Who agrees that evolution is just a theory?

Question

We did not come from monkeys. My degree was science/chemistry. Some scientist believe this junk theology...but many do not! It's a theory....in other words...an idea which has never been proven or disproven...therefore it remains a theory.

Now a few examples of why I do not believe this theory:

Any animal that has evolved does not remain....yet the monkey is still with us...the average day monkey has not evolved into a man!

I believe many animals have adapted to their environment and thus their features change to meet their surrounding needs...thus adaptation! However, to evolve into something totally more advance such as monkey into man would mean that the monkey would no longer exist because man would take his place...why does the monkey still exist????

The same can be said for apes and all other animals someone could possibly say man evolved from! Why do they all still exist today?



Charles Darwin was a very smart man. His adaptation theory is quite genius and his studies were revolutionary and also opened the eyes of the scientific community...however his evolution theory lacks common sense from such a pioneer!

Even if you disagree with the above...how do you explain how any life began on earth? Life cannot just spring up...and Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Consider the following:

Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Where are all the transitional species. Really there should be a continuous line of transitional species, in the order of 1000's of times more numerous than obviously distinct species, and yet we have a clumps of very distinct species. And no transitional forms....

Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

1st law of thermodynamics states the energy(in this case life) cannot be created or destroyed! In other words life cannot just form...some form of energy must have been present! This is not a theory, it's a law.

Law of biogenesis. People once believed that maggots were spontaneously generated from the flesh of dead animals. They thought life could come from non-life. Louis Pasteur proved beyond doubt that life cannot arise from non-life. This is not a scientific theory, but a law. Proponents of evolution contend that life did arise spontaneously from non-life at least once in the past, in other words, that this particular natural law was broken or nonexistent sometime in the past. Again this cannot happen as energy cannot be created or destroyed!!!

Darwin himself wrote:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Darwin wrote: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 freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

The ability to fly supposedly evolved spontaneously by chance at least four times: for insects, birds, mammals (bats) and reptiles. Yet intelligent man did not figure out the principles of flight until the past century.

Many of what Darwin considered to be transitional species have been discredited. Even Archaeopteryx, once thought to be transitional between reptiles and birds, is not. Modern birds have been found deeper in the fossil record. For the most part nature's divisions are not blurred and indistinct, currently or in the fossil record. The phyla appear in the fossil record almost instantaneously in what is known as the Cambrian explosion, with no apparent connections.

Evolution teaches that fish evolved from lower animals. How did they get fins? No evolutionist claims that fins came in one generation, but rather in many generations. In other words, the development of fins was a GRADUAL development. And from where did birds get their wings? No evolutionist claims that wings came in one generation, but rather in many generations. They claim that the development of wings was through a very slow, gradual process. Now when the process, let us say, was half way complete, the "fin" or the "wing," as the case may be, would be useless — good for nothing — for a fish cannot swim with a part-fin nor can a bird fly with a part-wing! A part-fin or a part-wing, would be a monstrosity, not a perfect adaptation such as we see everywhere in nature. NOWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY CAN ONE FIND PARTLY DEVELOPED APPENDAGES OR ORGANS, but, rather, everywhere there is perfect adaptation, perfect development for its intended purpose. That fact proves that EACH CREATURE, IN ALL ESSENTIAL FEATURES, HAS BEEN EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW, and was so created in the beginning.

Hugo de Vries aptly said, "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."

Science has proven that chaos does not naturally and normally turn into order. Life can only come from life (law of biogenesis). Things dont improve naturally as a matter of course (entropy). Things improve because of intelligent input. For example, the technology we enjoy in the present age is a result of human intelligence, not random chance. Science has given us a great deal, but not everything that exists can be explained scientifically.

Prof. Fleischman, modern zoologist of Erlangen after repudiating Darwinism, said, "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."

Dr. Clark (recognized as one of the world's greatest biologists) was biologist of the United States National Museum, he stated bluntly that Darwin, Lamarck and all their followers were wrong "on almost all vital points." "So far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups, arose from any other. Each is a special animal-complex. . . .Appearing as a distinct creation."

