Not believing in evolution?? I mean, it's clearly right in front of you. Somebody wanna answer me?
136698
I look forward to seeing the bible thumping answers that come from this question. The creationists always make me laugh.
541067
You are looking at evolution incorrectly. It is not progressive and it has no direction. Your question is ill posed.
641916
EVOLUTION IS DUMB! D-U-M-B DUMB! Yeah, so did I tell you that evolution is dumb? If I didn't tell you, let me tell ya again, IT'S DUMB! Well I hope this answers your question...
363704
NO NO NO!!!\n\nThis is about science and the lack of divine intervention.  The reason the planet seems so perfectly balanced is because it had 4.6 Billion years to get here.  A lot can happen in the trial-and-error game in that amount of time.  The earth evolves, life evolves, the only thing that remains stagnent and vestigial is theism.\n\nWhat you proposed is non-science, it is not a testable hypothesis.  Evolution is a tried and true, uber-tested and passed law of life.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
619894
I believe in what you believe it seems. I don't think the evolutionary theory is an excuse though. Satan had to do something to give non-believers a way to think without the Lord in their life.Now the monkey thing may be wierd or stupid,but if you didn't believe in the Lord, what would you believe to prove He doesn't exist?
415097
Ok well, firstly evolution is not my religion and the sole purpose for my existence. Wouldn't be the end of the world if it's not true, though I may lose a lot of my love of nature.\n\nWell... fossils can show that there were creatures similar to creatures we have today (but not the same) that are extinct now. \n\nSkeletons of neanderthal and homo erectus species have been found also, showing that beings very similar to humans have existed and then become extinct. By seeing the brow ridge on these skulls, and the different shape (but without damage and cracking) it is plain to see that these were not skulls bashed in or damaged in any way. \n\nWe also share genes with many other animals and plants. \n\nWe can also see stars billions of light years away. If the planet was only approx 6000 yrs old the light would not have reached the earth yet.\n\nIf you put nutrients in water in a vacuum, amino acids begin to form (I do not know the exact primeval soup experiement, but according to scientists, considering how quickly the amino acids formed, cells could reasonably be believed to form given the millions of yrs this earth has existed.) \n\nAlso, look at our skeletons! Many animals are linked to one another in bone structure etc. Look at a horses legs now - the chestnuts (hardened lumps) used to be their toes but are of no use now, halfway up their legs! Though you may say that is micro-evolution, I disagree. If we had a 6-toed, 3-toed, 4-toed or even 2-toed horselike animal today, I think it would be considered a different species.\n\nHowever, in the end, no one will believe what you tell them to - it is a choice. Christians believed in geocentric astronomy years after copernicus proved our galaxy to be heliocentric. The Bible mentions holding the corners of the world and tossing off sinners and suchlike - if it is G-d's word, surely he would've made it clear that the world was round?\n\nHope you're having a good day, you're asking politely :)\n\nx
282647
The Great Apes, and, no - I've seen nothing that would tell me they have religion. I really don't see what your question has to do with evolution. Are you saying that people that don't believe in evolution also don't believe that there are some animals that are smarter than others?
277111
People have trouble accepting evolution for the same reason they had trouble accepting that the Earth was not flat and was not the center of the universe. The funniest thing is when people claim that creationism has been proven or is fact. It's a fact just like it is a fact that the world is flat. It looks that way so it must be true. Since we can't see evolution it must not exist. I also find it amusing that people think that it makes more sense that women were created from a man's rib than that we are the result of evolution.\n\nI've noticed that many people don't understand the theory of evolution, and essentially use that as a basis to attack it. For example, many people will point out that evolution does not explain the origin of the first cells or where matter came from. No duh it doesn't. It's not supposed to. Evolution explains the origin of the diversity of species, not the origin of life. There are other theories that address that issue, and I don't think any of those are accepted as fact. I do, however, think it's a fair bet that life does in fact exist, so it's perfectly valid to construct a theory that presupposes that life exists.\n\nPeople also misunderstand the concept of a scientific theory. What they fail to realize is that most of science is made up of theories, and while many of these theories have been effectively proven true, they're still called theories. Unlike the common English use of theory, in science a theory is an explanation of facts, which is subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Evolution is called a theory not so much because we're not sure if the basic concepts are accurate, but because we are not confident that every single little detail is perfectly accurate. There may be complexities and details that are not yet fully understood, but the basic idea that species evolve and that the process of evolution has resulted in the diversity of life we see today is basically an established fact.\n\nAnother problem that may be partly to blame for the confusion regarding evolution is the presentation of "scientific evidence" by creationists that the claim contradicts the theory of evolution. I often see misleading and incorrect use of scientific data to "disprove" evolution. For example, on prominent creationist website cites a study John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boomazian which they claim says that the sun has been contracting for 400 years when, in fact, the study examined evidence from under 100 years and extrapolated the rest from a single report of the appearance of a solar eclipse in the 1500s. Furthermore, the study was conducted about 50 years ago, and dozens of studies since then have found that the data was based on flawed methodology and the sun is actually not contracting.\nHere's that site:  http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/418/\nAnd some background on the study they cited:  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html\n\nThe problem is that people read that and believe that evolution has been disprove. I saw someone quote that particular website here on Answers as scientific proof that the theory of evolution was false. The people who wrote the creationist article probably did their research and latched on to the one study that supported their theory, but the people who read it don't know that it is an outdated study, that the conclusion is overinflated (the 400 year thing), or that it contradicts the findings of dozens of more recent and more accurate studies.\n\nApparently the phenomenon of distorting scientific data to further a creationist agenda is fairly widespread. One of my bio profs talked about a particularly egregious example of someone (I don't remember his name) who actually obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology for the expressed purpose of disproving the theory of evolution, and now goes around writing articles that pretty transparent to scientists but are just believable enough to c
