ShaftyWafty, but the answer above is probably correct...

Biology and math are probably my two favorites. Physics and chemistry are also what I like to learn about.

?

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=184805&p=3269218 Gave a few examples there. False analogy, a watch cannot self replicate with variety since it's not a living organism.

There is no micro-evolution, that only exists with the creationists. But either way, macro/micro evolution is the same thing just different time span. Basically when you add up micro evolution you get macro. So if you believe in one happening, you believe in the other.

There's no point in talking with a person who will rather trust a book written thousands of years ago over science. If his belief is so strong that nothing will change it's completely close minded. At that point I just stop responding.

Is there a way to prove you wrong?

Why would you want that? The better response would be to ask him questions about what you don't accept in evolution and see if he can clarify them.

Doglover?

Unfortunately, it seems I won't be able to watch the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate because of my timezone... Hopefully I'll find a recording of it somewhere.

Either way, there's no need to impose a moral law giver (god/s) in order to make a moral argument/teaching.

Well, I didn't want to be so direct about it, but yea... Of course it makes a difference. Take your medical doctor studies for example; in past times demons were thought to create sickness and plagues, now we have the germ theory of disease which has saved so many lives. We have developed vaccines, the fertilizer that feeds a third of the population. You, as a doctor, are a person who will cure the sick, save lives in some cases. Surely that will make a difference, if not in a long run at least to that one person. You cannot have a mindset that whatever you do doesn't matter.

We really don't need a book to teach us morals, at least I hope we don't... Even so there's certainly better alternatives than it.

Light and plants come before stars in genesis but other than that, what would be the point then? You would only give such a meaning because you would know the literal as false. You would get the same answer of a long period of time using science methods, and that means that the bible is not needed.

They don't take it literally now since we know much more and religion lost its "freedom" to rule. But people believed all this stuff trough out history, we can't disregard that. What kind of deeper meaning do you have in mind here?

Does the first point even have to be said at this point? But if you think that the world is 6k years old, and the Adam and Eve story, then it does conflict with evolution and genetics... Really can't understand why there's even a debate about this, this is the first time I see just over 50% of people not accepting evolution. (Again, those who don't, I would really like to hear why)

It shouldn't be a privilege, it should be a right, must be a right if it already isn't already. Well... I don't know how to respond to that... The kids in the classroom, what's up with that... That last one specially. Also, I will ask again, to people that voted "no": What is it about evolution you don't accept? Explain.

Why not? Better life conditions lead to a more stable and happier individual and society which is beneficial for survival.

Yey. Well, I tend to like to have as many true beliefs as possible, and reduce the number of false ones. Seems like a good enough reason to talk about this stuff. And if you disprove my belief and/or prove yours I'll have no problems adjusting myself to it... That's correct, we can't prove anything for 100%, so what? Does that mean we shouldn't look for an answer at all? Should we not live and make our lives better each day?

Come on, the topic is getting interesting, I want it to keep going...

Nothing. If you impose a creator, you start an infinite regress, you can't say the creator is just eternal since by that we can say the universe is eternal and needs no cause. And you're the one who assumes a god while I am not. You seem to know a lot about this god of yours, why am I denied this knowledge? The point of the link are the further reading segments at the bottom of the page, science journals and books etc. Exactly. You really don't get it do you? The modern apes are not who we are evolved from, we and the modern ape have an ancient ancestor. We branched off into two directions. And humans aren't what apes need to evolve to. About what you asked SonOfDeath Fossil evidence.

That is not a rational decision, that is a decision based on what you like not what is true. A belief based on fear and despair.

Look, you are born, you live your life, and you die. That's how it goes. However dark or saddening it may be it's what's happens. Just because you die it doesn't mean your life is worthless, realize that. You can help people, be a good individual or be a bad one (which society deals with accordingly). Even if it'll end I wouldn't kill people just because of it, I doubt anyone here would and it's harmful to the society. What's your point with all of this though? People have been giving themselves purpose all the time, with good and bad results alike.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis There you can find lots of info and links to books on the subject. Yes, nothing can be proven completely outside or mathematics. But a god isn't what we've observed, a god is not needed for all the events to happen. The Big Bang isn't an explosion. It's an expansion. I am not a physicist or biologist to explain it in the best way. It's basically a singularity of energy in another state. As matter or energy can't be created or destroyed they have always existed in some form or another, then it changed its state to what we have now. A god is a bad explanation since a whole deity is complex and requires explanation on it's own. If you pose it as eternal, then we can simply say the universe is eternal and has no cause. But you need to realize that there are many better sources for information than a random guy on the internet. "Something from nothing" by Laurence Krauss, "Origins of species" Charles Darwin, "The blind watchmaker" Richard Dawkins are all useful information. Survival shapes evolution. Traits that survive reproduce and are more used. That's the simple method of natural selection. Evolution's goal is not to form humans, it's to adapt and survive. We are not the finished product of evolution, we are still evolving and so are other animals.

Lankbouvdupe98, are you trolling? Seriously, this has been answered already in the previous pages. We evolve to adapt and survive. Natural selection and gene mutation is what are the strong factors in evolution (others are surroundings etc.). You can disprove evolution, one of the more popular ones are finding a fossil bunny in the precambrian. And we evolve constantly, it's a property of life. Evolution doesn't happen in 1000 years, it lasts millions of years, depending on the species.