We have nothing but a collection of skeletons from primates, that scientists rushed to put with faces and call them primitive humans.
Real evidence of evolution would be transitional species, such as reptiles with wings, fish with legs, etc. Of which we have found none.
If you read Darwin's books, he has sections which state the problems with his theory, and things which, if discovered, would totally disprove his theory. Quite a few of these refutations have been proven.

 

Gee people....let's not get started on religion and gay marriages....it'll just get nastier.

All I am saying is let people do what they want with their love lives. Oh, who needs a priest to marry you? Shiat....all it takes is court papers. I am totally against that you HAVE to be married by a priest crap. Sure it's a tradition for a lot of religion, but blah...I should keep my mouth shut...LOL

 

Can i just say one thing?




THIS THREAD IS ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE! NOT RELIGION! stop it people! h:

 

I will talk more about this after dinner, if I don't decide to watch a movie instead.

Darwin proposed the theory of micro-evolution, of how species adapt slightly to meet their environmental needs.

Though, this will be evil of me to propose such a site, but I suggest flipping through this:

http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/S...ins/things.htm

I decline on debating the bible directly, though. That document has been so heavily edited in the past 1500 years, and so many instances of modification to either attack other sects of the church or to reinforce church supremacy, that I feel the modern incarnation of that work is invalid. Work from the tablets and scrolls, I say:thumbup:

 

I am only arguing the theory of macroevolution, and the idea that humans evolved from apes. I am by no means arguing pro-creationism.

 

:joshers:

This whole thread can be literally translated to this:

 

we do. the transitional species for humans was when we evolved to walk on two legs (remember lucy). if you look at the skeletons, you can definetly see the growth overtime.

as for transitional species, there are fish with legs. i'm not sure where you get reptiles w/wings, but i'll drop that.

darwin got his ideas when he vistied the galapagos. he noticed that the same species had traveled to different islands but had slowly started to evolve away from each other. its in action today. one good example is the vampire birds (i believe in the galapagos also). we have their relatives in other places, but they have adapted on the galapagos to suck the blood out of other birds (well, they bite them w/their beaks and eat up). after having them cataloged for some time now, scientists have noticed there beaks have actually gotten smaller and thinner, better to do their job.

evolution is only a theory in the sense that we don't know everything about it. but look around you, its everywhere. i could explain myself more, but my mom taught me to not waste my energy, i will never get people to change their mind.

 

That "growth overtime" as you put it could simply be various species of primate, or even evidence of microevolution (which I said I'm not refuting).
There have never been any fish found that had legs.
One of the basic premises of Macroevolution is that every form of life started from the same single cellular organism. Therefore, somewhere along the line, a fish had to grow legs (and go from having a respiratory system that is made for underwater breathing, to one made for open air breathing), eventually, this fish would turn into a dinosaur, and eventually these reptiles would have to slowly evolve with half formed wings (which by itself would be refuted by natural selection...undeveloped wings would only get in the way and eventually lead to the dieing out of that species), and eventually we would have lizards with wings.

That's microevolution, and again, I'm not refuting it. But when one of these bird turns into a mammal, I'll admit I'm wrong.

Evolution is a theory developed by a man who thought bugs were formed spontaneously from old food left lying around.
We have found numerous fossils of reptiles, fish, and birds from millions of years ago, but yet not a single fossilized remain of any transitional species that, according to the Theory of Evolution, should have abounded.
If we'd had evidence to prove the Theory of Evolution, then it wouldn't be called a theory anymore.

 

its more solid to me than anything that the bible says. i would go on about needing evidence, but obviously that wouldn't be fair since faith is believing when there is a lack of evidence. for the time being, i can't respond to the rest of your comments, b/c i don't know if there are the type of transitional species you are looking for, and if there are, i'm too lazy to look for them.

and besides, this went waaaayyy of topic, but i don't think i helped that.

its nice to debate with people who know their shit though, good job man :thumbup:

 

yeah, it does seem more solid than creationism, but I still don't understand how such an overblown theorem with no evidence is touted as law. :dunno:
We definitely got way off topic, though. h: