How can you believe in evolution?

[Unchecked Expansion]

Oh, really? So you're saying that we came from a plant, and somehow managed to mutate into such complex systems, which are so developed for survival. Or that without a creator, atoms managed to come together, and proteins started developing into DNA.

1) animals and plants probably evolved separately.
2) I think you underestimate just how long things have been evolving
3) Atoms are the basic form of matter. Any matter is going to be made of atoms
4) You don't know anything about biochemistry. DNA -> RNA -> Protein. Protein never developed into DNA, although early proto-genomes may have been been protein based

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

Rumors aren't scientific evidence. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of an analogy.

The theory that something can happen without a cause is as scientific as a transcendent being too. Both are as possible, and the case for a deity stronger, since every action has an equal reaction, it would be safe then to suggest that reactions are caused by actions.At least in most cases, this is the explanation. So if a transcendent being comes in, energy coming into existence and vice-versa will be unified with other cases(it was caused by something).

Except that there is real proof for a reaction with no cause that we can discern whereas there is utterly no proof for a prime mover and I already covered ALL the other issues with this argument before. Worse putting in a god to cover the gap in our knowledge simply dissuades people from finding out what the real mechanic is and delays progress as religion has done for bloody centuries.

Well, I think some people want a "nothing" of the gaps. They want a "antitheism" of the gaps. They want evolution of the gaps.

Which is kinda hard, having tangible proof of the latter.

Oh, really? So you're saying that we came from a plant, and somehow managed to mutate into such complex systems, which are so developed for survival. Or that without a creator, atoms managed to come together, and proteins started developing into DNA.

There is no need to add further complexity, it is not logical.

It is not logical to leave a blank where our descendants will be asking:"What caused life to come into existence?", "How did DNA come together without a guide?", "How did so many animals manage to mutate into such complex systems that were able to survive harsh environments for such a long time?". I tell you, these temples of the Holy Ghost are no accident.

[Karsol]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

Rumors aren't scientific evidence. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of an analogy.

The theory that something can happen without a cause is as scientific as a transcendent being too. Both are as possible, and the case for a deity stronger, since every action has an equal reaction, it would be safe then to suggest that reactions are caused by actions.At least in most cases, this is the explanation. So if a transcendent being comes in, energy coming into existence and vice-versa will be unified with other cases(it was caused by something).

Except that there is real proof for a reaction with no cause that we can discern whereas there is utterly no proof for a prime mover and I already covered ALL the other issues with this argument before. Worse putting in a god to cover the gap in our knowledge simply dissuades people from finding out what the real mechanic is and delays progress as religion has done for bloody centuries.

Well, I think some people want a "nothing" of the gaps. They want a "antitheism" of the gaps. They want evolution of the gaps.

Which is kinda hard, having tangible proof of the latter.

Oh, really? So you're saying that we came from a plant, and somehow managed to mutate into such complex systems, which are so developed for survival. Or that without a creator, atoms managed to come together, and proteins started developing into DNA.

There is no need to add further complexity, it is not logical.

It is not logical to leave a blank where our descendants will be asking:"What caused life to come into existence?", "How did DNA come together without a guide?", "How did so many animals manage to mutate into such complex systems that were able to survive harsh environments for such a long time?". I tell you, these temples of the Holy Ghost are no accident.

When we don;t have the means to test for it, it is stupid to say it's there anyway. That's like saying all the bananas on mars would be pink on mars if we terraformed it.

[Unchecked Expansion]

It is not logical to leave a blank where our descendants will be asking:"What caused life to come into existence?", "How did DNA come together without a guide?", "How did so many animals manage to mutate into such complex systems that were able to survive harsh environments for such a long time?". I tell you, these temples of the Holy Ghost are no accident.

Then why are they so shoddy?
Australian animals were so specialised that immigrant species ruined them. Same with the Red and Grey squirrel conflict. We've managed to evolve dogs that can't breath properly, can't see properly, have brains bigger than their skulls,some organisms can't survive a tiny change in environmental chemistry, Pandas lack the libido necessary to keep them alive, Chinchillas can die if the get wet...

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Oh, really? So you're saying that we came from a plant, and somehow managed to mutate into such complex systems, which are so developed for survival. Or that without a creator, atoms managed to come together, and proteins started developing into DNA.

