• There is much evidence to prove that evolution is real.All physics and other scientific evidence proves that evolution is a fact.Carbon dating is one of the ways that evolution is proven.The earth is billions of years old and all that exists started from the simple form of life,like the single celled animals..
  • evolution is real, religion is what we make it.
  • I say. Where's the missing link?
    • ReiSan
      There are no missing links.
  • Evolution is a theory, so it can not be proven. I do not believe it. I do not find any "evidence" that sways me to believe it, either.
    • ReiSan
      You do not comprehend the scientific meaning of theory. You have done no research if you found no evidence for Evolution.
  • Isn't it called "the theory of evolution?" I'm just sayin.
    • ReiSan
      You do not comprehend the scientific meaning of Theory.
  • I say that we have too much to learn yet to say that we have all this proof. I don't say that I don't believe in it just that a lot of what we think of as proof now might be ludicrous to those who study it 50 years from now. As far as religion goes, it is just as easy to believe that God just spoke the world into existence as it is to believe in the proof of evolution. He could just as easily created the world and then set things in motion that today we consider evidence that evolution exists. If you believe in the same God that I do then all things are possible with Him. And by the way, if He did create the world and set things in motion like I said before then we wouldn't be able to prove it either way so your proof would be relative.
    • ReiSan
      There is tons of evidence for Evolution but no evidence at all for any gods.
  • my belief is that both Creationism as well as the theory of evolution are BOTH REAL... think about it this way something has to be CREATED for it to be evolutionized. So in my opinion both beiefs are real in one way or the other
  • It works, enough said apart from, one day we will all loos are elbows due to excessive phone use ....... MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM think about it!
  • Evolution can work with religion. Evolution has happened and will continue.
  • There is a great article by the editor of Scientific American that responds to typical attacks on the theory of evolution by creationists. Check it out 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - John Rennie
  • Does the question refer to Macro or Micro evolution? Macro meaning evolving from one species to another (i.e Apes -> Humans) Micro meaning evolving from withing a species (i.e. Moths wings darkening, birds losing their wings, snakes losing their rattles, etc.) We can demonstrate that Micro evolution occurs a lot but I have yet to read about or hear about evidence of Macro evolution.
  • Ther's no solid proof for either creationism or evolutionism. At least not to a level where we can say that everything evolved intelligently by means of luck. The Alien equeson is worth looking into. Look at the large gaps between each stage with no in between evidence.
    • ReiSan
      ETs cannot come here, so they can do nothing here.
  • They've got Charles Darwin trapped out on highway 5
  • I sort of believe in evolution but there's plenty of it that doesn't make sense. For example, they think eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes but eukaryotes have a gene for a protein that NO prokaryotes have. To explain this, evolutionary theorists say there must have been a fourth domain that donated it's genetic material and then went extinct. Basically they had no answer so they made up non-existent creatures. THAT is kinda dumb...
  • There is no evidence that proves it, at least, not as a whole, anyway. -In the Service of King Jesus. Thank you and God bless you!
    • ReiSan
      Jesus Christ does not exist.
  • I believe in both creation and does not exclude the other.
  • what do you have to say about darwin himself ..who repented b4 death (the darwin theory?)
    • ReiSan
      That is a lie creationists tell. They have no truth.
  • science has proven evolution. creation theory is not scientifically proven therefore making it less credible. i think its pretty scary that in some schools they teach creation theory as a scientific fact. i think that the american children already have a totally difficult and absurd world to deal with without being completely brainwashed.
  • Why do you have to be a creationist, to not agree with the theory of evolution..? If you want to find an opposition, look in the scientific community itself, not religion. Areas:anthropology,geology,psychology,anatomy,physics, chemistry,sociology...etc The theory like the premisses, mutates to freely..., so much so that it now resembles theories it once stood in opposition of.
  • evolution is not real! what you really believe we came from monkeys? how come monkeys aren't still evolving? that in and of itself proves evolution a lie
    • ReiSan
      Evolution is certainly real.
