The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[Rhadamanthus]

Because it is about the data and evidence, not about beliefs.
Your ignorance of the Scientific Method is not my fault.
Because the exploration occurs in the Scientific Research, not in the teachings of the basic concepts. How advanced was your education in biology that you are qualified to speak to the quality of the research?

The very fact that you talk about "belief" in science indicates that you are woefully ignorant of even the basics of science.

It is great that you want to discuss science. But you damn well owe us the respect of actually knowing what science is before starting to criticize it. The insulting platitudes you have served up so far does nothing else than anger those who know what nonsense you are spewing. So stop your insulting behavior and show that you know what you are talking about, that your background is in you knowing what you are talking about rather than just some belief that science is wrong. Because that is to insulting.

Rather, the Scientific Exploration and research is.
I find it odd that you find the mechanics taught in basic science class to be the equivalent to the foundations of the actual research.

That would be the same as claiming that mathematical proof is not rigorous because you are not given the very full proof when you are taught that 2+2=4.

Good for you.

I have in no way demeaned science. I am a complete follower of scientific thought, even if my own scientific grounding is admitedly lacking. I the only thing I was critizising was the teaching of science in lower level education. (K-12) I find no fault at all with the scientific community, their research, or there education. In fact I know so little about college level teaching of the sciences that I will not even pretend to be an authority on the subject.

The same goes for the scientific method, it is a series of steps that have been perfected over time. It has been given over to rigorous examination. The only thing I find fault with is the teaching of science in our elementary and High schools. In my opinion biology is not a class that encourages in depth research by the student. And please keep in mind that I a speeking of biology in high school. Not a high level advanced college course.

I am sorry that you took any of my comments as insulting, they were not meant to be so. I was only trying to retain an open mindedness towards those who feel differently than us and trying not to condemn their views to early.

I have not tried to say that the principles of science are unsound or that the research is not rigorous enough. All I have tried to say is that I believe the teaching of science in school does not seem to provide a lot of room for the personal research of the students. It seems to merely be about trying make sure that the students can pass the tests.

 

[nkgupta80]

The same goes for the scientific method, it is a series of steps that have been perfected over time. It has been given over to rigorous examination. The only thing I find fault with is the teaching of science in our elementary and High schools. In my opinion biology is not a class that encourages in depth research by the student. And please keep in mind that I a speeking of biology in high school. Not a high level advanced college course.

first of all, biology is about giving the student knowledge of life and how it works. Very important, especially in today's era where biology is becoming more and more relavant in other studies. Considering that a nation's power does also depend on its research and scientific progress, public schools have an obligation to introduce science to students at an early age.

 

[zk655]

All the evidence you are talking about is direct observation of the consequence of change, not the change itself.

But that's exactly what the theory of evolution is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Observation of the resulting "consequences" brought about by change.

As for the possible reason as to why this change should occur is not important to the theory. What matters is that a change did occur. Is it possible that god made it happen because it followed his devine plan? Sure it is.

However, this isn't something that theory of evolution can or was ever meant to speculate on.

 

[Rhadamanthus]

first of all, biology is about giving the student knowledge of life and how it works. Very important, especially in today's era where biology is becoming more and more relavant in other studies. Considering that a nation's power does also depend on its research and scientific progress, public schools have an obligation to introduce science to students at an early age.

I completely agree with you when you say that it is important that students get a firm grounding in biology. It just strikes me as strange that the students are not encouraged to reach out and try to make sense of some of what they are learning themselves. I don't believe you can cram knowledge down someones throat. You need to spark an interest in the pupils. In most subjects the students are encouraged to connect what they are learning to their daily lives. Biology has been condensed into many seperate principles without there being much of an effort made to draw the student in to the learning process.

 

[steen]

My friend, you are the one lying.

Where. Everything I stated was absolutely factual.

First I have in no way demeaned science.

You made multiple false claims about science, you misrepresent science, you outright lie about scientific knowledge and evidence. ... yes, you very much have demeaned science.

Secondly, read Einstein's book Out of My Later Years and you find his advancing intuition as an epistemological category.

And so? That makes it automatically part of the Scientific Method? Your ignorance of how scientific exploration progresses is astonishing.

If you actually bothered learning what science is, you will find that intuition is not the end product of science, nor is it the contributor to the actual scientifically proven data. Only facts are.

As my first degree was in Physics and cosmology, I have applauded science as a tool, not an end in itself.

That's nice. If you have degrees in these fields, why then do you misrepresent the Scientific Method?

But hey, at least this shows your claim to know exactly what Science is, and you can't claim ignorance. Hence, the only conclusion must be that when you provide misrepresentation, it is deliberate rather than by ignorance. Thus the evidence of your outright dishonesty is further evidenced.

To help you understand, if science has directly observed evolution, which it has absolutely not,

Every scientific paper showing a change in populations or their genetics from generation to generation is an example of DIRECTLY OBSERVED EVOLUTION. Hence, your claim again is an outright LIE. Please stop your lies, they are highly offensive.

let me ask you to explain the exact process of evolution according to science and not simply the consequence.

Huh? The Scientific Theory of Evolution specifically is about the change we see in populations from generation to generation. Thus, the observed change IS the process of evolution.

The consequence of the genetic changes in the populations alleles are exactly what we OBSERVE as evolution, as how the subsequent generation is different than the parent generation.

So your claim again evidences incredible ignorance/deceit.

Tell me exactly the causitive factor in evolution,

The changes in allele composition from one generation to the next. That is the exact and specific causation for the evolution that is observed as changes in the subsequent generation of a population.

I can not make it more specific or accurate than this, as this is the very definition. If you didn't know this, I don't know what else can be said to give you a clue. I can not sit here and provide you with the answers for an entire biology education that you should have obtained on your own.

not the consequential factor evidenced in meiosis and mitosis. I am not denying meiosis is how God brings about mutation,

Well, that also is not evidenced. There is no evidence that meiosis is driven by or generated by God.

I am denying that science explains how the evolutionary process works

And therefore you are lying. Science does exactly that.

and I am saying even if it did it would merely be proof of how God works.

And that also would be an outright lie, as this is not "proof" of anything relating to God. It might make YOU feel this is how God does things, but there is no "proof involved, your lie none withstanding. Your claim doesn't meet even a minimal standard of what constitutes "proof." Your belief, your wishful thinking is not proof.

Your arguing from consequencial evidence, science needs to answer the causation of evolution.

The cause is the change in genetic make-up of a population. This has been known for many decades. Your claim that science doesn't know is another outright lie of yours.

The question in ID is not whether evolutionary consequences occur, it's what is behind the consequence.

And this is known and has been evidenced. ID, of course, doesn't prove anything. It merely says "I can't believe this happened through evolution, so it MUST be designed by somebody." It is wishful thinking falsely presented as fact. It is another anti-science LIE.

Causation is what science must prove and demonstrate to turn evolution from theory to law.

Ah, more astonishing ignorance. Your claim of a science background simply must be a lie. Otherwise, you would know that Scientific Theories and Scientific Laws are very different things, and neither ever turn into the other.

Demonstrate causation Steen.

It has been done. That is per the change in allele composition between populations. Go learn something about what you are arguing about instead of spewing such ignorance. This is why creationists disgust me, all the lies, all the misrepresentations, all the incredible ignorance.

You should be ashamed of yourself for so bearing false witness. Do you really believe that there are brownie points in Heaven for LYING FOR JESUS?

This is just religio-phobia, Steen.

Nope, it is disgust with those who pervert Christianity by feeling that it is promoted through lies.

Knee-jerk liberal religio-phobia. I in no way misrepresent science as a tool in the least.

You have endlessly spewed lies about science. SO your very claim here is an outright lie.

In no way have I asserted science should not be taught, unlike the witch-hunt against religion in the academic world these days. You must not have any understanding of faith to say these things.

More stupid nonsense. I have plenty of Faith. But my faith doesn't hinge on scientific proof like yours. You need the tangible "evidence" of God, just like the Israelites needed the Golden Calf. Creationism and ID are the Golden Calf of the doubters and weak in faith of today.

I am for, and my post was advocating for, the fact that science and religion are compatable.

Oh, and I agree completely. But you do NOT show it through the incessant lies that you have spewed, which are an insult to science AND to Christianity, thus being doubly insulting to Christians like me, who also accept Science.

 

[steen]

You still cling to outcome and ignore causation Steen.

Nope. Rather, you show ignorance of what Evolution actually is, not surprising as most creationists/ID are clueless about it to begin with.