1) animals and plants probably evolved separately.
2) I think you underestimate just how long things have been evolving
3) Atoms are the basic form of matter. Any matter is going to be made of atoms
4) You don't know anything about biochemistry. DNA -> RNA -> Protein. Protein never developed into DNA, although early proto-genomes may have been been protein based

Anything. But now what evolutionists are saying is that we somehow managed to develop such complex genes and traits that have allowed us to survive for such a long time by accident(aka natural selection) Of course, another nice alternative would be that we evolved into simpler organisms from a complex ancestor with all the genes necessary for such diversity.But why would I want to become simpler?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

It is not logical to leave a blank where our descendants will be asking:"What caused life to come into existence?", "How did DNA come together without a guide?", "How did so many animals manage to mutate into such complex systems that were able to survive harsh environments for such a long time?". I tell you, these temples of the Holy Ghost are no accident.

Then why are they so shoddy?
Australian animals were so specialised that immigrant species ruined them. Same with the Red and Grey squirrel conflict. We've managed to evolve dogs that can't breath properly, can't see properly, have brains bigger than their skulls,some organisms can't survive a tiny change in environmental chemistry, Pandas lack the libido necessary to keep them alive, Chinchillas can die if the get wet...

That sounds very "natural"....

[Agadar]

Guys, for crying out loud, please spoiler your quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes, it's clogging up the thread.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Anything. But now what evolutionists are saying is that we somehow managed to develop such complex genes and traits that have allowed us to survive for such a long time by accident(aka natural selection) Of course, another nice alternative would be that we evolved into simpler organisms from a complex ancestor with all the genes necessary for such diversity.But why would I want to become simpler?

It's simple - we didn't survive with complex genes for such a long time. We're young. We're new. Now, if you were a shark or alligator, you could ask that question. But, quite simply, life survived with basic genes for a very long time. Over that staggeringly long time, genes grew more complex. The most successful survived, the least successful didn't.

By the way, although there is no evidence that life started with complexity, don't assume that nothing ever evolves from complex to simple. Simplicity can work. Look at all the blind fish and lizards that are found in caves - they dropped an incredibly complex organism because it was useless, while a simpler form worked just as well

[Dododecapod]

Oh, really? So you're saying that we came from a plant, and somehow managed to mutate into such complex systems, which are so developed for survival. Or that without a creator, atoms managed to come together, and proteins started developing into DNA.

1) animals and plants probably evolved separately.
2) I think you underestimate just how long things have been evolving
3) Atoms are the basic form of matter. Any matter is going to be made of atoms
4) You don't know anything about biochemistry. DNA -> RNA -> Protein. Protein never developed into DNA, although early proto-genomes may have been been protein based

Anything. But now what evolutionists are saying is that we somehow managed to develop such complex genes and traits that have allowed us to survive for such a long time [b]by accident[/b](aka natural selection) Of course, another nice alternative would be that we evolved into simpler organisms from a complex ancestor with all the genes necessary for such diversity.But why would I want to become simpler?

NO. There is NOTHING accidental about it.

Probability and chance come into play only in the introduction of new genes or mis-transcription of old ones. From that point on it's all selection - does new trait (A) improve the survival chances of species (B) in environment (C)? If it does, it will be passed on. If it does not, it won't. Speciation occurs when physical boundaries prevent the transfer of genetic material between populations, or when a trait improves survival in environment (D) but not environment (E) - in which case those with the trait will survive and outcompete those wothout in (D) while the opposite occurs in (E).

Now, note that I said probability and chance. This is NOT the same as "accident". Probability is a statistically comprehensible factor; in a one in one million chance, with a million examples, it should occur once. Given the timescales involved in evolution, we are often talking about populations in the BILLIONS. On those sort of scales, the chances of very unlikely events occuring become very likely indeed. An "Accident" they are NOT.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Anything. But now what evolutionists are saying is that we somehow managed to develop such complex genes and traits that have allowed us to survive for such a long time by accident(aka natural selection) Of course, another nice alternative would be that we evolved into simpler organisms from a complex ancestor with all the genes necessary for such diversity.But why would I want to become simpler?

It's simple - we didn't survive with complex genes for such a long time. We're young. We're new. Now, if you were a shark or alligator, you could ask that question. But, quite simply, life survived with basic genes for a very long time. Over that staggeringly long time, genes grew more complex. The most successful survived, the least successful didn't.

By the way, although there is no evidence that life started with complexity, don't assume that nothing ever evolves from complex to simple. Simplicity can work. Look at all the blind fish and lizards that are found in caves - they dropped an incredibly complex organism because it was useless, while a simpler form worked just as well

Yes, they grew more complex. Then why isn't every organism the same? Why must every species be unique? Because of natural selection? I doubt that natural selection simply managed to churn out life that could even be sustained and different. And how did life start developing? I don't think the pieces just fell together and created an organism that could live without any guidance from a designer. And even then, where did the basic building blocks of the world come from?

[Karsol]

Anything. But now what evolutionists are saying is that we somehow managed to develop such complex genes and traits that have allowed us to survive for such a long time by accident(aka natural selection) Of course, another nice alternative would be that we evolved into simpler organisms from a complex ancestor with all the genes necessary for such diversity.But why would I want to become simpler?

It's simple - we didn't survive with complex genes for such a long time. We're young. We're new. Now, if you were a shark or alligator, you could ask that question. But, quite simply, life survived with basic genes for a very long time. Over that staggeringly long time, genes grew more complex. The most successful survived, the least successful didn't.

By the way, although there is no evidence that life started with complexity, don't assume that nothing ever evolves from complex to simple. Simplicity can work. Look at all the blind fish and lizards that are found in caves - they dropped an incredibly complex organism because it was useless, while a simpler form worked just as well

Yes, they grew more complex. Then why isn't every organism the same? Why must every species be unique? Because of natural selection? I doubt that natural selection simply managed to churn out life that could even be sustained and different. And how did life start developing? I don't think the pieces just fell together and created an organism that could live without any guidance from a designer. And even then, where did the basic building blocks of the world come from?

We do not have the means to answer that, and to hypothesis with out the mearest hint of testable data draws upon conclusions of utmost fantasy.

[Gaypeoples]

i always hate people that talk about evolution and havent the education that is needed to understand evolution.
evolution is a fact and there arent any gaps or something. it is too difficult for the most people to understand every evolution facts in detail.
you need to understand many chemical and physical reactions, then you need to understand the DNA and cells, then you need to understand accomodation and so on... its a lot more!
evolution is pure logic! But it isnt easy to understand every detail. creationists dont want to understand or cant understand. there is nothing else.
and i think nobody is an expert here to explain and to understand it in every detail. i can, but i am german. so i cant explain it in english. and i know... its too hard to understand for many people here in every detail...
the simple evolution model is only a model, but it is for children and undereducated people... it is not really good without important details. the same problem has the theory of relativity or the string theory... the easy way to explain it is very wrong. the hard way to explain it is to difficult to understand.
that is all i can say..

[Unchecked Expansion]

Yes, they grew more complex. Then why isn't every organism the same? Why must every species be unique? Because of natural selection? I doubt that natural selection simply managed to churn out life that could even be sustained and different. And how did life start developing? I don't think the pieces just fell together and created an organism that could live without any guidance from a designer. And even then, where did the basic building blocks of the world come from?

Things are different because they live in different places. Could you live in boiling acid? Thermobactans can. Could you survive the pressure of the deepest ocean? Lantern fish can. Can you both breath air and filter oxygen from water? The lungfish can.
If there was precisely one environment on earth, all life would be the same. However, given that some things live inside other things, even then multiple environments would exist, so life would arise that dominated that niche

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Anything. But now what evolutionists are saying is that we somehow managed to develop such complex genes and traits that have allowed us to survive for such a long time by accident(aka natural selection) Of course, another nice alternative would be that we evolved into simpler organisms from a complex ancestor with all the genes necessary for such diversity.But why would I want to become simpler?

It's simple - we didn't survive with complex genes for such a long time. We're young. We're new. Now, if you were a shark or alligator, you could ask that question. But, quite simply, life survived with basic genes for a very long time. Over that staggeringly long time, genes grew more complex. The most successful survived, the least successful didn't.

By the way, although there is no evidence that life started with complexity, don't assume that nothing ever evolves from complex to simple. Simplicity can work. Look at all the blind fish and lizards that are found in caves - they dropped an incredibly complex organism because it was useless, while a simpler form worked just as well

Yes, they grew more complex. Then why isn't every organism the same? Why must every species be unique? Because of natural selection? I doubt that natural selection simply managed to churn out life that could even be sustained and different. And how did life start developing? I don't think the pieces just fell together and created an organism that could live without any guidance from a designer. And even then, where did the basic building blocks of the world come from?

We do not have the means to answer that, and to hypothesis with out the mearest hint of testable data draws upon conclusions of utmost fantasy.

Or just refuse to hear, since there can never be supernatural beings bacause... because, I just refuse! Religion is always fake! And Shut Up Now , Evolution shall forever be a fact, and creationism shall always be a myth!

