Crying_Wolf?

theabc?

If he cuts hair from two people he gets more money.^

Sky128?

Well there isn't a "serious discussion" forum here so this will have to do.

Oh, I see now. Pardon the mistake I guess then. That's a rather depressive thought. As humans we are not a mistake, we have adapted and managed to survive. We are the 1% of the species that survived the Earths climate change. We have managed to see past our instincts and see how nature works. We learned to communicate, cooperate, defeated disease and use electricity to improve our lives. Managed to fly past the sky itself and unravel the grandness of the universe. No, we didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from an ape like ancestor of all modern apes and humans.

Can you really work on your spelling a bit, it's rather hard to read... It's not 7 billion years as the Earth was formed ~4.5 billion years ago. Science is now the best method we have to access reality. If we can't use science to access the claim of religion(s), they are pretty much fairy tales. Science can give models of reality and improve our lives, it gives results; religion does not.

A test of what?

Well, not exactly. We know we are related to not only monkeys but to all animals using DNA analysis. And we're evolved from an ancestor of the modern apes and us. The Adam and Eve story can be completely falsified since there is not enough genetic material to create a species out of 2 people. But you'll probably keep believing no matter what I say. "I think, therefore I am" Yes, but you cannot prove anything outside of yourself with that. Since your brain is electrical and chemical impulses which you cannot know are correct.

Well, I'm trying to figure out whether I or someone else is wrong since I like to know the truth as much as I can.

No. After I die it will be the same as before I was born. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Yes, really. It proves it to a high enough degree of certainty that it would change everything we know from the evidence presented. I've watched enough videos with Ray Comfort, and he always changes his definition of a "kind" to what suits him. The reason the comments and ratings are disabled is because the poster knows he is using a cheap tactic to try and put words into Dawkin's mouth. As I said-- if it's possible doesn't mean it happened, and it doesn't mean that he believes it happened if he says it's possible. I can come up with loads of absurd claims that have the same chance of happening as the intelligent design idea.

Well, nothing can be proven since we cannot prove anything for 100% outside ourselves. Since in the end this all might be an illusion of my mind and that I'm in a matrix, and outside of it there are completely different natural occurrences.That is irrational to think about though. But we can find patterns and make models of this realty we are in to help us live in it. Science doesn't deal with truth that is 100% absolute. It gives us predictive models of reality. I don't get your second point here... You're saying that all the evidence we saw is false/falsely interpreted? This is why there's peer review in science, where others can test the claim and see if it stands. Again we get a model of reality.

No... he didn't admit intelligent design. He said that it's possible (like most stuff are possible- doesn't mean it happened) that some other species (that evolved like us) left organic cells which later evolved into us. It could also be possible that a sandwich created us. Interesting how ratings and comments are disabled on the video... couldn't imagine why?

Also, what's Ray's definition of a "kind"? Again... genetic evidence alone is enough to prove evolution. And we have fossils on top of that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Again with the lack of connecting links and lack of evidence... Look at my previous posts. So no one debates Earth roundness makes it true? And what of these guys: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

Hard time? The guy has no idea what observing something means. Ray thinks that evolution means that a monkey gives birth to a human. His ignorance is painful to listen to, he is simply a clown. The reason we can't see the evolutionary process is because it takes millions of years. But that doesn't mean we can't observe it. To those who think Ray is actually persuasive and/or intelligent, please learn about evolution from an actual scientist rather than this person. I think Ray offered Dawkins 10 thousand dollars to debate him. Dawkins refused for obvious reasons, I don't remember exactly what he said, but I'll try and get his point through. "Debating Ray would be the same as a geologist arguing with a flat Earth believer"

Oh, the topic is alive again; wonderful. Ah, Ray Comfort, who can forget him... A person with no biological knowledge and no understanding of evolution... and no knowledge of the common banana. No, this topic shouldn't be closed, at least not now that it's seems to be active again. I tend to want to have as more true beliefs and as few false ones as possible. If someone thinks evolution is false, it's a change in my viewpoint. I want them to prove that it is false, so far I've seen no persuasive arguments to be so. However I'm still open to suggestions and of course will defend my position.

Most? I don' know about the other one.

Knowledge.

Interesting video on the topic:

Your very argument is that the chance is too low for the conditions on Earth to be possible. I have explained to you that the chances of such a planet are far grater than you think. The Big Bang isn't about Earths beginning. There are also potentially habitable planets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_potential_habitable_exoplanets All of what you named has completely naturalistic explanations. Or do you think a god put everything into place?

Water is the most common molecular composition in the universe, and there are hundreds of planets in the habitable zone where water would be liquid. My point was that chances are there are many such planets and we just happen to be on one of those. GoldRock didn't mention the Big Bang. He said that the universe is infinite. And have you ever thought that we have adapted to Earth and not the other way around? It's not that it was Earth that was made for us, it is us who have adapted to it's conditions.

No. It is not chance. Evolution works through natural selection, a non random process. Everything strives towards survival and adapts in order to accomplish it's goal.

No. Water is not only found on Earth. There are moons even in our solar system that contain water. Comets are also made of water. Next we know that the most common element is Hydrogen, and third most common is Oxygen. So it's reasonable that the most common molecule is H2O or water. If I remember correctly Ceres, a moon in our solar system has frozen water. Here are some more examples: http://astrointerest.com/presence-of-water-on-other-planets-in-the-solar-system/#.UqJUzLTIdBA Next you claim that the Earth is in the Goldilocks zone (which is correct) and that it is too unlikely to happen by chance and it's specially made for us. This is wrong, as we have looked into the universe, far beyond our own solar system. We have launched the Kepler telescope into space and it has shown us what our galaxy really looks like. It has found thousands of planets, hundreds of Earth sized and in the Goldilocks zone. The telescope only sees a small portion of the sky, and has shown us that there are millions of galaxies. And this is just in our neighborhood. So it is no wonder that one one of such planets life originated.

Bubble.