Prof. T. H. Morgan said, "Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another." (p. 43. "Evolution and Adaptation;" McMillan, 1903).

Another thought: If there is not supreme being that created heaven and earth and all creatures, then explain how the Earth and world is so organized and designed for life? How did our planet adapt to us???? If the oxygen mixture were more than it is we would die...proof of this is hospitals in earlier years were giving a little too much to preemie babies....they died! In the rest of the universe both WATER and OXYGEN are very scarce; in fact, hydrogen and helium make up 99% of all matter in the universe, yet our earth is designed for life...unexplained or superior design????

There are scores of other "laws" in the universe that are perfect and necessary to make up this vast universe. All students of astronomy are familiar with Kepler's three laws of planetary motion. There are "laws" of motion, laws of heat, laws of light, laws of sound — and all are PERFECT, never-changing, never-failing. Rear Admiral D. V. Gallery (USN; writing in the Saturday Evening Post), said, "The stars. . . .in their orbits and velocities through the heavens faithfully obey a great code of LAW. Earth's scientists can quote and explain this code in great detail, until you ask, "Where came these laws?"

Edwin B. Frost, at one time astronomer with the Yerkes Observatory, wrote: "Everything that we learn from the observational point of view in the study of astronomy seems to me to point precisely and always toward a purposeful operation in nature. . . . "I cannot imagine planets getting together and deciding under what law they should operate. NOR DO WE FIND ANYWHERE IN THE SOLAR OR STELLAR SYSTEM THE DEBRIS THAT WOULD NECESSARILY ACCUMULATE IF THE UNIVERSE HAD BEEN OPERATING AT RANDOM. . . .

Proof that the Universe had a Beginning "to assume that the universe had no beginning . . . fails to account for the CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF RADIOACTIVITY." (Scientific American).

Animals breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide; green plants (in sunlight) take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Without plants in the world the time would soon come when all animals and all men would use up the available oxygen in the air and would perish." * Who designed such a complex system??? * "Give the plants a free hand and the water would in time become so alkaline as to destroy them. Give the animals a free hand and they, in the end, would be killed by the acidity they themselves produced; but the two working against one another insure the maintenance of conditions vital to both. All life is like that: a thousand interacting and balanced forces, like the flying buttresses of a towering Gothic Cathedral; destroy one and the whole graceful fabric comes down in irreparable ruin." (Creation's Amazing Architect).

Flowers supply bees with nectar; bees in turn transfer pollen from one flower to another, thus preserving the life of the species. HMMMM??? These species formed a treaty all on their own?????? Is this their own plan or of a superior design?

IF THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY AND THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WERE INCREASED, THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT WOULD SOON BE RUINED BY MOLDS! Who keeps these in check???? By chance they sustain??? Not probable!!!

The atmosphere gives us a protective covering from the harmful effects of the ultra-violet rays from the sun. Dr. Florence E. Miller, scientist connected with the Smithsonian Institute, says that we live "miraculously" on this planet, protected from eight "killer rays" from the sun, by a thin layer of ozone high up in our atmosphere. "If that little belt of ozone, approximately forty miles up and only one-eighth of an inch thick (if compressed), should suddenly drift into space, all life on earth would perish." The whole subject of "ozone" in the air is so unusual, it seems almost incredible. "There are two kinds of ultra-violet rays — long and short. The long are deadly, and are absorbed and neutralized by that ozone belt. If permitted to come through, they would blnd and blister the human race, and would soon destroy all life on earth. The short violet rays, on the other hand, are necessary to life. If that belt of protective ozone were too thick, so that the short rays could not come through, we would all die of rickets. "the most deadly of the 'eight killers' comes through in quantities just sufficient to render great service, without destroying us. It keeps down the growth of green algae, one-celled plants that grow in streams. Unrestricted, they would multiply so rapidly that they would clog all the streams of the world, and lead to endless flooding of the world. On the other hand, it is fortunate for the earth as we know it that the algae were allowed to develop in moderation."