Causation is genetic change. Outcome is evolution. This is a basic FACT. That you don't "know" this even with the claim of a scientific background further indicates that you are outright lying.

And theory/law is something you need to look back at in the process of scientific methodology. natural law is the end-goal of the scientific process.

More stupid lies and misrepresentations of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Theory is the ENDPRODUCT of the Scientific Method. A Scientific/Natural Law is merely a representation of a constant relationship between two factors.

You absolutely refuse or are unable to explain a process of evolution.

You are lying. I have provided examples.

That you are either so ignorant of what evolution ios, or so dishonest that you dfeliberately misrepresent it, that is not my fault. If you want to discuss evolution, it is not my responsibility to make sure you have a clue what you talk about. When you spew lies and ignorant claims, you should expect to be called on it. If you don't like it, go read up on it and educate yourself before making further claims.

You get the resultant side well, but you utterly miss the point that made my explanation of the Big Bang relevant.

Nope, as the Big bang has absolutely nothing to do with the process of Evolution. Your false attempt at coupling the two just further underscores your inherent dishonesty. You are again spewing lies.

And I detest liars, as should be obvious by now.

Then at the end you throw the gratuitous insults at me

Nope, I made factual observations of your dishonesty, as I ntent to continue doing as long as you lie like you do here.

because I dug deeper than you were prepared to go.

I will go as deep as you want to. I happen to know this stuff, but you obviously don't even know what Evolution is to begin with.

You see, we can know the mutation occured as you cited about the bacteria, but we do not know the mechanism.

And so? We know the mutation occurs, and the RESULT is what we call Evolution, the change in genotype/phenotype of the population make-up.

My worldview doesn't negate science it affirms it, but you find it offensive because it is a Christian worldview.

More stupid lies spewed by you. I am a Christian myself. Your lies are getting more and more offensive. Either you are a moron, or a jerk of first rank.

My insistence was a self-disclosure of how I came to this understanding, why do you see ignorance or lie in that unless you are a religio-phobe?

Yadda, yadda. More ignorant ****.

 

[MrFungus420]

Steen,

Well said. You saved me a lot of typing...

:bravo: :bravo:

 

[steen]

Steen,

Well said. You saved me a lot of typing...

:bravo: :bravo:

He. Sometimes I have to wonder. What IS it that creationists and IDers get out of posting false information or stuff they really don't know anything about?

They nearly ALWAYS end up posting nonsense that shows their utter and complete ignorance of the very fundamentals of Science, such as the very basic concept of what a Scientific Theory is, or what the Scientific Method is. Now, that is GRADE SCHOOL level stuff, and they don't even know it?????

And then, after that, they start posting about what THEY claim Evolution to be, never mind that the nonsense they post has nothing to do with Evolution to begin with. Why is it they believe that they have ANY credibility when they don'
t even know what it is they are trying to attack to begin with? To rant against something that isn't even what they claim it is to begin with simply makes them look stupid, and that's it. Are they for real?

Just for ONCE, I would love to interact with somebody who has concerns about Evolution or Science based on what it actually is, rather than what they misrepresent it to be. Just for ONCE, I would like to interact with somebody on the other side with at least a minimum of understanding, intelligence and knowledge. I have only ONCE in several decades run into a knowledgeable "doubter" who actually knew what Evolution was to begin with. I don't know if this is your experience as well?

It is so stupid when the ignorant ones spew falsehoods about Evolution and then proclaim that because their false claim doesn't make sense, Evolution is wrong.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

He. Sometimes I have to wonder. What IS it that creationists and IDers get out of posting false information or stuff they really don't know anything about?

They post it becuase they want to convert people. It's pavlovian association. The more they repeat something, the more people will believe it is true, regardless of the actual truth value of the statements.

They nearly ALWAYS end up posting nonsense that shows their utter and complete ignorance of the very fundamentals of Science, such as the very basic concept of what a Scientific Theory is, or what the Scientific Method is. Now, that is GRADE SCHOOL level stuff, and they don't even know it?????

Believe me. It doesn't make them look ignorant to the vast hords of people who frequent the internet. People aren't stupid untill it comes to religion--then they shut their brains off. The people against whom the pavlovian association doesn't work are hte people who already know the facts and have strong mental fortitiude. They aren't so desperate.

However, due to the woefully inadequate science curriculae in the USA, it is no wonder why almost 40% of the population literally believes in the Bible and some form of creation. Lack of education leaves the populace vulnerable. We need to change that.

And then, after that, they start posting about what THEY claim Evolution to be, never mind that the nonsense they post has nothing to do with Evolution to begin with. Why is it they believe that they have ANY credibility when they don' t even know what it is they are trying to attack to begin with? To rant against something that isn't even what they claim it is to begin with simply makes them look stupid, and that's it. Are they for real?[/qote]

I believe they do it on purpouse. The same happens in other topics. People deliberately distort something so they can more easily knock it down.

 

[steen]

I have in no way demeaned science. I am a complete follower of scientific thought, even if my own scientific grounding is admitedly lacking. I the only thing I was critizising was the teaching of science in lower level education. (K-12)

OK. In that case, we are in agreement. We see some of the results of the abysmal quality of US Science education right here in this tread, where some creationists and IDers are posting nonsense post after nonsense post and spew one falsehood after the other. I agree that Science education is woefully inadequate in the US, and I believe that this is directly the cause of the US lead globally slipping as fast as it is, per our youth being undereducated or lied to (Witness the recent Kansas hearings on ID or the Dover school board trial going on right now.

....In my opinion biology is not a class that encourages in depth research by the student. And please keep in mind that I a speeking of biology in high school. Not a high level advanced college course.

Ah, but this is when the basic information is being provided. We don't have kids learn the mathematical proofs for 2+2=4 when we teach the foundations of algebra. We give them facts, just as the basic science class gives facts. As the students get more advanced, they can look at the critical thinking behind the data and the Scientific Theories.

But for heavens sake, as we have seen here, most don't even understand the Scientific Method or understand the difference between a Natural Law and a Scientific Theory. Until such basics are comprehended, the mechanisms of the Scientific Method can't be taught.

I am sorry that you took any of my comments as insulting, they were not meant to be so. I was only trying to retain an open mindedness towards those who feel differently than us and trying not to condemn their views to early.

Sorry, but I have dealt with these types for decades and seen nothing but lies and dishonesty. Until that change, I see no reason for further understanding. Deliberate liars simply don't evoke any desire for being reasonable, at least not in me.

I have not tried to say that the principles of science are unsound or that the research is not rigorous enough. All I have tried to say is that I believe the teaching of science in school does not seem to provide a lot of room for the personal research of the students. It seems to merely be about trying make sure that the students can pass the tests.

But since they barely can do that, where do you see room for any of the extra education? When they don't even know the fundamentals of science, how will they be able to use the Scientific Method for critical analysis? They don't even know what the Scientific Method is to begin with!!!!

And then, of course, their fundie parents spew the crap about Science being the work opf the devil, or that Evolution is wrong, just because the parents want it to be. Yeah, good luck in getting any kind of critical analysis of the Science in the Schools. Only about 30+/- percent of the American population accept the Science to begin with, mainly because it IN THEIR MIND ONLY conflicts with their religion, neve4r mind that the perceived conflict is solely due to their own ignorance of the science.

Essentially (As you have also seen in this tread), many of these people are so ignorant or downright dumb/dishonest, that they don't get the actual science and therefore claim that it is wrong.

 

[steen]

I believe they do it on purpouse. The same happens in other topics. People deliberately distort something so they can more easily knock it down.

And then they get upset when we see them as lying idiots? :roll:

 

[Rhadamanthus]

OK. In that case, we are in agreement. We see some of the results of the abysmal quality of US Science education right here in this tread, where some creationists and IDers are posting nonsense post after nonsense post and spew one falsehood after the other. I agree that Science education is woefully inadequate in the US, and I believe that this is directly the cause of the US lead globally slipping as fast as it is, per our youth being undereducated or lied to (Witness the recent Kansas hearings on ID or the Dover school board trial going on right now.

Ah, but this is when the basic information is being provided. We don't have kids learn the mathematical proofs for 2+2=4 when we teach the foundations of algebra. We give them facts, just as the basic science class gives facts. As the students get more advanced, they can look at the critical thinking behind the data and the Scientific Theories.

But for heavens sake, as we have seen here, most don't even understand the Scientific Method or understand the difference between a Natural Law and a Scientific Theory. Until such basics are comprehended, the mechanisms of the Scientific Method can't be taught.
Sorry, but I have dealt with these types for decades and seen nothing but lies and dishonesty. Until that change, I see no reason for further understanding. Deliberate liars simply don't evoke any desire for being reasonable, at least not in me.
But since they barely can do that, where do you see room for any of the extra education? When they don't even know the fundamentals of science, how will they be able to use the Scientific Method for critical analysis? They don't even know what the Scientific Method is to begin with!!!!

