Do anyone believe in evolution theory?
117524
I do... and so does the Pope.\n\nhttp://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-10T181257Z_01_L10652640_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-POPE-SCIENCE.xml&archived=False\nhttp://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html
1062864
Yes it's a theory. 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. 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).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith 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.\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nNearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time, an interval of some 5 million years (about 525 to 530 million years ago) called the "Cambrian Explosion.\n\nScientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today.\n\nMany of the Cambrian fauna, still survive today, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, comments, "... We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.\n\nTwo places in the world that have an abundance of early (Cambrian) fossils; the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies and the Chengjiang site in China.\n\nIn Stephen J. Gould's popular book, Wonderful Life, he points out that the Burgess Shale Cambrian fossils include "a range of disparity in anatomical design never again equaled, and not matched today by all the creatures in the world's oceans.\n\nFurther, these fossils contain some twenty to thirty kinds of arthropods*** that cannot be placed in any modern group. The modern arthropods, consisting of almost a million species, can all fit into four major groups. But "one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than twenty additional arthropod designs." Today there are about 38 phyla in existence, but the Canadian, Chinese and other Cambrian sites reveal over fifty phyla.\n\nThere has been a decrease in diversity (probably due to global catastrophes). This is the reverse of what evolutionary theory predicts.\n\nBesides diversity, the Burgess Shale shows exquisite detail, right down to "the last filament of a trilobite's gill," or the last meal in a worm's gut.\n\nThe Chengjiang site has even greater detail, and is earlier. According to Paul Chien, the chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, said the preservation is such that internal organs, nerves, and even the water ducts of jellyfish are observable.\n\nResearchers found striking similarities between the compound eyes of the Cambrian trilobites and those of modern insects. 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.\n\nThe conclusion is that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record. Obviously, this is not predicted by evolutionary theory.\n\nUntil recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. But not now! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian pe
617128
I think the fossil record is the most convincing evidence we have for evolution.  Granted, it does have a few holes, but the holes aren't nearly as large as the holes in the Bible.  \n\nAnd as far as the comment made by Stand goes - evolution is such a slow process.  Just because we don't see evolution occurring, doesn't mean it's not going on behind the scenes.  I have heard some arguments that evolution of humans has stopped because we don't have the environmental pressures we used to - we use technology to ensure that "everyone" survives.  This is somewhat ludicrous, however, because this theory comes from the point of view of a person living in a first world country.  What about the billions living in third world countries?  Do they have the advantages of technology?  Also, what about the other forms of selection, such as sexual selection?  Truth be told, there are approximately 4.2 "important" amino acid mutations per generation, and since the technical definition of evolution is 'the change in the gene pool of a population over time', we are definitely still evolving - just not in visible ways.  Yet.
291165
Yes. I am a firm creationist, and speak out against evoulutionists reguarly. \n\nGo to drdino.com for more info on how creation is supported by facts, and how evolution is supported by assumptions.
654030
No and it was never claimed to be true by Darwin or evolutionary scientists.  This is part of the misinformation spread about evolutionary theory.\n\nThe theory of evolution supports the idea that monkeys and humans have common ancestors.  And likewise that all life on earth evolved from common ancestors if you go back far enough.
69537
Conclusive no, it's still a theory. However, in 2005 probably more than any other year, the theory has received it most compelling validation through DNA analysis.\n\nComparison of DNA between species is mapping out a family tree which matches what the theory of evolution predicts.
251702
Genetics. And Darwins theory.
1101597
No you are not.  There are several theories to evolution.  Some are compatible with Christianity, some are not.  Belief in anyone of them, even if a wrong one, is not serious enough to get you damned (unless it causes you to act in certain ways that are contrary to the Christian life.)  Remember belief is only part of salvation, you have to do something with your belief.\n\nAs a note:  If you read Genesis Ch 1 in Hebrew you will notice that the verb that is used for "God created..." switches back and forth from having God as its exclusive object to being a more open ended.  The verb that means "God personally did the creating" is applied at the beginning of creation and at the creation of man.  The other verbs are along the lines of "called forth from" an indication that while God willed certain creation to be so, it was the process of creation (ie evolution) that actually formed that which was created.\n\nAlso you should know that certain theories of evolution have a long and strong history within Christianity.  Look up the Monk Gregory Mendel and his studies on genetics.  Also you should be aware that Catholics had an idea of evolution millennia before Darwin.\n\nLet me quote at length from FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA\n\n1.  The materialist doctrine of evolution...is contrary to Revelation.\n\n2.  The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God's causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem forms (doctrine of descent), according to God's plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation.  However, as regards to MAN, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul.  Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures.  Proceeding from the assumption that God creates everything at one time (cf. Ecclus. 18.1), they taught that God brought a certain part of His creation into existence in a finished state, while He created others in the form of primitive seeds (rationes, seminales, or causales) from which they were gradually to develop.  Those Fathers and Schoolmen who accepted a development, conceived a development of the individual species of living things each from a particular primitive form created by God;  but modern theories of evolution (descendent theory) conceives that development as from one species to another.  According as these give priority to evolution from a plurality of original forms or from one single stem-form (primitive form) one speaks of a many-stemmed (polyphyletic) or single-stemmed (monophyletic) development.  From the stand point of the doctrine of evolution, either form is possible.
