quite honestly, if you just took the theory of creationism and just took the theory of evolution, the evidence would be about equal. Both theories would explain the fossil record (if you are taking into account Noah's flood for the creationist side). The fossil record, by the way, does NOT show a gradual transition from one species to the next. Far from it, actually. The fossil record does show, however, some a few species that may or may not suggest a common heritage with another species, or a possible history in its lineage (such as whales having evolved from a land mammal). Both theories existed prior to the unearthing of most of the fossils we have found today, and the fossil record is consistent with both theories. I would argue that it is actually MORE consistent with the creationist theory, however.

The second piece of good evidence for evolution is the adaptation we see within species. This is especially apparent in certain bacterias becoming resistant to more and more antibiotics. However, the more this evidence is studied, the more it is a dead end for evolutionists. It seems that a species can only "evolve" so far before it hits a dead end. If you grow potatoes, and replant only the biggest and best potatoes from your plant, you will grow larger potatoes in your next plant, for example. But it has its limits. Once your potatoes are so big, you won't grow any bigger. This has been even more confirmed on numerous tests on short lived insects where scientists could produce thousands, if not millions of generations in a laboratory. They could never notice any evolutionary changes no matter what conditions they exposed the insects to.

Where we find reason to reject evolution, in my opinion, however, comes not from the science of the the past 100 years, or in the writings of Moses from 4,000 years ago. It comes somewhere in between, from the testimonies of a few fisherman about a man named Jesus about 2,000 years ago. These men claimed that Jesus not only performed many miracles, but that He claimed to be the Son of God, and that He raised from the dead. They knew if this was a lie, and they knew if this was the truth. They were all persecuted and executed for their beliefs. Why would they do this if this was a lie? I believe they told the truth. Jesus, who rose from the dead, believed the words in Genesis to be the truth, and His lineage has been traced back to Adam and Eve. To me, that is the only conclusive evidence on the matter, and is more than enough.

Answer 3

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Answer 4

There is some evidence that can be used to some what support evolution.

But there is no creditable evidence for ether evolution, creation, creation by evolution, or anything else really.............That's why they are all still theories and not facts.


Curently the thing that has the most crediable evidence (though NOWHERE near enugh to prove it.) is that life of the planet evolved with outside influance to speed and guilde it in places. Rather this suports creation by evolution, or that we are alien exsperements is debatable...... but none the less it's still theriory and no where near being proven.

Answer 5

You really need to do your own research on the subject as any answer here is going to precursory at best. Really there are volumes upon volumes of evidence. First of all the fossil record shows gradual change of species over time. A simple peice of eveidence is this... why would you need a new flu shot every year? The virus changes.... over... time. It evolves. People who say evolution is bogus are only saying so because of there relgious background prevents them from looking at it seriously.

Answer 6

The only evidence there is to support evolution is stuff scientists made up to be able to deny creation. There is no proof of evidence supporting evolution. There is a really good series on it by Dr. Kent Hovind if your really intrested. Ive enclosed his website info.

Answer 7

We can all see that evolution has played a big role in the world we live in today. Everything has to adapt to make it, to become better and stronger.

But, all of the evolution we have had, was because got created that way, we evolve, because of his incredible wisdom.

Answer 8

its called SCIENCE, I don't know if you guys have heard of it. You guys are brainwashed into believing that there is no such thing. But the educated world has used to explain just about anything.

Another comforting thought..... the religion you take as fact is only believed by less like 2% of the people in this world, isn't that a lonely number......

Answer 9

Umm- if you saw my family- you would say there is evidence that evolution is happening, only backwards.

Answer 10

There's this thing called science... you wont learn about that in church. Science is all about finding the truth. Religion is about faith. When science disagrees with religion... science wins. If there is a God that's the way he/she made it - if you have an issue with it take it up with him/her.... and continue to think the earth is flat if it makes you feel better.

Answer 11

A hell of a lot more than something some unknown person wrote more than a thousand years ago. Darwin's theory actually has science behind it, not hundreds and hundreds of translations and misinterprated lines.