  • Sorry if I rant a little this is basically a simple reason why Evolution is not even possible. 1)Nothing plus Nothing Equals Nothing then why is there something? For something to exist it needs a Cause if there is no Creator (fist cause) then there should be no Creation, and because there is a Creation logical there should also be a Creator? sounds logical right? Then the question goes? Where did ‘God” came from? the Atheist (“trump card..”) There can not be a infinite number of regresses of Causes for a Effect, so logical there must be a Uncaused Cause, Time, space, matter Had a Cause well if this Cause made this effect (TIME) Then logical this Cause would not be held to the laws of time of needing a Cause or aging etc. You get my point. Basically this would mean that "God" Would not need a Cause because he or "the Un-Caused Cause" created time and existed before time it self. follow me? so if this un-Caused Cause Created the world what’s to say he could not speak into existence Man, animals, water, and oxygen? 2) Second “Simple” argument Intelligence can only come from a Intelligent Creator, for a Intelligent being to exist it would need a Intelligent Uncaused being maker? 3) Laws, The laws that Govern time, space, and the world have no Reason to work they way they do there is no logical reason that this laws exist, and all laws logically need a Law Giver right? 4)Fine tuning is a good argument against Naturalistic explanations .The odds against pretty much everything Evolutionist origin’s of life coming from nothing, and then being organized and then evenly spaced ,not to far not to close for life to exist, not to mention the number of lucky planet arrangements, if this planet was not here we would be bombarded by meteors, of if this planet was not here or off by a inch our seasons would be changing every 9 hours , if the sun was to close we burn to far we freeze if even off by a couple inches .Someone already mentioned the odds of protein coming together on its own.. It was a hell of a lot of Zero’s. p/s the Miller experiment can not be used to support evolution because first it was the wrong mixture of gases used to what the Earths condition’s are ,thought to have been . It also does not explain how nothing plus nothing became everything… my 2 cent’s Personally as a Ex. Atheist I have personal experience with this all powerful uncaused Cause Which id love to share with you sometime my email is This un-caused Creator has interacted with mankind and has given his word to us and it says if you seek him sincerely you will find him. Lose the pride and lose the doubt its useless faith won't kill you and the worst that can happen is you find God and become a born again Jesus freak which is not as bad as I thought it would be ha... but anyways ,sorry for all my typos and thanks for putting up with me, I’m not perfect so please forgive me - Sincerely Rudy
  • scientists say that humans came from apes.. am i right? yet there are still apes and monkeys around.. well God made humans and creatures in his image, so humans and apes WOULD look alike... and i do agree that alot of evolutionary evidence does make sense.. but i cannot dismiss both evidences there are...
  • I belive in Evolution. I don't know all the details, so I'm not the person you want to be debating this with, but I certainly don't believe in god. *This is not an opportunity for preaching or bible humping. Good day.*
  • EDIT: Eh... excuse my Kent Hovind influenced self. It took a lil bit to figure out that what he says ain't exactly all true either. Where I still stand against evolution, I would like to apologize for my past ignorance. To answer the question now... actually, I wouldn't answer this question these days. It's too broad of a question and shows that the questioner has already made up their mind. There's nothing specific that I could really address, so I wouldn't really waste my time quite frankly.
  • I don't NOT not believe in it...but once bitten twice shy, I also think of Piltdown man....
  • Evidence has to be interpreted, and most of the evidence can be interpreted two ways. A smoking gun by a dead body may mean murder, may mean suicide, or may mean phony evidence planted by someone. I've kept up with this debate for forty years and what amazes me is that an honest person could believe in either one and should have some doubts about whichever one he believes in. If creation is the way it happened, for example, apparently God wanted to leave open the option of not believing in it, which is pretty much what the Bible says--"Surely Thou art a God who hidest Thyself, O Lord." In other words, even God doesn't try to shove the truth down our throats, so the debate should go on.
  • I have a lot to say about it. I alread know I'm going to get a lot of negative points for answering this question in this way but oh well. The evdence that supports evolution is weak, and its not really evidence at all. Evolution has poor and untrusting dating methods for fossils and other objects that they try to guess the age of. Not only that but evolution goes against a lot of Laws in science and contradicts basic science axioms. And I dont know if you guys noticed...but evolution is still(and always will be) considered a "theory", something that has not been proven. Thanks for letting me post my answer and if you want me to back up this then go ahead and email me(, take care and God bless.