The earth is just THE RIGHT DISTANCE from the sun, relative to the amount of heat and light the sun pours into space. If the earth were much closer, it would be too hot; If it were much farther away, it would be too cold. Dr. William J. Humphreys, formerly with the United States weather bureau told the American Meteorological Society that if the average temperature of the earth were raised but two or three degrees "you could bid goodbye to all the big cities of the earth,"


Blind evolution is helpless to produce such endless intricacies of design and adaptation. Why - how -could chance evolution, by "random changes," produce an intricate, living, workable mechanism like the examples described above?

Our world was designed for us to live in...everything designed for a reason. The food chain for example is a complex design of energy passed on...who designed such a plan???

reproduction of new life is complex! Who designed such this plan?

All things organic and non organic were designed and have specific function in the universe! These did not randomly decide to do their part...it was a superior design created by a higher being!

We did not come from monkeys. My degree was science/chemistry. Some scientist believe this junk theology...but many do not! It's a theory....in other words...an idea which has never been proven or disproven...therefore it remains a theory.

Now a few examples of why I do not believe this theory:

Any animal that has evolved does not remain....yet the monkey is still with us...the average day monkey has not evolved into a man!

I believe many animals have adapted to their environment and thus their features change to meet their surrounding needs...thus adaptation! However, to evolve into something totally more advance such as monkey into man would mean that the monkey would no longer exist because man would take his place...why does the monkey still exist????

The same can be said for apes and all other animals someone could possibly say man evolved from! Why do they all still exist today?

Charles Darwin was a very smart man. His adaptation theory is quite genius and his studies were revolutionary and also opened the eyes of the scientific community...however his evolution theory lacks common sense from such a pioneer!

Even if you disagree with the above...how do you explain how any life began on earth? Life cannot just spring up...and Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Consider the following:

Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Where are all the transitional species. Really there should be a continuous line of transitional species, in the order of 1000's of times more numerous than obviously distinct species, and yet we have a clumps of very distinct species. And no transitional forms....

Recent discoveries prove that even

Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

1st law of thermodynamics states the energy(in this case life) cannot be created or destroyed! In other words life cannot just form...some form of energy must have been present! This is not a theory, it's a law.

Law of biogenesis. People once believed that maggots were spontaneously generated from the flesh of dead animals. They thought life could come from non-life. Louis Pasteur proved beyond doubt that life cannot arise from non-life. This is not a scientific theory, but a law. Proponents of evolution contend that life did arise spontaneously from non-life at least once in the past, in other words, that this particular natural law was broken or nonexistent sometime in the past. Again this cannot happen as energy cannot be created or destroyed!!!

Evolution teaches that fish evolved from lower animals. How did they get fins? No evolutionist claims that fins came in one generation, but rather in many generations. In other words, the development of fins was a GRADUAL development. And from where did birds get their wings? No evolutionist claims that wings came in one generation, but rather in many generations. They claim that the development of wings was through a very slow, gradual process. Now when the process, let us say, was half way complete, the "fin" or the "wing," as the case may be, would be useless — good for nothing — for a fish cannot swim with a part-fin nor can a bird fly with a part-wing! A part-fin or a part-wing, would be a monstrosity, not a perfect adaptation such as we see everywhere in nature. NOWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY CAN ONE FIND PARTLY DEVELOPED APPENDAGES OR ORGANS, but, rather, everywhere there is perfect adaptation, perfect development for its intended purpose.

NOWHERE IN THE WORLD TODAY CAN ONE FIND PARTLY DEVELOPED APPENDAGES OR ORGANS, but, rather, everywhere there is perfect adaptation, perfect development for its intended purpose. That fact proves that EACH CREATURE, IN ALL ESSENTIAL FEATURES, HAS BEEN EXACTLY AS IT IS NOW, and was so created in the beginning.
Hugo de Vries aptly said, "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."
Science has proven that chaos does not naturally and normally turn into order. Life can only come from life (law of biogenesis). Things dont improve naturally as a matter of course (entropy). Things improve because of intelligent input. For example, the technology we enjoy in the present age is a result of human intelligence, not random chance. Science has given us a great deal, but not everything that exists can be explained scientifically.

Prof. T. H. Morgan said, "Within the period of human history we do not know of a single instance of the transformation of one species into another." (p. 43. "Evolution and Adaptation;" McMillan, 1903).
Another thought: If there is not supreme being that created heaven and earth and all creatures, then explain how the Earth and world is so organized and designed for life? How did our planet adapt to us???? If the oxygen mixture were more than it is we would die...proof of this is hospitals in earlier years were giving a little too much to preemie babies....they died! In the rest of the universe both WATER and OXYGEN are very scarce; in fact, hydrogen and helium make up 99% of all matter in the universe, yet our earth is designed for life...unexplained or superior design????

I realize what a theory is...this is all to start a debate!
And yes I do have a degree in Science/Chimistry...and I realize there would be those who go nuts of the mention that evolution is nonsense...thus my debate!!!
There are scores of other "laws" in the universe that are perfect and necessary to make up this vast universe. All students of astronomy are familiar with Kepler's three laws of planetary motion. There are "laws" of motion, laws of heat, laws of light, laws of sound — and all are PERFECT, never-changing, never-failing. Rear Admiral D. V. Gallery (USN; writing in the Saturday Evening Post), said, "The stars. . . .in their orbits and velocities through the heavens faithfully obey a great code of LAW. Earth's scientists can quote and explain this code in great detail, until you ask, "Where came these laws?"

Edwin B. Frost, at one time astronomer with the Yerkes Observatory, wrote: "Everything that we learn from the observational point of view in the study of astronomy seems to me to point precisely and always toward a purposeful operation in nature. . . . "I cannot imagine planets getting together and deciding under what law they should operate. NOR DO WE FIND ANYWHERE IN THE SOLAR OR STELLAR SYSTEM THE DEBRIS THAT WOULD NECESSARILY ACCUMULATE IF THE UNIVERSE HAD BEEN OPERATING AT RANDOM. . .
Proof that the Universe had a Beginning "to assume that the universe had no beginning . . . fails to account for the CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF RADIOACTIVITY." (Scientific American).

Animals breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide; green plants (in sunlight) take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Without plants in the world the time would soon come when all animals and all men would use up the available oxygen in the air and would perish." * Who designed such a complex system??? * "Give the plants a free hand and the water would in time become so alkaline as to destroy them. Give the animals a free hand and they, in the end, would be killed by the acidity they themselves produced; but the two working against one another insure the maintenance of conditions vital to both. All life is like that: a thousand interacting and balanced forces, like the flying buttresses of a towering Gothic Cathedral; destroy one and the whole graceful fabric comes down in irreparable ruin." (Creation's Amazing Architect).

Flowers supply bees with nectar; bees in turn transfer pollen from one flower to another, thus preserving the life of the species. HMMMM??? These species formed a treaty all on their own?????? Is this their own plan or of a superior design?

IF THE RELATIVE HUMIDITY AND THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WERE INCREASED, THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT WOULD SOON BE RUINED BY MOLDS! Who keeps these in check???? By chance they sustain??? Not probable!!!

The earth is just THE RIGHT DISTANCE from the sun, relative to the amount of heat and light the sun pours into space. If the earth were much closer, it would be too hot; If it were much farther away, it would be too cold. Dr. William J. Humphreys, formerly with the United States weather bureau told the American Meteorological Society that if the average temperature of the earth were raised but two or three degrees "you could bid goodbye to all the big cities of the earth,"

Blind evolution is helpless to produce such endless intricacies of design and adaptation. Why - how -could chance evolution, by "random changes," produce an intricate, living, workable mechanism like the examples described above?

Our world was designed for us to live in...everything designed for a reason. The food chain for example is a complex design of energy passed on...who designed such a plan???