[Unchecked Expansion]

Or just refuse to hear, since there can never be supernatural beings bacause... because, I just refuse! Religion is always fake! And Shut Up Now , Evolution shall forever be a fact, and creationism shall always be a myth!

Given the turn over rate of religions vs scientific theories, it certainly looks that way.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Yes, they grew more complex. Then why isn't every organism the same? Why must every species be unique? Because of natural selection? I doubt that natural selection simply managed to churn out life that could even be sustained and different. And how did life start developing? I don't think the pieces just fell together and created an organism that could live without any guidance from a designer. And even then, where did the basic building blocks of the world come from?

Things are different because they live in different places. Could you live in boiling acid? Thermobactans can. Could you survive the pressure of the deepest ocean? Lantern fish can. Can you both breath air and filter oxygen from water? The lungfish can.
If there was precisely one environment on earth, all life would be the same. However, given that some things live inside other things, even then multiple environments would exist, so life would arise that dominated that niche

And even then I would like to ask how you can get organisms having just all the needed traits and genes and capabilities in a suitable place? And it so happens that everything managed to fall perfectly into place, and organisms mostly appeared where they were best adapted to(I don't think you'll find a lot of dead birds in a lake who happened to be in the wrong place with the wrong traits.

[Karsol]

Anything. But now what evolutionists are saying is that we somehow managed to develop such complex genes and traits that have allowed us to survive for such a long time by accident(aka natural selection) Of course, another nice alternative would be that we evolved into simpler organisms from a complex ancestor with all the genes necessary for such diversity.But why would I want to become simpler?

It's simple - we didn't survive with complex genes for such a long time. We're young. We're new. Now, if you were a shark or alligator, you could ask that question. But, quite simply, life survived with basic genes for a very long time. Over that staggeringly long time, genes grew more complex. The most successful survived, the least successful didn't.

By the way, although there is no evidence that life started with complexity, don't assume that nothing ever evolves from complex to simple. Simplicity can work. Look at all the blind fish and lizards that are found in caves - they dropped an incredibly complex organism because it was useless, while a simpler form worked just as well

Yes, they grew more complex. Then why isn't every organism the same? Why must every species be unique? Because of natural selection? I doubt that natural selection simply managed to churn out life that could even be sustained and different. And how did life start developing? I don't think the pieces just fell together and created an organism that could live without any guidance from a designer. And even then, where did the basic building blocks of the world come from?

We do not have the means to answer that, and to hypothesis with out the mearest hint of testable data draws upon conclusions of utmost fantasy.

Or just refuse to hear, since there can never be supernatural beings bacause... because, I just refuse! Religion is always fake! And Shut Up Now , Evolution shall forever be a fact, and creationism shall always be a myth!

Until there is proof of the latter, your words not mine.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Or just refuse to hear, since there can never be supernatural beings bacause... because, I just refuse! Religion is always fake! And Shut Up Now , Evolution shall forever be a fact, and creationism shall always be a myth!

Given the turn over rate of religions vs scientific theories, it certainly looks that way.

Bring me back there and show me that birds were dying by the dozens in lakes while fish was relaxing and I might accept selection(it can be natural, it can be designed).

[Cabra West]

Yes, they grew more complex. Then why isn't every organism the same? Why must every species be unique? Because of natural selection? I doubt that natural selection simply managed to churn out life that could even be sustained and different. And how did life start developing? I don't think the pieces just fell together and created an organism that could live without any guidance from a designer. And even then, where did the basic building blocks of the world come from?

If they were all the same, they would all compete for the exact same resources.
Life gets easier for organisms that can survive on and where others can't, due to lack of competition.

You'd think a little common sense was all it takes to answer that, really...

As for that last question, that has nothing at all to do with evolution.
Evolution kicks in once those blocks come together and start making copies.

[Gaypeoples]

Anything. But now what evolutionists are saying is that we somehow managed to develop such complex genes and traits that have allowed us to survive for such a long time by accident(aka natural selection) Of course, another nice alternative would be that we evolved into simpler organisms from a complex ancestor with all the genes necessary for such diversity.But why would I want to become simpler?

It's simple - we didn't survive with complex genes for such a long time. We're young. We're new. Now, if you were a shark or alligator, you could ask that question. But, quite simply, life survived with basic genes for a very long time. Over that staggeringly long time, genes grew more complex. The most successful survived, the least successful didn't.