  • look at this
  • Do you believe in gravitation? Do you believe in relativity theory? Do you believe in chaos theory? Don't ask stupid questions. Beliefs do not play any role in Science. Do you know about a scientific theory? If so, then you accept or reject it, provided you have better arguments based on facts, demonstrations and a superior logic. If not, then be honest and say "I don't know". Evolution is one of the Major Theories in Biology along with Cell Theory and Genetics. It seems that you don't understand what the word "theory" means. Then, for beginners you can start with Wikipedia's entrance: "In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition."
  • It hasn't been proven. You can't do an experiment to duplicate it. It is "junk science." It's more of a faith than science.
  • A theory has to provide both predictive and retrodictive explanation. Darwin theory has no predictive end result, so does not fulfill the criteria of scientific theory as established by Newton and Bacon...this theory is more of a historical explanation. These are some of the areas of evolutionary theory that generate heated debate, between adherents and opponents...Evolutionary psychology, Sociobiology, Social Darwinism, Species and Taxonomy, catastrophism and uniformitarianism, Comparative anatomy. A philosophical debate regarding ethics and moral intentionality, reveals the ability Darwin theory has for providing answers that are effective but not convincing, especially regarding Altruism
  • I don't believe it.
  • I believe in it only in a limited way. I say "a lot of hot air" - people tend to find only what they are looking for and what they are looking for is self-centered. Which is why I believe in God.
  • 01-02-2017 We have this prophecy we call Armageddon. The USA is prominently absent from the story. The nation must collapse and be made helpless. This evolution argument is nothing more than a distraction while the nation and the world grind on toward the final scene.
  • "what do you say to all the evidence that proves it?" I say that there is just about as much Scientific evidence that disproves "Evolution" as proves it. Just do a Google. I just typed in "evidence that proves evolution does not exist" and a ton of articles similar to "The Scientific Case Against Evolution by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. So basically on this issue, I guess as all issues, there are two sides. For me "Evolution" does not answer all the questions I have about mans existence. It seems that you are on the other side of the coin and obviously believe in evolution. Stephen Hawkins "The Theory of Everything" said that everything had a beginning. The Bible also states that everything had a beginning. in GENESIS1 : 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." NWT. Albert Einstein's E=MC2 show that nothing comes from nothing, right? Creationist believe that God was the energy behind the "Big Bang" and thus creation. Evolutionist believe that the "Big Bang" was a huge accident. Right? For me; that leaves too many questions. So Was life Credited? Here is a link you might find interesting.. I hope you do.
    • bostjan the adequate 🥉
      I have several problems with your arguments. #1 is that "just google it" isn't even a valid challenge to an accepted theory. #2 How is a civil engineer an authority on biology? You don't point out any strong arguments from your source. So, if your source is not an authority in the subject, and you can't cite a single point from your source, then no one should care. Might as well say, "well my dad is bigger than your dad, so that means I am right." #3 Who said evolution could answer all of the questions about man's existence? Certainly not evolution, seeing as how that is the theory of how species evolved from other species. #4 Mass energy equivalence, in no way, shape, nor form, means something comes from nothing. It means that there is a value of energy assigned to a quantity of mass. #5 Evolution actually has nothing at all to do with the big bang. #6 The big bang theory makes no mention to its cause other than that whatever information prior to it happening was erased by it happening.
    • Chromeman
      Basically I was refuting the statement "what do you say to all the evidence that proves it? My thought process was that there is just as much evidence that disproves the Theory of Evolution as proves it. Thanks for your comments, I will try to be more succinct in my reply's.
    • bostjan the adequate 🥉
      No problem, I hope it leads to more discussions. The overall field of evolutionary biology has tons of holes in it, but, seeing as how it is an adaptable field of knowledge, the more discussion about it, the better. So, keeping in mind that the ultimate origin of life is not a part of the Theory of Evolution, what specific aspects of the theory do you dislike, and what specific evidence is dissonant with it?
