Darwin's theory? Are u with or against? why?
407465
certainly against\n\nIf it is correct than why not we found thousands of creatures changing their species daily and why not monketys being converted to human beings daily?
1133442
Actually, Darwin was a religious man who sought to understand the ways in which God did things.  The idea that evolution was created to replace God was not his own.
417910
The theory of gravity is a pretty good theory, but it doesn't answer any of those questions either.  \n\nThe theory of evolution doesn't concern any of those questions either except #9 which is flawed.\n\nAs I see it there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and christian beliefs. God created man...through evolution.  I don't take everything in the bible literally, like the garden of eden story.  That story is not meant to be taken literally.  It is a story to explain something that people couldn't explain at the time Genesis was written.
130469
There seems to be some confusion here. Let's try to define our terms a bit first, before we get nasty, shall we? \n\nEvolution is a scientific theory. It will never be more than a scientific theory. Just like gravity. Gravity is not "proven" or more than a theory. It is just the theory of gravity. \n\nAll a scientific theory is, is an attempted explanation for the evidence we have. A scientific theory is expected to be superceded by a better theory that explains more of the data as more evidence accumulates. \n\nOur current theory of gravity is probably wrong. We will discard it eventually, and replace it. I am sure of it. \n\nOur current theory of evolution is probably wrong too. We will discard it eventually as well, and replace it. \n\nTo the main body of your question:\n\nSince this has been answered repeatedly on talkorigins and other sites, and in fact is even listed as an argument to be avoided by procreationists such as Answers in Genesis, it hardly seems worth addressing here. I have enclosed a link if you want to pursue it further. \n\nActually, I do not believe you are actually sincerely interested in learning anything about the subject at all, but just jeering at people on the other side. However I might make some comments and some misconceptions about Darwin's theory:\n\n1. evolution has very little to do with radioactive dating\n2. evolution in biology has very little to do with the Big Bang\n3. evolution in biology has very little to do with stellar evolution\n4. evolution in biology has very little to do with children growing up and getting taller\n5. evolution in biology is not the same as abiogenesis (self-organizing molecules etc to form life from nonlife)\n6. evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics\n7. Darwin did not renounce evolution on his deathbed in favor of creationism\n8. evolution and creationism are not the only two alternatives to the species we observe\n9. we have observed evolution in action\n10. we make use of evolutionary principles in our work on vaccines etc.\n11. evolution is not a random process\n12. if you look in genesis, there are two separate incompatible contradictory creation accounts\n13. evolution is a scientific theory, just as gravity is a scientific theory. Both are expected to be superceded by something that fits the data better eventually. \n14. evolution makes predictions we can verify\n15. the definition that the intelligent design community wants to use for science is so vague it would include astrology as science, according to admission by intelligent design supporters in court under cross-examination.
870494
These two 'theories' cannot even be considered in the same category. Besides, they deal with different issues entirely and are in no way competing theories that require an either/or designation.  \n\nCharles Darwin explains the mechanisms behind evolution. This applies not just to humans but to every living thing on the planet. There is a wealth of information to support Darwin's postulates and that information does not depend on some ancient astronauts using the earth as a Petri dish to be real. \n\nEven if you want to believe in the von Daeniken idea, that does not preclude the concept of evolution in any way. They really are unrelated. There is no doubt in any real scientist's mind that evolution is a reality and we have even seen it in action. \n\nNow that we have access to DNA and can do side by side comparisons with every living thing on this planet (eventually, once we get them all sequenced), and if we were the product of aliens we would not be as related as we are to EVERYTHING else... \n\nHonestly, I really do not think that the von Daeniken 'theory,' if you can really call it a theory, can stand up to the mounds of evidence that say it is just not a realistic possibility.
283170
A god-fearing fundamentalist named Charles Darwin first theorized on evolution. Here's what he wrote (see ref.):\n....During these two years (March 1837 - January 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come by this time (i.e. 1836 to 1839) to see the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rain-bow as a sign, &c., &c., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than....the beliefs of any barbarian....\n  ....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.\n  And this is a damnable doctrine....\n\nSomehow I suspect he was less "ineduacted" than the questioner...
72267
Most hypothesis for evolutionary mechanisms are not opposed to basic darwinism, rather they're complementary, e.g. punctuated equilibrium.\nI'd say the neutral theory of evolution (by Kimura) is an alternative because it puts the accent on neutral mutations instead of natural selection.
1065700
I would be surprised to find an atheist who did not accept evolution. So as an atheist yes I do accept evolution. I also deny  the existence or supernatural forces.
569910
Adam and Eve - evolution is only a theory which unfotunately doesnt hold up to the same scientific scrutiny as other theories - at best you can call it wishful thinking.
1072242
I don't believe in Darwin's theory because that would be against my religion, Catholic. I believe God created all in one way and each individual is different, not a copy of another that has been changed by "Evolution".
216155
I myself beleive in evolution, I despise the theory of Intelligent Design and I laugh at creationism however I also believe that everyone has a right to their opinion so here are some of the "proofs" you are looking for. \n\nScience Itself Refutes Darwinism \n   \n• "From goo to you by way of the zoo." - Frank Peretti6\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.51\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.51\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, 196663\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."50\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.51\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.51 \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.51 \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.51\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 747.6\n\n• Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n• The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\n\n• Living "Fossils"\n\n• The Cambrian Explosion\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\n\n• "Missing Links"\n\n• There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.   Angler Fish Chicken Egg \n  Beaver Giraffe \n  Black And Yellow Garden Spider Incubator Bird \n  Bombardier Beetle
1025199
Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.\nYet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This \n"intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.\nWe have examined the collapse of the theory of evolution and the proofs of creation in great scientific detail in many of our works, and are still continuing to do so. Given the enormous importance of this subject, it will be of great benefit to summarize it here.\n\n\n(THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM)\n\nAlthough this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions. \nDarwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:\n1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth. \n2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all. \n3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.\n\nThe power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life—time, mud, and chance—is actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.\nIn this section, we will examine these three basic points in general outlines:\n\n\nThe First Insurmountable Step: \n(The Origin of Life)\n\nThe theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" or
1130770
So, what's your problem?\n\nThe text you pasted supports evolutionary science.  Every year more discoveries by archaeologists and paleontologists add more content to support the principles of evolution.\n\nA "theory" is a proposition put to test by empirical study.  In science, very little is considered hard and fact TRUTH - today's truth is usually tomorrow's error.  Evolution is in this sense theoretical, but the evidence all supports it.  And the quote you delivered says that the writer strongly endorses evoltionary science.\n\nThere is NO evidence for alternative concepts, especially that mythology out of some "holy book."\n\nWork on your reading and critical understanding.  You're trying, but you aren't there 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.
332923
I think it's just a random fact that neither proves nor disproves anything.  I do, however, believe in creationism (intelligent design) based on the fact that believing in evolution is the equivalent of watching a tornado rip through a junkyard and expecting a perfectly assembled 747 ready for takeoff.
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.
16854
If you’re a believer in facts, scientific methods, and empirical data, the picture is depressing. \n\nA recent survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Science found that 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism side by side with evolution in the science curriculum of public schools. A near majority—48 percent—do not believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries. Thirty-three percent believe that a general agreement does not exist among scientists that humans evolved over time.