I Got my Degree from The University of KY if you must know!

I knew I'd get a stir from everyone on this topic. People get so cruel when it comes to such a subject as evolution! I don't mind people bashing me! I only put this together to start a debate...and that's what I accomplished!

If you throw in a few off beat phrases or words it's nice to see who catches the bait. I'm giving the 10 points to the one who catches the biggest wrong in this thread!! Let's see who is really a science expert?

Answer 1

Dear Libby

I noticed from your profile that you are a recent newcomer to "Yahoo Answers". Your question has been posed many times before. I will say that your logic is sound, but will be attacked harshly by those that are evolutionary diehards. You will be called stupid, ignorant or a moron. They will cite the ACLU's website. This website goes as far as to tell people how to debate Creationists.

They will also bring in "every body knows" statements such as one answerer did when he talked about transitional fossils, and that there were many that have been discovered. Notice he gave no source. Another belittled you by asking if you were ignorant of "Nature". Now I will use an "everybody knows" statement. Everybody knows that "Nature" is a publication that has a strong evolutionary bias.

Others will either ignore or play down issues that do not support their point of view. I noticed that nobody explained how DNA, RNA, cell walls, amino acids, proteins and all the other things that are needed to maintain a cell all came together at one time and then lasted long enough to reproduce asexually. Tack on to this the whole process of sexual reproduction, and you have a huge hurdle for those that believe in evolution to overcome.

Another thing that you will find is that they will put you and I and anybody else that challenges them in the same category as those that they say are absolute idiots such as those that believe in a flat earth, (Richard Dawkin is famous for this technique.) and that the craters on the moon were made by Satan as he struggled against God. (The ACLU website indicates that a prominant Christian preacher said this.) As you would see if you examined the ACLU web site they set out the religious doctrine of atheism. (They call it Scientific.) And then tell their leaders and disciples how to win converts by undermining all other religious teachings.

Once you understand that evolution is an atheistic religion passing itself off as science you will have a better chance of going toe to toe with them in debate.

My daughter is a Chiropractor. Recently she indicated to me that those apes that are supposed to be closest to us genetically have a different number of vertebrae than humans. I recently looked at an article in the National Geographical Society. “Everybody knows” that they are extremely pro evolution. They indicated that they had found fossil remains of the oldest human baby at 3 million years. However most of its vertebrae were missing. In the same article they used fossils that had been shown to be fakes, as genuine finds. I find it interesting that another discovery of fossiled human remains are not mentioned in their article. The reason. These fossils, (Ten humans in all, five males, four females, and one child) were found in the same strata layer as the dinosaur graveyard in New Mexico. “Everybody knows” that dinosaurs went extinct about 100 million years ago. Humans have only been around for 3 million years. Therefore the find is fraudulent. That’s how evolution works. (See below for the source.)

Remember Libby, that the ACLU spends millions upon millions to advance their religion. I think that the main reason for this is that they are too proud to admit that there may be a God. (If there was a God, that God might require something from them.)

Here are some web sites that you will find interesting.

www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.
This is the website of Geologist Don Patton. He has several evidences that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Interesting.

Another is:
www.evolution-facts.com
This is a website that looks at hundreds of different difficulties with evolution.

A third is:
www.darwinismrefuted.com
This is a look at evolution from an Islamic point of view. (Christians are not the only ones that have problems with evolution.) I found this site both large and well thought out.

I hope this helps,

God bless

Bryan

Answer 2

You have a degree in SCIENCE?

I find this hard to believe, because if you did, you would recognize that the word "theory" is not an idea that hasn't been proven. That would be a hypothesis.

A Theory is a hypothesis for which significant and verifiable evidence has been found.

A tested hypothesis, which has been repeated, or has a great body of evidence suporting it becomes a theory. A theory is a working model based on significant evidence and testing. "Atomic theory" is one such "theory" which is used today. It is a "theory" that if sufficient fissionable material is compressed into a small area, that it will explode. As this is simply a theory, would you dare to sit beside such a device as the counter goes down to zero?

It is a "theory" that polarizing filters at the correct angle will polarize light by aligning the polarity. It is a theory that liquid crystals will act as this sort of filter. This theory is used to create liquid crystal displays. If you've got an LCD monitory, you're simply watching a "theory".

I have a science background as well. My last job was as an engineer developing test equipment for MEMS "micro-electro-mechanical systems". I worked with "theories" that are used to deploy airbags in automobiles. I worked with "laws" and "facts" as well. There is little difference between the three with the exception that "laws" have been proved for thousands of years. If the "law" of gravity had been found perhaps 50 years ago, it would still be called a "theory". The hypothesis came about when the apple fell from the tree. After many expirements, it was called a "law". You won't hear of an "atomic law" as the word "theory" is its modern (almost) equivalent.

Your understanding of evolution is flawed as well. In saying we don't see creatures evolving, you are missing the point. We are ALL evolving. No theory of evolution claims that humans came from monkeys, but that humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. And further back, humans and monkeys and dolphins, etc. all had a common ancestor.

Creatures existing now didn't come from each other... they had common ancestors that were different than each.

If you have a degree in science and chemistry, please let me know what school so that I can keep my kids out of it.



This is getting ridiculous! No partly developed apendages or organs...?

Appendix.

Wings on flightless birds.

Vestigal feet in sea mammals.

Should I go on?

Answer 3

Absolutely NOT! I can not agree with your logically flawed argument from ignorance. Simply because there are different theories of evolution do not make them mutually exclusive. It might simply means one of them might be incorrect. Evolution really has nothing to do with breeding dogs. Breeding dogs is done under human stipulations and not a slow process dealing with numerous climatic problems over eons and a multiplicity of other stimuli. I suspect you have a religious bias which leads you into this diatribe regarding evolution. Many religious fanatics believe the world is 10k years old, well science rebukes this quite easily. So therefore dinosaurs and humans did not simultaneously exist. These facts I believe started the RELIGION VS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WAR. At least the Evolutionists are working to a scientific standard, whereas the religionists are working with the fairytale standards, where anything goes. PLEASE out yourself and your true purposes and stop hiding behind words and flawed thought processes. How can I have an "axe to grind against god" if he or she does not exist? Don't get me wrong I'm not an Atheist (and believe they are logically perverted - you can't prove a negative). However being Agnostic, this allows me to question both sides of this argument...

Answer 4

It can't be anything but a theory.

It is not something that can be repeated in a lab environment.

In the real scientific community, of which I used to be a part, we are taught that all science has to be confirmable.

By confirmable, you must be able to set the experiment up in exactly the same way and get exactly the same result.

That cannot be done with evolution, so it has to be a theory.

Some people think that it is science if they say it is, and it cannot be disproved.
That is called a farce.

If a person sets up a conclusion upon unsubstantiated data, it is a hypothesis, not a fact.

grace2u

Answer 5

Of course it is. As a theory, it means that the definition changes as we learn more. At one time science believed that we evolved from apes, but if you had been keeping up with science you would know that as a whole the accepted theory no longer believes that. Now evolution is taken to mean "change over time". Sound familiar? That's what science is all about: constantly learning more to tweak or completely change how we look at the world/universe around us.

If science did not change it would become stagnant...like religion.

Answer 6

Yes, evolution is just a theory. But so is creation. Nobody can testify as first hand witness who saw everything when it happened. But it demands more faith to believe the theory of evolution. In less than 300 years since the first book of Darwin was written it has gone so many revisions, additions and corrections. But the Bible is almost 2000 years old since the last book, Revelation was written by John in 96 AD, but it does not need any correction to the satement: In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. It is believed by more than 1.5 billions Christians and 1 billion Muslims. Besides that in the Chinese language, spoken by more than 1 billion people worldwide, we can trace the story of creation as it is narrated in the Bible and the Quran.
Like the word "zao" (to create) consisting of "breath" + "earth" + "mouth" + "walking", is a very accurate account of the creation of Adam. While the word "yuan"(garden) consisting of "frame or border lines" + "earth" + "mouth" + "one man/person" + "another man/person coming from the side of the first person", meaning: After putting the first man, Adam, in the garden of Eden, God took Adam's rib from his side, and created the second man. There are more than a half of the original 214 basic components or radicals (zhibu) in the Ancient Chinese language which tells the same story as the account of Creation of man until the dispersion of nations in Genesis 1 to 11.