    • Chromeman
      Hi 64, I hope you are doing well. Hey, I have to admit that I haven't been in school for a little while, and I will do more research on the Theory of Evolution. But for as long as I have known "Evolution" explained the origin of life. So when you said "the ultimate origin of life is not a part of the "Theory of Evolution" left me with two questions, 1st How did life originate? 2ed, What does the TOE show?. To answer "what specific aspects of the theory do you dislike?" Take religion and God out of the equation, look at the science. What answers why we have a male and female in almost every form of life; that is needed to procreate life. What answers the question of why did, not only humans, but every form of life in the animal kingdom, feel the need to split to procreate. Then the fascinating DNA. Humans have two types. The man has XY and the female has XX, Why? and then the mother only passes on a specific DNA down only to their daughters. The name of that DNA is "Mitochondrial DNA" why would that have happened when humans needed to split in the forms we have today? I am a SIFY buff, I love it. I can suspend reality to enjoy whatever movie or book I am into. But In real life I need "for me" to understand "The why". I used to drive my teachers crazy. LOL.
    • bostjan the adequate 🥉
      The Theory of Evolution is the body of knowledge pertaining to the procession of heritable characteristics of a population of organisms over a significant number of generations. Although it's not a foundational tenet of the field, one of the implications from extrapolating genetic evidence is that everything we have sequenced is related to one common ancestor. That does not imply that there are no organisms that are unrelated, and, in fact, it doesn't preclude other potential explanations for similar genetics. But the ultimate origin of life on Earth is not inside of the bounds of the field. Biology tends not to be as concerned with philosophical questions like "why" as much as observing and collecting data. When science tries to address philosophical questions like that, folks from one religion or one sect tend to get particularly offended. As for Mitochondrial DNA, it is passed down as the mitochondria are passed down from the mother to both sons and daughters. This is very likely because an egg has tens of thousands of times more mitochondria than sperm. X/Y gene systems are not just found in most eutherians, but also in marsupials, some insects, some fish, and some reptiles. The X/Y gene systems in insects and fish appear to be completely unrelated to the system found in mammals, so this is evidence that it evolved separately. Some rodents have lost the Y chromosome entirely, and monotremes (like the platypus) appear to use a totally different determination system. If we keep in mind that all organisms on Earth have possibly been evolving for the same period of time, that means that monotremes could have evolved a different sex determination system than whatever our shared common ancestor had. We have scant little information about DNA from millions of years ago, so most of this involves a healthy heap of extrapolating trends; however, what we CAN see is the physical attributes of things, or at least the attributes that left fossil impressions, which is quite a bit. So, in comparing fossils with modern DNA and what few fragments of ancient DNA we have found, it gives us a fuzzy picture of what has happened over long periods of time. This process is far from perfect, though.
    • bostjan the adequate 🥉
      Same sorts of limitations (only with totally different kinds of evidence) apply to cosmology, which is the study of the history of the universe. This is probably where religion comes more into direct conflict with science. Cosmologists make measurements of light and radiation from places that are very far away from us. By looking at light sources from far away that are similar to light sources that are close to us, we can see a shift in wavelength that tells us how fast something is going and which direction. Think of how a police or ambulance siren sounds as it drives past, and it dramatically shifts from high pitch to low pitch. By looking at how things are moving, scientists can calculate the gravitational interactions between different objects. By looking at things that are very far away, we can see back in time at the speed of light. By looking at how gravity itself interacts with space itself, we can calculate the geometry of the universe. Things again point to a fuzzy picture of the early universe, but, of course, there is still a lot of the picture missing. I suppose the difference in philosophical approaches between religion and science is that science is looking to find the missing pieces and in the mean time professes to only have guesses until conclusive evidence is found, and religion professes to have all answers whether there is supporting evidence or, in some cases, in spite of supporting evidence. And as far as the existence of God, if anyone claims that science is working on an answer to such a question, that person certainly doesn't understand the difference in scopes between science, i.e. what we know through observation and logic, and religion, i.e., what we believe through faith.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy