Why people fake evidences to support evolution theory??
488576
Why do people fake evidence to try and prove the bible...???? same reasons Im sure
1036079
read this and diside for you self \nIt's understandable why some people think that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, but how is saying that complex life forms arose spontaneously from molecules floating around in the sea any more plausible than myth? There is no proven mechanism by which molecules can give rise to simple organisms that later give rise to more complex ones like dinosaurs, just because evolution can happen among very closely related species. A single mutation\nhas very little chance of benefiting an organism, so the chances that millions of organisms can have the right combination of mutations to adapt to their environment is pretty much none. If you try to write a working code for a computer program by wildy mashing buttons, you will not make any progress even if you had all the time in the world. Evolution is the default theory based on process of elimination, for lack of a better explanation without using religion. Evidence of evolution or religion doesn't always have to exclude the other.
1064729
Scientists (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\nLet me turn your question around, if (as many claim here) 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/) and find out for yourself.
1103745
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AskXuePpa94gGx4SZ6MNFDfsy6IX?qid=20060614234609AACFh0S\n\nCheck out fs, pastorJ and ddead_alive's comments. One of them actually included the infamous "banana argument," which, unbeknownst to creationists, is the laughing stock of intelligent people everywhere.\n\nAnd also: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkEkeuFumUCm_Sh38t1sUXzsy6IX?qid=20060611215843AAGeScT\n\nI provided scientific evidence refuting jayslug's idiotic claims, and he admitted that he completely ignored them, so I reiterated my scientific stance in the "Add a comment" part.\n\nAnd personally, I'm going to vomit if I have to read the word "evolutionist" one more time. The word is "scientist." Also, I'll hurl if I hear one more person say that there is no evidence for evolution, there is no science behind evolution, it is just a theory (which means it is accepted as a fact by the scientific community), and will never be proven (no theory in the history of science has been "proven").\n\nEdit (To Jackson): The "cop-out" theory that the universe has always existed is the most scientific and logical theory, and is accepted by most scientists. Due to the law of conservation of mass and energy, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and therefore, the matter that comprises the universe has always existed.\n\nAs far as the "life from lifelessness" goes, I'm guessing that you are unfamiliar with the famous Miller-Urey experiments, in which it was found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be produced from non-living elements. I would suggest you educate yourself before asking stupid questions. Start here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey\n\nEdit (To g2gtech): I'm not totally sure (or at all sure) that this guy understands what the fossil record is, how minuscule of a time 500 years is in a geological sense, and, well, this person's last point is completely irrelevant to any evidence that I've ever heard regarding the theory of evolution.\n\nEdit (To birddawg): I would be highly interested in seeing your sources for the Albert Einstein quote, because I happen to have a few works of his, and he was an atheist.\nFrom The Princeton University Press:\n\n"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this but expressed it quite clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."\n\nAnd from The New York Times:\n\n"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."\n\nAnd from The New York Times Magazine, in an article entitled "Religion and Science":\n\n"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."\n\nAnd as far as other famous scientists go, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, Thomas Alva Edison, Sigmund Freud, Francis Crick, James Watson, Richard Feynman, Albert Schweitzer, Ernst Mayr, Charles Proteus Steinmetz and Thomas Szasz are all either atheists, or highly skeptical of the idea of god and
1143322
yes as many religious zelots do not want to apressiate the way science works...         scientists dont just read in a book like its dogma...    they come up with a theory or hypothosys, and then test it.   skepticism is what rules science...   if you have something you want to prove, you need lots of evidence..  and then others also have to gather evidence and present it before it becomes proven as a law.   The reason evolution is still a theory goes to show the true beauty of the scientific prosses, untill it is difinativly proven it will stay as that.   Religon on the other hand just tells...  they dont test, they dont scrutinize, they say tell how it is...    how is that a more trustworthy system?   sure I could say that a majical lepricon that lives in the trees makes the oxigen we breath, but I would be totally wrong,   why becuase I just made it up!!!  I didnt test the idea, and no one else independantly verified my findings...    yes evolution has some holes, but don't come along and say that a majical white robed man in the sky is a better explination!   evolution is the best theory out there, and it has been verified in many ways that lead alot of scientist to beleive its true...  and again the true beauty of science is that if somthign better comes along, it will be soon adopted, unlike religious zelots who will not change their mind if the truth was right in front of their face!\n\n\nand to the man that said evolution violates laws!  it does not violate laws of thermodynamics you douch!  damn you fools piss me off!  If it clearly violated a law it would have been rejected long ago, unless there was evidence as to why this was true.....dont use science to back up your claims of religon you make yourself sound like an idiot!    GOD violates the laws of thermodynamics!