And then, of course, their fundie parents spew the crap about Science being the work opf the devil, or that Evolution is wrong, just because the parents want it to be. Yeah, good luck in getting any kind of critical analysis of the Science in the Schools. Only about 30+/- percent of the American population accept the Science to begin with, mainly because it IN THEIR MIND ONLY conflicts with their religion, neve4r mind that the perceived conflict is solely due to their own ignorance of the science.

Essentially (As you have also seen in this tread), many of these people are so ignorant or downright dumb/dishonest, that they don't get the actual science and therefore claim that it is wrong.

Your right. As I have said before I am not very knowledgeable about a lot of the finer details of scientific theories and the scientific process, but at least I try to avoid pretending I know things I don't.

Again you are correct. I understand that it is imperative that students learn the basic principles of science but I think I should let you know where I am coming from. I am currently a student at my local highschool. During biology, somewhere between Robert Hooke and and cell theory, that I asked myself why was it that the things they were teaching seemed so familiar. I returned home and went through some of my old school work. (I save all my old stuff) I went all the back to my work from seventh grade when I noticed that the curriculum then was the same exact curriculum as the one now. Why is it that I am learning the same things, the exact same things, again? I am no scientist but still I feel that my mind is acute enough to comprehend more complex things then the fact that ribosomes are not membrane bound, for the second time.

Is it my fault that outside of school I don't study complex scientific theorem? I pride myself on some of the things I read betwean my other endeavors, but still, I feel that it should be the duty of the school system to supply its students with stimulating material.

Please don't take affront to any thing I may say. Please blame it on my woeful ignorance and lack of good education.

 

[kal-el]

Well, I have spent the last couple of weeks researching evolution, and how it happened, because I had a very obtuse understanding of it. And from all that I found out, the evidence is too overwhelming for it to be discounted. I beleived prior that evolution was random, however, that is only 1 element of it; there's also selection. The only thing that's random is mutations.

Anyway, Creationism isn't even a theory, it's just wishful thinking, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. On the other hand, evolution has testable evidence to back it up, look at resistance to antibiotics, the wind, or even gravity. If your asking for evidence of evolution, I say just open your eyes.

 

[nkgupta80]

Well, I have spent the last couple of weeks researching evolution, and how it happened, because I had a very obtuse understanding of it. And from all that I found out, the evidence is too overwhelming for it to be discounted. I beleived prior that evolution was random, however, that is only 1 element of it; there's also selection. The only thing that's random is mutations.

Anyway, Creationism isn't even a theory, it's just wishful thinking, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. On the other hand, evolution has testable evidence to back it up, look at resistance to antibiotics, the wind, or even gravity. If your asking for evidence of evolution, I say just open your eyes.

i gotta congratulate you on not only researching evolution with a truly objective mindset, but just taking the time to research it.

 

[kal-el]

i gotta congratulate you on not only researching evolution with a truly objective mindset, but just taking the time to research it.

Thanks man, after being shown countless evidence, I had a realy difficult time putting up any type of argument against evolution, so I decided to do some research on it to find out what it's all about.

 

[tecoyah]

Thanks man, after being shown countless evidence, I had a realy difficult time putting up any type of argument against evolution, so I decided to do some research on it to find out what it's all about.

Dude...my respect meter just went up a couple Notches....it is wonderful to see people actually educate themselves, rather than tighten the blinders.

*Tecoyah goes to read some more of the Bible*

 

[MrFungus420]

Well, I have spent the last couple of weeks researching evolution, and how it happened, because I had a very obtuse understanding of it. And from all that I found out, the evidence is too overwhelming for it to be discounted. I beleived prior that evolution was random, however, that is only 1 element of it; there's also selection. The only thing that's random is mutations.

Anyway, Creationism isn't even a theory, it's just wishful thinking, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. On the other hand, evolution has testable evidence to back it up, look at resistance to antibiotics, the wind, or even gravity. If your asking for evidence of evolution, I say just open your eyes.

