I know a lot of you have never cracked a science book in your life of your own volition and I can bet that the vast majority of the eyes that see this page will begin to glaze over before they read the first paragraph of it, but here is 29+ evidences for evolution, hopefully someone will be bothered to try to educate him/herself on the position of the scientific consensus, then come back with an educated idea as to what it is, and I am prepared to have a highly civilized debate about it's merits.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Read ^

-------
"I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me....I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."- Albert Einstein

Stupid people are Stupid people regardless of their religious/spiritual convictions.

Ignorence is something universal, not simply a creationist phenomina...

------

I'm an Atheist - I beleive in Science.

All the proof I need to cary on beleiving in evolution is in your post itself - Some bloke has 29 proofs - and that is ALL i need - The blokes name, What the proofs are, Is simply not neccessary .

I You accept the Lord and the Bible and God make micircles, heals people, etc why the hell isn't "some retard rolling around speaking in 'tongues' " proof of their convictions?

-------
The truth is what money can be made from a lie.

---

ev·o·lu·tion (ĕv'ə-lū'shən, ē'və-)
n.

Biology. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

---

Since not all organisms reproduce, natural selection exists.  Given the way our reproductive system works, it logically follows that evolution simply  must exist.  I wish more people realized this.  It shouldn't even be a subject of debate.  

Common descent is more "debatable", but it shouldn't be confused with evolution.

---

All the proof I need to cary on beleiving in evolution is in your post itself - Some bloke has 29 proofs - and that is ALL i need - The blokes name, What the proofs are, Is simply not neccessary .

I You accept the Lord and the Bible and God make micircles, heals people, etc why the hell isn't "some retard rolling around speaking in 'tongues' " proof of their convictions?

---

I don't understand.

-------
http://www.golivewire.com/forums/peer-yatapys-support-a.html

---

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

22% chose creationism
17% opted for intelligent design
48% selected evolution theory
and the rest did not know.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

Not only do 22% actually feel creationism best describes their views, but 44% said creationism should be included in the national science curriculum.

I'm all for teaching creationism in the curriculum, just not lying about it.

-------
Massive, epic adventure, multi-coloured, multi-layered.
Sort of two/three dimensional Wizard of Oz for the future.

(Edited by EBTX at 1:43 pm on Feb. 1, 2006)

- I'm ignorant

- I speak in tongues

- I've likely never cracked a science book

- Because I believe in creation, I reject evolution

- I am a dumbf***

I know those things weren't directed specifically at me, but it says something about what perceptions people have.

I, for one, don't find any of the above statements true about myself. Also, as a rather active member in the Christian community, I have found very few people who exhibit even one of these characteristics, let alone all of them.

Sure, you see a few nutjobs on the internet trying to promote a hard-line literalist Biblical interpretation of everything, but I urge you to look beyond the extreme fringes of Christian thought.

In general, these types of arguments make me nauseous. Making degrading statements about certain masses of people without regard to reality isn't really my thing.

-------
When a man leaves his darkness, he follows the Son.

---

Common descent is a theory.  Evolution is not a theory.  They're not the same thing.  As such, we don't need 29, or any number, of evidences for evolution, because evolution is defined such that it is perfectly observable:  

---

Evolution IS a theory, gravity is a theory, abiogenesis and panspermia are hypotheses and intelligent design is probably a conjecture. There are no facts in science.

-------
"I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me....I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."- Albert Einstein

---

All the proof I need to cary on beleiving in evolution is in your post itself - Some bloke has 29 proofs - and that is ALL i need - The blokes name, What the proofs are, Is simply not neccessary .

I You accept the Lord and the Bible and God make micircles, heals people, etc why the hell isn't "some retard rolling around speaking in 'tongues' " proof of their convictions?

---

I don't understand.

I'm sure it would have helped if I had used some grammar, and spelling...and shit.

but the basic point is rather simple.

-Once you have already accepted what is "truth" then it takes very little to convince/prove you were right.

I.e.

Evolution is true - You have 29 proofs??? -i won't read them, but i will believe you anyway.

i hear that these Proofs have been scientifically accepted and peer-reviewed I trust them - without even bothering to read what they say.

it is the same for someone with religious convictions - you already believe God touches people, helps, heals, saves, etc, etc........I already believe all that - which means IT TAKES VERY LITTLE FOR ME TO "PROVE" I'M RIGHT.

it is only when facts and figures, opinions, explanations etc don't support your side that you start to give them a hard time -

QED -

A branch Falls From a Tree

random voice :- "GOD DID IT!"

