To everyone out there, both evolutionist and non-evolutionist, I give this statement. No matter what side you are debating for, be intelligent and cordial. I know that on both sides of this issue there are people who are not either of these things. In the past I have run into rude and ignorant non-evolutionists as well as evolutionists. On this particular forum, though, as far as I know, you all have done well to be polite and thoughtful. I want to give a special shout-out to Achilles. Though we disagree on this particular topic, he has been polite in our disagreement, and has presented thought-provoking evidence. I have had much pleasure in chatting with him, and with you all, but I no longer am able to continue. Goodbye, and keep up the good work.

Based on the few bones we have of our ancestors, there is no reason to believe that we evolved. It was common practice, for example, among many Native American tribes, to mold the shape of their children's heads over time. Does that mean they evolved? I think not. However, if one of their skulls were found without this knowledge, that conclusion could feasibly be reached. There is a lot of guesswork with bones, since animals were domesticated by humans and thus, in death, the bones would be in the same location. In other words, all the evidence for human evolution is rather shabby guesswork and artist's impressions. Hardly scientific. If it takes millions of years for evolution to occur, then in 4.54 billion years, 4,540 evolutionary forms for any one animal should be present. How many of those forms are assumed to have contained bone matter, or any other hard matter that would have fossilized? I find it interesting that out of all those forms, we have no reliable fossils for evolutionary links. Any fossils we may have are again, guesswork. Out of curiosity, what is your explanation for the Cambrian explosion?

Based on the few bones we have of our ancestors, there is no reason to believe that we evolved. It was common practice, for example, among many Native American tribes, to mold the shape of their children's heads over time. Does that mean they evolved? I think not. However, if one of their skulls were found without this knowledge, that conclusion could feasibly be reached. There is a lot of guesswork with bones, since animals were domesticated by humans and thus, in death, the bones would be in the same location. In other words, all the evidence for human evolution is rather shabby guesswork and artist's impressions. Hardly scientific. If it takes millions of years for evolution to occur, then in 4.54 billion years, 4,540 evolutionary forms for any one animal should be present. How many of those forms are assumed to have contained bone matter, or any other hard matter that would have fossilized? I find it interesting that out of all those forms, we have no reliable fossils. Any fossils we may have are again, guesswork. Out of curiosity, what is your explanation for the Cambrian explosion?

Achilles, I am much impressed. English is my first, and at this point only, language. I could not tell that it was not yours. I hope I am not the first to state that you have clearly mastered it. On a different note, can we really use science to trace back to a specific ancestor, since there are no evolutionary links to connect the dots with? All that science gives us in that respect are multiple animals with a certain similar feature. That is not enough reason to presume that they evolved from a common ancestor, even if some of them appear pointless. I will be the first to say that I do not know everything there is to know about biology, and I do think we as a race have reached the end of our discoveries on the subject. If I may, how long do you think the slow process took? In other words, how old is the earth in your opinion?

While you may have some good points, I again see some critical errors in your reasoning, not counting the fact that I am not seeing any evidence for abiogenesis in your post. Just because we do not know the purpose of the dewclaw on dogs and the finger on the emu does not mean it has no purpose. While it may be considered circumstantial evidence for your claim, it is nothing more. You say a couple sentences about science, all of which I agree with heartily. However, you seem to think that evolution is the result of this science, whereas it has never been observed outside of microevolution. There is no indicator that macroevolution (what I assume you are referring to when you say evolution) ever occurred. Science really has no evidence for it outside of possibilities. On a bit of a side note, I am curious, what branch of evolutionist thought do you hail from, the gradualist side or the punctualist side?

Achilles, I find what you say quite interesting. So you do not find Answers in Genesis to be convincing. Whether that is with the information presented or with your biases on the information remains to be seen, but that aside, your post contains a couple of errors. You state that the creation of the world is irrelevant to the issue, yet in your last sentence you ask where life came from if not evolution. You have your answer, but you deem it irrelevant. I do, however, agree with you that we are physically animals. We are Homo Sapiens, and primates. However, that is no reason to assume that we are descended from lower forms. You also seem to think that abiogenesis has proven that life can come from non-life. I must point out that science is not capable of proving anything. It is by nature limited by our observation skills, and what can be measured. Thus, every scientific result, no matter how supported, is tentative. more information on Abiogenesis can be found here: http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html. I notice you ask, which god? That is a good point. Every religion that has a god would claim some form of Creation. The God I mean, though, is the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.

I am very interested in this subject. I know for a fact that evolution does have multiple arguments in its favor, as well as against it. I have read multiple posts, and though I am new to this topic, perhaps I may be able to deal with a couple of them. I apologize that I do not have the time at the moment to deal with all of the posts that I want to deal with. First things first: My friend, I understand where you come from, and what you say has truth. However, how do you know that those "basic rules" are the best rules if you do have an opinion on their source. Did they evolve, or were they designed by a God in order to protect His children from their sin nature? This is an important question, one I believe is in your best interest to answer. Why is this an important question? If these basic guidelines evolved, then they will change further, resulting in an evolution of ethics. If they are evolving, how do you know that you even have a correct view on ethics. However, If they were created by God, who is unchanging, then that explains how religions that are thousands of years old still retain those rules of living. If God created these rules, they will not evolve. This argument contains two errors. The post was, however, a large piece of text, so I narrowed it down to the paragraph with the errors. Achilles1233, you claim that there is no solid evidence against evolution. The way you word this, it sounds like that is a reason for believing in evolution. I would contest that by pointing out that that is by itself irrelevant. It was not that long ago that evolution was in a similar fix, lacking "missing links", which are still missing. That did not dissuade scientists trying to prove evolution, so I see no reason for it to dissuade scientists who are against evolution. Second, there is evidence against evolution. Sources like http://www.answersingenesis.org/ have a lot of evidence against your claim. While you may not agree with it, it does nonetheless show your error in claiming that there is none.