1104157
Good job!\n The timelines are the key to the fallacies in the Evolution THEORY! Oh, did I mention that it IS a THEORY?\n\n Who created the timelines anyway? Scientists.\nThe reason evolution has to REMAIN a theory is because there is no human eyewitness documentation of the timelines...\n\nThis is exactly why every time an Athiest Scientist sets out to prove the Bible wrong....they end up becoming Creation Scientists! Because, if they are TRUTHFUL there IS NO evidence to support Darwins' claims.\n\nCheck it ALL out on...\n\nwww.answersingenesis.org   ~Ken Ham(from Australia)\n\nwww.drdino.com  ~Kent Hovind (American)\n\nBoth of these men have EXTENSIVE info on this subject\n\nYou can find everything you need there and other
1154023
That response from gimpalomg was kinda disrespectful. Evolution is a waste of time. It tries to disprove something that cannot be disproved. Evolution is baseless, unfounded and a big scientific hoax to sway believers into thinking that science answers such questions. Evolution is circular reason. You say the earth couldn't possibly be 10000 years old max, I ask why, u'd probably bring up some evolution based theory that attemot to explain away the truth, which is the bible, but for now, I won't be forcing those doctrines down ur throat =D. \n\nThibnk about the bible for a second. The flood would explain so many things that science fails to answer such as the extinction of dinasuars, they're too big to fit on an arc.  Bare in mind that dinasuars are simply reptiles we see tody except that everything had the ability to live longer, if you want to explore that theory look it up because I promised not to use circular reasoning. the flood would explain why fish remains are ound on every mountain peak. It would explain why there was a "nomadic" time period in that time. And sooo obvious to us, it would explain what the heck a huuuge arc is doing on mount Ararat, which by the way was picke dup by NASA satellites. It should be noted that the bible states that Noah's arc rested atop mount Ararat. \n\nLastly, Evolution should not be in text books. The theory is warped an d blown aout of proprtion. I believe there are six major theories that compose the entire science of evolution. Only 1 uno theory hasbeen proved. That theory is microevolution which states that some organisms have the power to make themselves evolve MINOR CHANGES i.e Darwin's discovery of natural selection (longer beaks vs. shorter beaks etc.). This is GREAT, sure, except that the other theories cannot be proven but some have been disproven, there's something they don't always include in text books. Macroevolution which is the level above Microevolution comprises of the theory that species make huge changes over time such as extra limbs, DNA changes etc, again, not proven, even disproven by "vestigial" organs... aren't we supposed to evolve by GAINING other parts, not losing them. Buut scioentiest insist on using vestigial organs as the tailbone... guess WHAT ppl, it's not vestigial; you try walking around without it then try calling ir vestigial ,it serves a purpose. &#92;\n\non to the whole age thing. The earth is more likely to be 10000 years max than millions. According to the evolutionary theory, dinasuars became extinct MILLIONS of years ago. How much time does it take for flesh to decompose? I'm thinking FAR less than a million years. Why then are red blood cells still being found in dinasuar remains? The best answer is that the earth could NEVER be nearly as old as we think it is. I also want to point out thaT the earth is usually dated by ratioactive dating, which, in itself, is VERY unreliable. Research Radioactive dating accuracy and find the fact. The dates are beyond the level of being off, scientists know this. All they do is find a formula which is closest to the actual date even if it is millions of years inaccurate. Don't believe me? Research it yourself. \n\nEvolution is something that has been put in textbooks to simply explain away religious doctrines they feel are impossible. If you do your research like I did, you will easly see that evolution is no more true than Roman mythology\n\nAnd one dangerous thing we seem to be doing. The bible is NOT all symbolic.  That is REALLY dangerous. If i told u that the wings of the eagle stretched far beyond my reach then went on to recap yesterdays events, would you beleive that all of what I said was symbolic. How symbolic can anything be. The bible is literal at times. If you want to read the prophecies in the bible about the establishment of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, the aliance os powers against Israel and it literally being sur
712021
It's not a one to one thing, it has to do with filling niches and common ancestors.\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.
940419
They grab onto anything they can that seems like it could discredit evolution, because ID is a non-argument. They don't want to understand what a theory is, they just want to point out that it is different from a fact. Of course, there is an even larger qualitative difference between ID and fact ... hehe.
987774
It's the best scientifically tested explaination that we have.  Believe me, scientists aren't so eager to fall into line as you might think.  If someone could get recognition by scientifically disproving the theory of evolution to any great extent, it will be done.
392062
to go both ways on this, no, it's not a fake.  and evolution can be proven all the way back to the very beginning of life, this just being one example.  the only thing that can't truly be proven is how that first spark of life actually happened.\nand to go for the religious side of the world, at what point does it say in evolution that we developed all the higher brain functions that seperate us from animals?  isn't it possible that that is where god intervenes and life as we know it begins?\npersonally, i don't actuall have any answers, and i don't feel like arguing about it, because every truth we know is a truth for an individual.  it's how we view the world and what's in it that sets the truths we live by.
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.