MAN A: - WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON? THE BRANCH FELL BECAUSE OF GRAVITY"

MAN B ; "Nonetheless, Gravity or no Gravity it is quite plausible God made it fall"

Now, If you happen to disbelieve in God your going to heckle Man B moreso than Man A

meanwhile if you believe Your going to stand Up for Man B - because in the long run, science only explains the way "God Works"

-------
The truth is what money can be made from a lie.

*cricket*

That's what I thought.

Parts of evolution have holes, sure, but if holes are a reason to not believe, then creationism should be nothing more then a joke considering the huge problems it has.

In all likelyhood, the true answer is some combination of the two, disregarding much of the story, faith based ideas and relying more heavily upon emperical evidence.

-------
Operation Terminus Apocalypse is a Go.
Winner of the Monthly Funny Award Goes to
prisoner of hss!!!!

Beforehand, I must mention that I have no religious affiliation, so when I speak of Christianity, it is purely from an outsider's perspective.

Now about evolution, it is a perfectly plausible scientific theory. There is a tremendous amount of evidence to support it and in no way do I doubt its validity.

But what's important to remember here is that by virtue of its definition, evolution as a process requires living things (living things evolve). Living things here are defined as anything containing DNA.  
Point is that carbon molecules can't evolve.

This is where the creationism part comes in. Creationism itself is an explanation of the origins of life (when I speak of creationism I'm referring to Intelligent Design). It is possible that the first DNA chains, conditions for life, matter, etc. were created from Intelligent design. Evolution took on from there. That is one theory on the origins of life. Another is that it simply was a fluke. Either way they are compatible with evolution. To say that evolution was the sole "creator" of life is implausible, as I have mentioned before I do not think carbon molecules can evolve. Evolution requires replication and agents that replicate.
 
This brings me to the Christian view of creationism.
As far as my understanding goes, the Christian creation myth states that God created man and all the animals, and so on, we all know the story. This story seems very implausible (for obvious reasons), and I would presume should be taken as a metaphor (much like most of the Bible). Christians who believe this creation myth are at best naive in my opinion.  

Nevertheless, Intelligent Design has plausible elements, but is separate from evolution. Therefore they are compatible.

(Edited by thrive in bliss at 11:01 pm on Feb. 1, 2006)

-------
Sing with me, sing for the years
Sing for the laughter and sing for the tears

And I did a project on this last year. Here is my conclusion:

- Information that I gathered from sources and the survey were interesting because of the variety of views
- Difficult to find one accurate theory because the different arguments between both sides will always result in new points being brought up, rebuttals included
- Continue to remain a mystery for those wanting solid evidence, at least for the time being where no breakthroughs have been come across
- Ultimately, is up to a person’s personal choice and faith to decide

And for me, its creationism.

-------
All hope was fading... a darkness far beyond their might
But love came crusading on the wings of healing sacrifice

---

Either way they are compatible with evolution.

---

But that view is contridictory to what ID is currently stating. Basically you're arguing that ID is responsible for abiogenesis, and that evolution did the rest. ID is stating that the entire process from abiogenesis to modern life was the cause of ID.
  

---

Nevertheless, Intelligent Design has plausible elements, but is separate from evolution. Therefore they are compatible.

---

Only if you remove about 95% of what ID currently states.

-------
Operation Terminus Apocalypse is a Go.
Winner of the Monthly Funny Award Goes to
prisoner of hss!!!!

---

Sadly Britons are dumbfucks too...

---

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

22% chose creationism
17% opted for intelligent design
48% selected evolution theory
and the rest did not know.

---

---

I'm going to agree, but my reason is different than you might think. The question is about the origin and development of life. Evolution does not cover origin. Poll makers = dumb :(

To Frost:

Your viewpoint is disgusting. "People argue about it, so we can't get any consensus, it's up to faith."

Frost, there is consensus. The dissent amongst the people who have degrees in the relevant fields is negligible. The arguments provided by the dissenters are laughable. At best, they take some time looking for a counter-example to disprove (nylonase! Wooo!).

There is no real, meaningful argument.

There is a handful of educated people who are wrong being used to validate the pre-existing views of people who couldn't find their ass with two hands and a flashlight when it comes to biology.

-------
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

Quote: from thrive in bliss at 6:01 pm on Feb. 1, 2006

---

Either way they are compatible with evolution.

---

But that view is contridictory to what ID is currently stating. Basically you're arguing that ID is responsible for abiogenesis, and that evolution did the rest. ID is stating that the entire process from abiogenesis to modern life was the cause of ID.  

---

I consider myself to be a proponent of Intelligent Design and what you refer to is exactly what I believe. I recognize evolution for its superior explanation of the progression of life, but hold a belief the there is a God behind all of it somewhere, not necessarily having a direct hand in anything in the evolutionary process.

I don't think there is a set "ID doctrine" that you must adhere to.

-------
When a man leaves his darkness, he follows the Son.