340615
Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven, in fact most evidence proves otherwise. A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory. I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution because there isn't enough evidence to support it. Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\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 \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle
1164641
By God of course.  Every other belief is just a theory withouth any proof.  The proof that we were created by God is not only the Bible but everything around us.  It makes no sense to believe in evolution, because why has evolution taken a break for a very long time? Huh!  Charles Darwin was a scumbag, I bet he got hit with that evolutionary rock multiple times.
1155438
evolution doesn't exist...
295216
I do believe in evolution because that just means cahanges over a period of time but,i don't believe in darwins theory of evolution or the big bang.people who are "scared" of believing in creation are looking for excuses.i don't know about sedementary rock except what my tutor  and teacher tells me.
124342
I am a Christian, and I believe the world was created by God. Every finest detail was His idea.\n\nLet me staff my point. Scientist of today believe in evolution. This theory states that everything you see today was created by chance. It states that right in the beginning, a little one-cell'ed animal fell into the ocean by accident. This animal started to grow and learned to swim and to have kids. Later on, it found out that it could live on land, and (over millions of years) grew feet to walk on. The evolution process went through all the different stages of animal life, and at last humans came into existence.\n\nMy first objection towards this is that, if humans were evolved, two humans had to be "evolved" or "born" at the very same time for humans to continue to exist. It is insane to think that mankind came from only the evolution of one man. There had to be a number of men which "evolved" at the very same time. Now that is a lot asked.\n\nI want to tell you a story which Sir Isaac Newton used to prove that evolution is false. One day, one of his friends (a devout evolutionist) was sitting at Sir Isaac's desk. Sir Isaac was busy doing some work. The friend was busy admiring a very beautiful model of the universe which stood on Sir Isaac's table. \nThe friend then asked, "Who made this thing?"\n"No one," replied Sir Isaac bluntly.\n"No, really, tell me who made this thing. It is very beautiful." said the friend.\nTo which Sir Isaac replied, "All the pieces of that model were just lying around here, and they all just started to drift toward each other, and one day when I came here, this beautiful thing was standing on my desk!"\n\nI think Sir Isaac really answered the question.\n\nHope I helped you out on that one...
90759
yes I do. There is scientific evidence that we evolved from primates. I don't believe one man pointed his finger *boom* man was created. There was life before Christ, what makes anyone think it was Christ Himself that put the life here afterwords? \nBible thumpers are going to be all over me for this, but why should I believe a book? For all anyone knows, a really drunk author could have written the bible. I mean look at Scientology.. someone invented that religon. Completely made it up! And look at all of the followers. \nIf I was alive 2000 years ago and wrote a book about worshipping grasshoppers, would we all be praying to the 'almighty hopping insect'? \nSadly, no one will know if there is a God or not untill it is our time to go. \nI don't think we have to praise Him in order to go somewhere nice after death. As long as we are good people and live our life to the fullest, we will be happy in death.\n\nAnd 1 more thing: how come we can dig up fossils from dinosaurs (BC), but nothing to back up anything the bible says (AD)?
397382
I also understand evolution to be true.\nWe "paint" God as a man becaue we have no other understanding. We are only human after all.
444517
Evolution is fact.  Think about it.
1003027
Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution Expert) himself said it best: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation [God], and that is unthinkable." \n\nWhat proof do we have of evolution? None at all.  One responder said you were "simplistic"...another cited the "proof" of amino acids.  Any honest/knowledgeable inquirer would recognise that those were VERY simplistic answers.  He wrote "Next comes single cells...".  Wow!  That was an easy transition...and where/how does he maintain the possibility of that? Those do nothing to support their theory, but I guess its all they've got.\n\nWhile we struggle to find the elusive "missing link", in reality there are missing links between every species. How does DNA suddenly decide to produce something other than it is programmed for? Where did those first single celled creatures come from? Where did the matter for the "big bang" come from? \n\nThere is no proof that you are reading this letter as a result of an explosion 14 billion years ago. The evolutionist accepts that origin by "faith", just as the believer accepts our Creator by faith.  However, the current scientific evidence does not support evolutionary theory, rather, it refutes it.  Why does is live on?  Because in the effort to find the origin of life outside of God, its all they've got.