Answer 7

A scientific theory. A theory in the sense that relativity is a theory, or gravity.

People who talk about evolution as 'just a theory' generally don't understand that there is more than one meaning of the word theory. There is a separate scientific meaning which relates to an observable or testable idea which is supported by all known data. That's evolution.

As for the transitional fossils, we do have some. There are gaps, but that makes sense since we haven't dug up the entire planet looking for them.

I can't really tell if you're joking about the whole "if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" bit. I'd like to think you are, but a lot of people are genuinely that stupid. So in that spirit, the ancestral apes we evolved from have been extinct for hundreds of thousands of years.

As for the thermodynamics bit, evolution does not suggest the creation of matter or energy. And the laws of thermodynamics are theories, in the sense stated above.
Life didn't just spontaneously appear from non-life. It was a long gradual process from inorganic to organic material and finally to life. And again, there's no creation of energy or matter involved.

A 'part fin' would be extremely useful for a fish that otherwise had no fins. How can you say there are no patially developed appendeges? Have you been a million years into the future and found all the animals look exactly the same?

To question the fact that Earth's conditions support life is just stupid. Firstly, people have evolved for these conditions. If there were more oxygen in the atmosphere we would have evolved differently.
Secondly, and more importantly, if the conditions on earth weren't suitable for life then we wouldn't be here to observe them. The probability of any given planet supporting life is very low. But the probability of the planet we live on supporting life is 100%, since we wouldn't be living on it if it couldn't. The same goes for the Earth's distance from the sun.

And now I've exhausted my patience, sorry. I'd like to spend the rest of the day systematically refuting all your claims about evolution and abiogenesis, but you clearly have very little understanding of the subject and you appear to be looking for converts rather than answers. If you want to question evolutoin, go ahead. But please do some research first. Walk your bridges before you burn them down. If you still have questions after reading a couple of books about evolution, ask them again.

Answer 8

It is both a fact (species change over time - scientific fact) and a theory (evolution by natural selection is currently the best theory to explain the facts, though it is also known that other factors are important such as genetic drift and geographical separation).

Answer 9

If you have a degree in chemistry, then you should know what a scientific theory is, and why saying that evolution is "just a theory" does not make it invalid.

Also, perhaps evolution was God's way of creating everything. Maybe that single cell or single protein was God's way of getting everything started.

Like I always say, just because something is not in the Bible, does not mean it isn't true or didn't happen.

Answer 10

God created some animals to adapt themselves to their situations and surroundings, then came a know all called man who decided he didn't need god anymore so created this theory which was only to make himself more important and to demeanor other men by saying they were closer to apes than him.
The theory of evolution has been disproved time after time,scientists have found that cromagnon man and homosapien were coexisting on this planet for a long time , and it was homosapien that killed off cromagnon man so were's the evolution in that,sorry to disapoint a lot of people out there but GOD RULES ,as he has allways done and man for all his vast knowledge still hasnt learned much, but to chase red herrings.

Answer 11

If I were you, I would get my money back for your college where you got your science degree. You forget the 4 BILLION years of evolution it took for all life to evolve. Modern day apes, monkeys AND humans (yes you) all evolved from the same branch of evolution. Why is it so hard for people to accept that evolution thru NATURAL SELECTION is realy? It really happened. All life on this planet shares a common chemical heritage. Even you should know this, all life is made of 4 basic ingredients, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon. We may not look much like oak trees or slime mold but at it's heart, we are exactly the same.