522543
There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution, and none I have seen disputing it at all- There are gaps in the evidence, but there is no evidence directly *against* the theory.  Originally it was thought that evolution happened in a slow, steady, manner-but fossil evidence mounted that disputed that view, and thus the theory was refined, so that now we know it generally occurs more rapidly when there is major climactic change, leaving different environments, creating new ones, killing off of existing species which creates empty niches for new animals to fill.  Most arguments against evolution depend on areas where there is lack of evidence, not on evidence that disputes the theory.  \nThe first evidence was Darwin's observations that birds adapted genetically to different environments, a process that is, in fact, slow and steady.\nThen the geological and physical evidence that the Earth was actually billions, not thousands, of years old meant that there was plenty of time for evolution.\nThen the morphilogical evidence of relatedness.\nThis theory also explained the many vestigial structures found in animals, such as the tiny hipbones in snakes\nIt was well documented and accepted by the early 1900's-THis theory predicted that there would be a close correlation of genetic patterns with morphology, and predicted that there would be vestigial genes in animals.  It also predicted that all forms of life would share certain genes, and that closely related species would have closely related, but slightly different, genes.  All of these predictions were shown to be true.\nEvolution also predicted that structure such as wings would have evolved at some point with a different function, since evolutionary mutations that are beneficial (less than 1 in 100,000) would tend to make small changes, and one could not expect a lizard to bear baby lizards with full-blown wings.  THus, the structures that become wings would be expected to have had some other function, and eventually evolved into wings.  For many structures, such as wings and eyes, these early purposes have been determined.\nRapid evolution, especially under conditions of stress, is seen in bacteria and other one-celled animals.  Because the theory states that it would require thousands of generations to observe evolution in action, only bacteria and other very rapidly dividing organisms can be tested for evolutionary changes that we can actually see.\nThus, the theory effectively explains animal and plant diversity, the predictions that the theory made were shown to be true, the fossil, genetic, and morphological data from the past support the theory, and it has been demonstrated to occur in the only animals that it could be demonstrated in, bacteria.\nFor a theory about how things have occurred over the last few billion years, when we cannot actually "see" it occuring, when it has happened over a span of time far beyond our historical records, this is an overwhelming and nearly indisputable amount of evidence.\n\nThe theory does not predict that animals will become "better" over time, just that any genetic mutation which increase the viability and number of offspring will tend to change the species- Remember, the theory of evolution is only one of biochemistry, genetics, and environmental interactions- It is not a philosophy, religion, or value system- Evolution does not make value judgements, does not plan or think or even care- it is merely a physical process like a rock falling down a hill.
750492
Well, tell them that those structures have evolved several distinct times and distinct ways, including eyes nine times.  It sertainly is not direct proff of any kind of creation, and it is more supportive of common shared lineages.\n\nLook, god could make everyone 100 feet tall covered in purple pokadots, right?  It's god, it can do whatever it wants because it is magic or devine or whatever.\n\nTell them every 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.
742009
Did you ever take into consideration that both theories are correct, God created some people and others evolved from apes, look around you and you will be able to see the results of these two phenomenons. People are always wanting to prove or disprove one theory or the other, that accounts for the confusion and hopefully this will clear it up for you and a lot of other people.
352659
Um, spur4eight, sorry but Creation Science is not what most would consider "true science."\n\nPersonally, I don't understand how anybody who knows anything about science can think that "scientists are lying about evolution" or some silly thing like that.  Just go and talk to a scientist.  Go to a university, better yet.  Seems to be about the only place that people actually think anymore...
789435
tell a scientist that a truck can evolve given a billion years and he would say you are foolish.  The same scientist would say you are foolish to say that the theory of evolution is to be believed otherwise you are foolish.  truck is much much much less complicated than even a single celled oraganism. If a scientist can't even agree that a truck can never be made without a creator how in the world can he prove that the whole world with all its extrememly complex designs which are interdependent on each other so much that its so delicately balanced evolved itself? Doesn't that sound more stupid?   plus just because there are a set of evidences that support evolution that does not mean that evolution is proved. just because you see small footprints in the sand you can't conclude it is of a dog, it could be any other animal , hence the conclusions drawn from evidences can't really be conclusive.. whatever you think I can't ever understand evolution though I have really read and seen a lot about it.\n\n-----------------\n\nlol, see its hard to believe a truck could construct itself in a billion years.. taken as a big blunder said by me .. haha..  after all scientists say that evolution did happen through a series of random chances.. so why not a random chance of getting a truck? sounds absurd, huh?  thats the kind of absurdity that even the theory of evolution has because its says that so many things much much more complicated than a simple truck evolved itself from nothing.. I mean from no life. which is really much harder to believe.. and just one sentence out of a whole argument might look stupid, but when you take the whole argument it would not look that stupid. And evolutionary proof is not conclusive.. its only supportive.. there is much difference between supportive and conclusive.. and I am not an ignorant person who simply states without knowing anything, I am really much interested in science and read and see a lot of things..