Welcome to the Dark Side, my son... LOL

 

[kal-el]

The Vatican actually,well kinda, backs evolution!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Personally, I think they are feeling collective guilt over that Galileo thing.:2razz:

 

[Liberal_5000]

I'm afraid I must disagree, I was raised by right-wing, ultra conservative, catholics. I was literally FORCED to read articles written by the pope, and his associates. They have condemned not only the theory of evolution, but those who believe it, those who teach it, and especially, the great Darwin himself.

Oh and by the way, they claim no association with the Medevil Catholic Church.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

I'm afraid I must disagree, I was raised by right-wing, ultra conservative, catholics. I was literally FORCED to read articles written by the pope, and his associates. They have condemned not only the theory of evolution, but those who believe it, those who teach it, and especially, the great Darwin himself.

Oh and by the way, they claim no association with the Medevil Catholic Church.

Naw they switched ideologies when they realized that evolution was irrefutable.

 

[scottyz]

The Vatican actually,well kinda, backs evolution!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Personally, I think they are feeling collective guilt over that Galileo thing.:2razz:

"The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise..."
-Pope Pius XII

 

[kal-el]

Naw they switched ideologies when they realized that evolution was irrefutable.

Yes, what hypocrites! The "infallible" pontiff and his fellow priests seemed to flip-flop on this issue. I remember when they condemned Darwin and his teachings. But when faced with all the overwhelming evidence, they changed their toons.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Yes, what hypocrites! The "infallible" pontiff and his fellow priests seemed to flip-flop on this issue. I remember when they condemned Darwin and his teachings. But when faced with all the overwhelming evidence, they changed their toons.

Switched their toons

 

[Mr. D]

Well, I haven't seen convincing evidence making evolution any more credible than intelligent design.

The misunderstanding most people have is that they have been given an inaccurate explanation of Evolution as a "straw man" argument that can be easily discredited my those who oppose it.

First of all Evolution is no longer considered a theory by most scientists. It's considered provable fact. We can create evolution in simple animals in the lab. It can be observed in nature as Darwin did.

The deal is that Evolution simply means that all life forms change/adapt/evolve through time to better fit the environment in which they live. This is accomplished by natural selection. The better you fit into nature the better your chance to pass on your genetic characteristics to off spring and they cause them to evolve. Simple! Provable! Anything else is not part of Evolution! It does "not" say we came from apes or microbes in the water! All the rest is theory and speculation. The evidence is pretty strong that we can trace man back through earlier hominid forms having very obvious physical and behavioral characteristics of man as opposed to apes. Good scientists are very careful in telling you ONLY what they know for sure. They are all checking each others theories constantly! Most of what you hear that doesn't make sense doesn't come from good scientists, it comes from people that are anti science trying to discredit science for religious purposes or the uninformed trying to entertain on TV or in a magazine!

Who is to say the Evolution is not God's method of creation?

 

[kal-el]

The misunderstanding most people have is that they have been given an inaccurate explanation of Evolution as a "straw man" argument that can be easily discredited my those who oppose it.

First of all Evolution is no longer considered a theory by most scientists. It's considered provable fact. We can create evolution in simple animals in the lab. It can be observed in nature as Darwin did.

The deal is that Evolution simply means that all life forms change/adapt/evolve through time to better fit the environment in which they live. This is accomplished by natural selection. The better you fit into nature the better your chance to pass on your genetic characteristics to off spring and they cause them to evolve. Simple! Provable! Anything else is not part of Evolution! It does "not" say we came from apes or microbes in the water! All the rest is theory and speculation. The evidence is pretty strong that we can trace man back through earlier hominid forms having very obvious physical and behavioral characteristics of man as opposed to apes. Good scientists are very careful in telling you ONLY what they know for sure. They are all checking each others theories constantly! Most of what you hear that doesn't make sense doesn't come from good scientists, it comes from people that are anti science trying to discredit science for religious purposes or the uninformed trying to entertain on TV or in a magazine!

Who is to say the Evolution is not God's method of creation?

Yup. Through my extensive research on evolution, I have seen alot of testimonials of creationists attemtpting to discredit evolution, by saying all sorts of Biblical nonsense. Nevermind that these creationists presented no facts supporting creationism.

Evolution could indeed be "God's", or a higher power's tool. Or like science suggests, the Big Bang is responsible. I think? Could someone shed some more light on the Big Bang theory? Steen? Mr. Fungus?