47004
>>>>Is God real or did evolution acualy happen?\n\nWe can’t know whether God is real or not. There is no objective evidence for the existence of God, the only evidence exists inside the minds of people. Since gods (and there are more than one) are supernatural and lack any objective evidence they fall outside the scope of science.\n\nDid evolution actually happen? Yes, that’s one thing that all the evidence agrees on.\n>>>>>I seen a story on the news and it was staying how religion in school was not taught because of the evolution therory.\n\nNo, you didn’t. You misunderstood the story on the news.  \n\nReligion is not taught in public schools because the US Constitution says that it can not be taught there. It violates the separation clause. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It has everything to do with that the law quite clearly states.\n\nWhat the story would have actually said was that some attempts to teach religious beliefs as an alternative to evolution are still illegal and unconstitutional because it is still the teaching of religious beliefs.
508987
These are two good reasons for believing in evolution instead of these silly notions. We come from earlier life, through the familiar process of selection, reproduction, and variation. That earlier life comes from even earlier life. At some point in the distant past there was some primitive first life. It came from inorganic matter. \n\nWhere that matter came from is not clear, but we're making progress on understanding that. The leading contender, I believe, is that it DID simply pop into existence. I think that someday we may even understand how that is possible, but I'm confident that no-one today understands it.
124072
Because they have blind faith in creationism.  Nothing you say or do will ever change that.  You could show  mathmatical proof or facts to back up evolution (which I believe exist).\nThey have faith is something they cannot prove.  End of story.
672641
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
584539
Science does NOT state that non-believers are 100% right! There have been and currently are plenty of scientists that have proved that creation is real. You do know that Darwin/big bang are theories right? You are familiar with the definition of theory correct? IF you answered yes, than you must know also that 97% of scientists world wide CANNOT explain how the eye was formed and they have admitted that there is virtually no way that it could have evolved right?
573637
Well, I think so.  I'm a biologist who accepts the fact that evolution occurred, but I don't use that to try to prove that God doesn't exist.  I'm also a born-again Christian who doesn't doubt a single word in the Bible.  Evolution is nothing.  I frankly don't see what the big deal about it is.  The real enemy is Materialism- those pseudoscientists who think the physical universe is all that exists.  That's not the same thing as evolultion.  One can still believe in God and simply think evolution was a tool He used at times.  But you can't be a Materialist and still believe in God at all.  People should understand that they're disputing about a worldview, not about facts.
113044
Gee, that's a tough one.  I'd have to say that being created by an imaginary entity out of a human rib is just a little less likely than processes that have been observed and proven to occur.\n\nI do want to complain a little about your use of "fact" though.  Evolution is a scientific theory.  It's a theory that is supported by a preponderance of scientific evidence, but it's not a "fact," per se.\n\nEvidence for evolution:\n1. Vestigial structures.\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n3. The fossil record.\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n6. Genetic analysis shows similarities among species reflecting evolutionary origins.\n7. Homologous structures.\n8. Many cellular and biochemcial processes are conserved in a variety of species.\n9. Vestigical biochemical pathways (for example, pancreatic cells are light-sensitive even though they are located deep inside the body).\n\nThose are just a few off the top of my head. If you'd like to know more about any of them, just ask.\n\nEvidence for intelligent design:\nUmm... the bible says so?\n\nI think the choice is clear. It's not a question of "belief," but rather of rational thought, reasoning, and examination of evidence.\n\nThat's the short version.  For the long version, click here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmiI9RyGrBhll1SPtvxyucfsy6IX?qid=1006032412355
120195
>A lot of people,including myself and a lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven,in fact most evidence proves otherwise.I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution.There isn't enough evidence to support it.\n\n>Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n•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.\n\n•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.\n\n•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\n\n•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."\n\n•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.\n\n•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: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n•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. \n\n•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.\n\n•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.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n•Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n•The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n•Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n•The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n•New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n•"Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm
584546
Ok, how can you believe in evolution? I mean really, the complexity of animals, and well every living thing, came about by accident!! At least we have the bible that was inspired by God! And was correct about allot of scientific things way before man figured it out!\n\n 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.\n\nAll you have is a theory that we came from nothing!\n\n\nNo, I am not mad, just stating the obvious.\n\n\nloj