By the way, although there is no evidence that life started with complexity, don't assume that nothing ever evolves from complex to simple. Simplicity can work. Look at all the blind fish and lizards that are found in caves - they dropped an incredibly complex organism because it was useless, while a simpler form worked just as well

Yes, they grew more complex. Then why isn't every organism the same? Why must every species be unique? Because of natural selection? I doubt that natural selection simply managed to churn out life that could even be sustained and different. And how did life start developing? I don't think the pieces just fell together and created an organism that could live without any guidance from a designer. And even then, where did the basic building blocks of the world come from?

We do not have the means to answer that, and to hypothesis with out the mearest hint of testable data draws upon conclusions of utmost fantasy.

i can answer that, but i need to write over 10 pages and i think nobody would understand, not only because my english is too bad.
I only can say... these things arent a problem for evolution scientists. its very logical if you read and understand their works. then it looks more logic than 1+1=2... but you need the data to understand it. God creates everything is too easy and you also dont have to think about it. its comfortable, but TO KNOW isnt comfortable.

[Cabra West]

Or just refuse to hear, since there can never be supernatural beings bacause... because, I just refuse! Religion is always fake! And Shut Up Now , Evolution shall forever be a fact, and creationism shall always be a myth!

Given the turn over rate of religions vs scientific theories, it certainly looks that way.

Bring me back there and show me that birds were dying by the dozens in lakes while fish was relaxing and I might accept selection(it can be natural, it can be designed).

Have you ever seen a penguin?

[Unchecked Expansion]

And even then I would like to ask how you can get organisms having just all the needed traits and genes and capabilities in a suitable place? And it so happens that everything managed to fall perfectly into place, and organisms mostly appeared where they were best adapted to(I don't think you'll find a lot of dead birds in a lake who happened to be in the wrong place with the wrong traits.

I believe you are now being wilfully ignorant to the process.
Mutation and selection does not suddenly throw up a complete new trait, like wings or lungs. It starts with something small, which may or may not be useful. If it helps the organism survive, it's passed on and may develop further. There are a lot of failures along the way too - things do not fall into place, competitive and hostile environments force adaptation at the cost of the weak

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Yes, they grew more complex. Then why isn't every organism the same? Why must every species be unique? Because of natural selection? I doubt that natural selection simply managed to churn out life that could even be sustained and different. And how did life start developing? I don't think the pieces just fell together and created an organism that could live without any guidance from a designer. And even then, where did the basic building blocks of the world come from?

If they were all the same, they would all compete for the exact same resources.
Life gets easier for organisms that can survive on and where others can't, due to lack of competition.

You'd think a little common sense was all it takes to answer that, really...

And yes, thanks for coming in. Now, so they managed to become different, and the balance between organisms, always so delicate, always managed to be maintained for life to be sustained. If there had been more of this species, or more of the other, life would never be sustained. Still, if life managed to evolve in such a way that all species could survive, we have either a lot of luck or we always nmanaged to be on the right continent(which is rubbish to any good atheist who knows that all the continents were part of one big supercontinent in the beginning.)

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And even then I would like to ask how you can get organisms having just all the needed traits and genes and capabilities in a suitable place? And it so happens that everything managed to fall perfectly into place, and organisms mostly appeared where they were best adapted to(I don't think you'll find a lot of dead birds in a lake who happened to be in the wrong place with the wrong traits.

I believe you are now being wilfully ignorant to the process.
Mutation and selection does not suddenly throw up a complete new trait, like wings or lungs. It starts with something small, which may or may not be useful. If it helps the organism survive, it's passed on and may develop further. There are a lot of failures along the way too - things do not fall into place, competitive and hostile environments force adaptation at the cost of the weak

How do they adapt?

[Geniasis]

Well, I can guarantee you that I pay attention because I got 100% on the evolution test, thank you very much. I never said that the material in the movie is correct, but that's what I heard, and that was an answer to a question on the test.

@Sexnation: I do believe in survival of the fittest... I don't just believe in certain aspects of evolution, especially without a creator of the picture. What I don't understad, is why couldn't of a divine being created us to evolve?

It's not that a supernatural creator is impossible. It's just that it's unnecessary, and thus it feels tacked-on and pointless.

An intelligent designer is to science what a romance plot is to an action movie.

A seamlessly integrated component that cannot be taken out without reducing the impact of the work when done well and so horrendously awkward that everyone feels ashamed in ways that a million showers cannot cleanse when done poorly?