1. You think “it hasn’t been observed” is a good argument
against it.

Popularized most recently by Ray Comfort’s mind-bendingly bad,
gospel-poisoning movie, “Evolution vs. God,” this claim generally
betrays not only a misunderstanding of evolution, but science in
general. If the idea (that “scientific evidence must be both
observable and repeatable”) were carried to its logical conclusion,
it would cripple not only the study of evolution, but every line of
historical inquiry. We would, in fact, be prohibited from exploring
most matters that cannot be brought inside or recreated within a
laboratory, whether they be large (the composition and origin of
stars, for example) or small (like the forensic recreation of a crime
scene).
Making viable conclusions based on inferences from the available
evidence is not at all unscientific, and it is this reasoning that has
compelled us toward the theory of evolution. Interestingly,
evolution is observable and repeatable in the sense that scientists
can make and test predictions of the theory, and this is exactly
what they have been doing for more than a century. For example,
the theory of evolution predicts that large-scale changes, like those
that turned fishy ancestors into land-treading mammals, take
many millions of years, so the fact that we haven’t observed
anything like that since Darwin is a confirmation of his
idea. If the fossil record, genetic evidence, laboratory experiments
and more had not borne out this and other predictions, it would
have immediately required modifications to the theory, and may
have falsified it altogether.
This, of course, is the defining characteristic of science:
Not that is observable and repeatable, but that it is
testable and falsifiable. There is very little that fit the former
criteria, but evolution absolutely fits the latter. As a side note, I do
get a chuckle from YECs who claim evolution isn’t scientific
because it isn’t observable or repeatable. Because, if anything is
not observable or repeatable, it’s creationism. Therefore, their
beliefs, too, are invalidated by their own argument.

2. You think we’ve never found a transitional fossil.

This claim is demonstrably false, and its use by those who claim
to serve the Lord through whom came grace and truth is
reprehensible. Strong language, I know, but Christians are
explicitly commanded not to lie to each other, so this is
inexcusable. We have found fossil series that clearly illustrate the
transitions of dozens of major features in various lines. We have
found “fishapods” and “frogamanders” and walking whales and
feathered dinosaurs and half-shelled turtles. We have often and
repeatedly found exactly what the theory of evolution predicted
we would find, in the time period in which the theory predicted
we would find it.

3. You think macroevolution is an inherently different
process than microevolution.

At its core, “macroevolution” is simply the steady accumulation of
the small changes we observe in “microevolution.” It seems any
sane person must admit that, if small changes can occur, then it is
logically consistent that small changes adding up over extremely
long periods of time would result in very large changes. On the
other hand, the creationist assertion that there is some
mysterious, invisible barrier within “kinds” that prevents large-
scale changes is as logically consistent as saying you can walk
from your front door to the sidewalk, but walking to your friend’s
house across town is fundamentally impossible.

4. You think mutations are always negative.

This is another one of those incredibly common and completely
untrue statements that nothing more than a few minutes’ research
on the Internet could have corrected. The truth is that mutations in
nature are usually neutral — i.e., they have no effect on the gene
or resulting protein. Of course, whether a mutation has a positive
or negative effect — or no effect at all — is often dependent on
environmental factors (for example, sickle cell anemia is a genetic
disease, but it also protects against malaria — making it either a
defect or a survival mechanism depending on one’s
environment). Mutations that are inherently harmful are
very rare. A 2000 study in Genetics showed that on average, out
of 175 mutations in humans, only three are deleterious. And
purely beneficial mutations have been observed, even in humans.
Just ask the handful of villagers at Limone sul Garda, Italy, who
possess a rare protein mutation that shields them from
cardiovascular disease. I doubt they’re complaining.

5. You think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let
alone the origins of the universe.

This is like the king of all straw men, and it’s extremely common.
It involves something like the thoroughly debunked theory of
spontaneous generation (the idea that life can come from non-life
under normal circumstances) being used as evidence against the
theory of evolution. Hear me on this, guys: Evolution has
nothing to do with the origin of life. The theory of evolution
presumes the existence of life, and it is a useless concept in the
absence of life. And, as such, scientists’ current confusion over
how life started has no impact whatsoever on the validity of the
theory of evolution. In the same way, Newtonian physics
presumes the existence of the universe; Newton did not have to
explain how the universe came to be in order to understand how
it operates now. Evolution is no different.
I’ve even seen people use things like stars and planets, or the
supposed implausibility of the Big Bang theory (the cosmological
model, not the show), to try and cast aspersions on the prevailing
theory of how biological organisms on earth have come to look
the way they do. These attempts are so nonsensical that I hope I
don’t really need to address them here.

6. You use the phrase “it’s only a theory” and think you’ve
made some kind of substantive statement.

I think the “only a theory” argument is so popular because of the
unfortunate disparity between the common definition of “theory”
in American pop culture, and the working definition of the word in
science. In popular usage, “theory” means a “hunch” or a “guess”
— and it’s the opposite of a “fact.” It’s conjecture, a shot in the
dark that has just as much chance (and probably even more so)
of being wrong as it has of being right.
In science, this definition is far more consistent with a
“hypothesis” than a theory. Hypotheses are guesses; they are
subject to experimentation, and they have no hope of progressing
beyond the hypothesis “stage,” unless they are supported by
experimentation. Theories are hypotheses that have “graduated”;
they are comprehensive explanations of the available hard
evidence. Scientific theories are not the opposite of facts;
they are actually superior to facts in the hierarchy of
terms because they explain facts. And while it is true that
scientific theories can never really be “proven,” they can be
confirmed through prediction, testing, experimentation and
observation — which is exactly what has happened to evolution
for the past 150 years.
Consider gravity. What is it? We don’t know. It is a theory, created
to explain facts like “When I drop something, it falls down.”
Gravity is, in fact, “only a theory,” just like evolution. But that
doesn’t seem to make people any less nervous around heights.

7. You think acceptance of evolution is the same as
religious faith.

Another one that you may have heard from our friend, Banana
Ray. In his film “EvG” (which is subtitled, “Shaking the Foundations
of Faith”), he underscores this supposed parallel by asking his
victims — oh, I mean, “interview subjects” — ridiculous questions
like “Are you a strong believer in evolution?” and “When did you
first start believing in evolution?” His point, as he goes on to
explain, is that anyone who accepts the truth of evolution based
on the testimony of expert scientists is relying on “blind faith” in
the same way atheists accuse religious people of doing.
“Blind faith” does indeed have pejorative connotations in secular
usage, but RayCo lends credence to these undertones in a way
that no True Christian™ should. That’s because the Bible talks
about “blind” religious faith, and its description is anything but
negative. In John 20:29, Jesus declares that those who “believe
without seeing” are “blessed” (contrasting them with “doubting”
Thomas, who asked for proof), and 1 Peter 8-9 warmly declares
that those who have not and do not see Christ nonetheless are
“filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving
the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.”
So, ironically, if RayCo really understood scripture he would realize
that he was actually giving his victims — er, “interview subjects”
— a compliment when he accused them of having “blind faith.”
But I reject his assertion that the trust college students place in
their experienced professors and peer-reviewed textbooks is in
any way comparable to the glorious, joy-bringing, life-saving faith
that the Bible describes.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m a big supporter of critical thought —
and of an engaged populace that rationally considers the
information it receives before accepting it. But there are far worse
people one could open one’s mind to than those who are sharing
their expertise within the fields they have risen to the top of —
especially when their conclusions are based on mountains of hard
evidence that are available to anyone who doesn’t willfully choose
to ignore it. The scientific community is extremely competitive,
but it is also inherently open and transparent — and the modern
comforts and advances you enjoy every day are proof that their
methods work.

8. You think our modern understanding of it rests on a long
series of hoaxes perpetuated by scientists.

Affirmed by the likes of everyone’s favorite nut-job conspiracy
theorist meets cartoonist, Jack Chick, this idea is alive and well in
evangelical culture. And why shouldn’t it be? Repeatedly assured
by young-earth creationist groups that there is “absolutely no
evidence for evolution,” what else would explain the theory’s
unshakable dominance in the scientific community, courts and
public schools besides a vast atheist conspiracy? And so, young-
earthers on the Internet commonly parrot blatant falsehoods like
“Archaeopteryx was a hoax” (they’re actually thinking of this; we
have more than a dozen verified specimens of Archaeopteryx)
and “Java Man and Peking Man were frauds” (not actually true;
probably because of Piltdown Man, creationists seem to believe
that any fossil with the word “man” in its name was a hoax).
The truth is that we have found fossilized remains of many of the
links along our most recent evolutionary heritage, and anyone
who thinks we haven’t is simply wrong. But what I find most
interesting thing in the cases of Archaeoraptor, Piltdown Man and
Nebraska Man (an accidental misclassification rather than a
deliberate hoax), it was scientists — not skeptical creationists —
that brought the truth to light. That alone should be enough to
sink this conspiracy theory nonsense. Why would the very
people who are supposed to be perpetuating a hoax be solely
responsible for debunking evidence that would otherwise support
their hoax?
They answer is obvious: They wouldn’t.

9. You don’t like Pokémon because you think it
“promotes” evolution.

I haven’t encountered this sentiment in my dealings on this site,
thankfully, but I was reminded of this “controversy” after the
recent release of the latest entries in the Pokémon franchise, which
I think are called Pokémon Yin and Yang, or Pokémon Peanut
Butter and Jelly, or Pokémon Men are from Mars, Women are
from Venus. Something like that.
Here is what the Pokémon version of evolution has in common
with the theory of biological evolution as we understand it. No. 1:
They’re both called “evolution.” No. 2: That’s it. In the game,
Pokémon “evolve” into completely different creatures when they
reach a certain level, or walk a certain number of steps, or are
exposed to a “moon stone” and similar malarkey. In real life,
species “evolve” when inheritable characteristics change over time
and are passed onto successive generations.
Plain and simple: If a silly game causes you psychological
discomfort just because it uses the word “evolution,” then it
would seem you have problems I’m not trained or licensed to
help you out with.

10. You think it’s inherently opposed to Christianity or the
Bible.

Evolution, as defined by Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes in their
textbook, “Biology,” is “any change in the frequency of alleles
within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” It is beyond
me how accepting this fact of science could possibly undermine
one’s faith in Jesus — from whom originated all things which
science is capable of exploring.
Christ is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Therefore, if evolution is true — as everything we know about
biology, and a number of overlapping fields of inquiry indicate —
then it is incapable of conflicting with the God-breathed truth of
sacred scripture. If there appears to be a disagreement
between the two, then the interpretation of the passage
in question must be incorrect. For the Bible-believing
Christian, there is no other option.

Link;www.godofevolution.com/the-top-10-signs-that-you-dont-understand-evolution-at-all/

OP, I commend you foe a job well done. this post was clearly expository. But my fear is that it will fail to achieve anything here because the Christians (and other religious people) here have chosen to close their minds to anything that even remotely seems contrary to the words in their Bible. Sometimes I wonder if the power to think And reason and see the truth for themselves was denied the adherents of these religions. But your post was very educative. Thanks for sharing.

Okay...so Evolution might just be true


My question is why then has it stopped?
Or why have apes or whatever stopped evolving into humans ?

nice write up, the only way for all these religious guys to understand evolution is to know that God created a dynamic and self sustaining system rather than stagnant system

Blakjewelry:
nice write up, the only way for all these religious guys to understand evolution is to know that God created a dynamic and self sustaining system rather than stagnant system

100 likes

i have my mind sealed off and unaffected by a set of horrible,fake and fallible theories.Could it be because i'm a Christain?Hell No!...I think it's more like because no one is offering a cool,cogent explanations to the theories since Charles Darwins died,not even from CERN or any other ultra-scientific institutions.Even Einstein carefully distanced himself from those theories invented in the moments of scientific idiocy.And mr op,even your own post is flawed[I sincerely doubt he's the original writer of this treatise]....You wönder @ how theories of evolution attack the existence of God and the credibility of christanity....After posting such an educative article[God alone knows who's getting educated by this,because i did the entire reading with a look of scorn in my face]...you displayed ignorance for someone so learned to come up with post number 10......For God's sake,Darwins was a certified atheist!...and i don't expect him in his time...just as a couple of atheists on NL these days....not to question God's existence and mock religion....HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION WAS A SEEMINGLY PERFECT WAY OF ACHIEVING THAT!

alexis007:
i have my mind sealed off and unaffected by a set of horrible,fake and fallible theories.Could it be because i'm a Christain?Hell No!...I think it's more like because no one is offering a cool,cogent explanations to the theories since Charles Darwins died,not even from CERN or any other ultra-scientific institutions.Even Einstein carefully distanced himself from those theories invented in the moments of scientific idiocy.And mr op,even your own post is flawed[I sincerely doubt he's the original writer of this treatise]....You wönder @ how theories of evolution attack the existence of God and the credibility of christanity....After posting such an educative article[God alone knows who's getting educated by this,because i did the entire reading with a look of scorn in my face]...you displayed ignorance for someone so learned to come up with post number 10......For God's sake,Darwins was a certified atheist!...and i don't expect him in his time...just as a couple of atheists on NL these days....not to question God's existence and mock religion....HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION WAS A SEEMINGLY PERFECT WAY OF ACHIEVING THAT!

You are not well.

alexis007:
i have my mind sealed off and unaffected by a set of horrible,fake and fallible theories.Could it be because i'm a Christain?Hell No!...I think it's more like because no one is offering a cool,cogent explanations to the theories since Charles Darwins died,not even from CERN or any other ultra-scientific institutions.Even Einstein carefully distanced himself from those theories invented in the moments of scientific idiocy.And mr op,even your own post is flawed[I sincerely doubt he's the original writer of this treatise]....You wönder @ how theories of evolution attack the existence of God and the credibility of christanity....After posting such an educative article[God alone knows who's getting educated by this,because i did the entire reading with a look of scorn in my face]...you displayed ignorance for someone so learned to come up with post number 10......For God's sake,Darwins was a certified atheist!...and i don't expect him in his time...just as a couple of atheists on NL these days....not to question God's existence and mock religion....HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION WAS A SEEMINGLY PERFECT WAY OF ACHIEVING THAT!

my brother, the beauty of a real scientist is not to let his belief come between his work, but that is hard to come by when you belong to setting religion because one sentiment must come into play not because you are directly questioning the existence of God but because you might end up questioning the very foundation on which your belief is laid. one of the biggest problem in both Christianity and Islam is that many people take the book of genesis at face value without taking cognisance of the ancient Semitic language with which it was written

nobilis:
OP, I commend you foe a job well done. this post was clearly expository. But my fear is that it will fail to achieve anything here because the Christians (and other religious people) here have chosen to close their minds to anything that even remotely seems contrary to the words in their Bible. Sometimes I wonder if the power to think And reason and see the truth for themselves was denied the adherents of these religions. But your post was very educative. Thanks for sharing.

you welcome

StealthyMe:
Okay...so Evolution might just be true


My question is why then has it stopped?
Or why have apes or whatever stopped evolving into humans ?

your questions show you dont know how evolution works.

Evolution hasnt stopped, human beings are evolving, you dont just seem to understand it.

alexis, i understand you, the way you're feeling, you feel that accepting evolution changes everything about your belief, you 're not wrong.

Now this is it, stop calling evolution a belief system, fake or fallible stories, it is a scientific theory that has be proven (which took over 200 years). You guys dont seem to have problem with other theories like gravitation, germ theory simply because it doesnt threaten your beliefs though it took a while before you accept that too even in the process killing some scientists. This explains why we dont have some gravitationalist who believe in gravitation.

Biologist and others have acheived alot through evolution, we can now answer many questions we cant before, we can now trace many diseases back as thousands years back. So many.

Einstein was a physicist, he wasnt a biologist, why would he not separate himself. In science, we dont display ignorance like in any other field, watch scientific debates and you'd know what i'm saying. A neuroscientist wont pretend to know more about the cosmos than an astrophysicist, it doesnt work like that.

I wasnt the original writer

sure, he was an atheist but he was afraid of what they might do to him so he told his friend T.X Huxley to coin to term Agnostic for him. Darwin was a shy person with a religious wife, what do you expect?

This is example of what religion can do to you my brother, yes, it shuts your reasoning. Yes, it makes you satisfies with illogical answers and many more.

Peterken05:

your questions show you dont know how evolution works.

Evolution hasnt stopped, human beings are evolving, you dont just seem to understand it.

You're totally right...i really don't know anything about evolution
Mind educating me a bit?
So,the humans that are evolving...what'll they turn to after a complete phase of evolution ?

Blakjewelry:

my brother, the beauty of a real scientist is not to let his belief come between his work, but that is hard to come by when you belong to setting religion because one sentiment must come into play not because you are directly questioning the existence of God but because you might end up questioning the very foundation on which your belief is laid. one of the biggest problem in both Christianity and Islam is that many people take the book of genesis at face value without taking cognisance of the ancient Semitic language with which it was written

so?...you got the book of genesis in the 'ancient semitic language' version?......mtschewww.....i doubt you do...unless your ancestors were among the knight templars who scavenged on Jerusalem's ruins after its fall looking for the holy grail and other treasured relics...

logicboy01:





You are not well.

say something more articulate...abi i'm about to beat you and peter at your game?

Peterken05:
alexis, i understand you, the way you're feeling, you feel that accepting evolution changes everything about your belief, you 're not wrong.

Now this is it, stop calling evolution a belief system, fake or fallible stories, it is a scientific theory that has be proven (which took over 200 years). You guys dont seem to have problem with other theories like gravitation, germ theory simply because it doesnt threaten your beliefs though it took a while before you accept that too even in the process killing some scientists. This explains why we dont have some gravitationalist who believe in gravitation.

Biologist and others have acheived alot through evolution, we can now answer many questions we cant before, we can now trace many diseases back as thousands years back. So many.

Einstein was a physicist, he wasnt a biologist, why would he not separate himself. In science, we dont display ignorance like in any other field, watch scientific debates and you'd know what i'm saying. A neuroscientist wont pretend to know more about the cosmos than an astrophysicist, it doesnt work like that.

I wasnt the original writer

sure, he was an atheist but he was afraid of what they might do to him so he told his friend T.X Huxley to coin to term Agnostic for him. Darwin was a shy person with a religious wife, what do you expect?

This is example of what religion can do to you my brother, yes, it shuts your reasoning. Yes, it makes you satisfies with illogical answers and many more.

take a second look @ your last paragraph....you claim the theories bear no grudge against religion....yet the same you mock religion...Listen bro,wia you are 2day,i've been there before,and i tell you;either arrogance or depression,or the both,are responsible for the making of an atheist....In arrogance,you refuse to attribute your success to the workings of an Infinite being,question the reverence accorded to Him in churches,mosques,temples and pagodas,feel you should be the one earning the glory etc...in depression,you blame your losses and crises on Him and even reason that He's either nön-existent or a sadist who takes secret pleasure in your sufferings.....I studied darwin's theories the 1st time i encountered them and i told myself that these won't survive four centuries before they get debunked[didn't know why i thought as much @ the time]and funny enough,some in your fold[nature scientists and cosmologists alike] have invalidated darwin's theories ruthlessly[i understand your feeling on reading this,you must surely be screaming 'TRAITORS!' by now...please do take your fone with you when you die.you'd need to kol someone from the grave after 200 years and ask them about the theory of evolution....certainly you'd get 'NOW EXTINCT' 4 an answer]....meanwhile, religion has stayed on for centuries despite cruel persecutions...you know why?...BECAUSE OIL WOULD ALWAYS FLOAT NO MATTER HOW MUCH WATER YOU POUR UPON IT!!...

StealthyMe:
Okay...so Evolution might just be true


My question is why then has it stopped?
Or why have apes or whatever stopped evolving into humans ?

The way you have framed your question betrays a deep lack of understanding. Apes haven't stopped evolving into humans, humans are apes that are still evolving. So it hasn't stopped. The humans of 100,000 years ago aren't the same as today's humans.

StealthyMe:


You're totally right...i really don't know anything about evolution
Mind educating me a bit?
So,the humans that are evolving...what'll they turn to after a complete phase of evolution ?

lol, funny, its not like we're going to turn to something else.

For example, when someone says evolution of nairaland, it doesnt mean nairaland changes it layout e.t.c overnight, it simply means how nairaland has been changing, 1st it was like button, now we have share button.

Now back to humans, for example we are losing our wisdom because we no longer eat foilages, our brains are shrinking, e.t.c all these due to either natural selection or genetic mutation.

@alexis,

i dont know what you're saying about depression or arrogance.

I dont know about nature scientist and cosmologist debunking evolution theory either. Why would a cosmologist debunked evolution?

I still cant grasp what you're trying to say.

AgentOfAllah:


The way you have framed your question betrays a deep lack of understanding. Apes haven't stopped evolving into humans, humans are apes that are still evolving. So it hasn't stopped. The humans of 100,000 years ago aren't the same as today's humans.

Yes,you're right...am totally ignorant in matters regarding evolution

So,you said apes haven't stopped evolving into humans
Please what is your proof and how certain are you ?

If they are still evolving into humans,why then are there still apes that grow old and die without evolving?

And since you stated that 'humans' are apes still evolving,which animal would human evolve into next in the evolution chain?

Peterken05:


lol, funny, its not like we're going to turn to something else.

For example, when someone says evolution of nairaland, it doesnt mean nairaland changes it layout e.t.c overnight, it simply means how nairaland has been changing, 1st it was like button, now we have share button.

Now back to humans, for example we are losing our wisdom because we no longer eat foilages, our brains are shrinking, e.t.c all these due to either natural selection or genetic mutation.

Ok..Thanks a ton for the explanation!
I totally understand your post

Can you pls refer me to a link/page where a detailed evolution of apes to human was explained?

Would be grateful if you did...

Peterken05, pls i was just wondering...

If apes underwent evolution and finally evolved into humans , why then will humans undergo evolution and not finally evolve into something else?

StealthyMe:


Yes,you're right...am totally ignorant in matters regarding evolution

So,you said apes haven't stopped evolving into humans
Please what is your proof and how certain are you ?

If they are still evolving into humans,why then are there still apes that grow old and die without evolving?

And since you stated that 'humans' are apes still evolving,which animal would human evolve into next in the evolution chain?

There are several types of apes, right? Humans are just one species. All apes are still evolving, including humans. Evolution is not a discrete interval point, it's a continuous chain. We may not stop calling ourselves humans, but our physiology and anatomy are changing ever so gradually. For example, there was a time humans could ingest raw meat with no problem, now, such exotic diets are increasingly becoming a luxury our systems can't accommodate.

Evolution does not require one species to end in order for another to thrive. Their environments are vastly different so too are their resulting evolutional paths. Mind you, in the case of humans and all the other existing apes, our common ancestor is no more, so while existing apes will thrive in the environments they are suited for, they will not do very well in environments adapted for humans.

As for proof, the wiki page is a good starting point.

StealthyMe:
Peterken05, pls i was just wondering...

If apes underwent evolution and finally evolved into humans , why then will humans undergo evolution and not finally evolve into something else?

apes didnt evolve to humans, apes and humans have the same ancestry, these are two different things.

StealthyMe:
Okay...so Evolution might just be true


My question is why then has it stopped?
Or why have apes or whatever stopped evolving into humans ?

evolution has not stop, it is just too slow for you to observe

alexis007:
so?...you got the book of genesis in the 'ancient semitic language' version?......mtschewww.....i doubt you do...unless your ancestors were among the knight templars who scavenged on Jerusalem's ruins after its fall looking for the holy grail and other treasured relics...

even though the true copies of the ancient scripts are not available today, there copies which date far back and their are available excavated ancient relic from surrounding areas which can point to some form of writing back then.

OK..

The problem with NL is that a lot of opinions are accepted by the general public as truth, simply because they were intelligently presented.

OP, with all due respect sir, a very large part of what you posted here is not remotely true but of course a very large number of people will stumble on it and think they have struck gold.

Since, I don't have the time to disprove a lot of what has been said here, I'll beg everyone that sees this to do their own personal investigation.

I'll end by addressing the OP, this your post has an innocent "scientific" look but has a lot of anti-religious undertones.If you want to be a true scientist, please take out all the sentiments attached and allow people come to their conclusion.
Gracias.

Blakjewelry:

even though the true copies of the ancient scripts are not available today, there copies which date far back and their are available excavated ancient relic from surrounding areas which can point to some form of writing back then.

and you got them in your personal library?or you've visited a museum and saw them on display?.....wait a minute...are you,in a way,trying to say that the original manuscripts of Genesis had theory-of-evolution undertones,and that mischievious translators expunged those undertones in a naughty attempt to distance science from religion?My friend,you better have something meaningful to say b4 i arraign you b4 the Inquisition and charge you with 1st-degree heresy...

Peterken05:
@alexis,

i dont know what you're saying about depression or arrogance.

I dont know about nature scientist and cosmologist debunking evolution theory either. Why would a cosmologist debunked evolution?

I still cant grasp what you're trying to say.

you don't know what i was trying to say about depression and arrogance?read again bro.....i'm sure you've got enough brain cells to help you interprete the message i was trying to convey....and why would a cosmologist debunk evolution?....lemme get you an answer...now just like dis theory of evolution,the 'big bang' theory[you see where the 'cosmologist comes in]is regarded as an atheistic notion by many religious folks......these 2 theories[the big bang and the evolution ish]...attack the credibility of the creation story in Genesis directly.For against perfect design and pre-meditated,non-evolutionary stagnancy of living organisms...the Big bang theory and darwin's evolution ish supports life on earth starting and expanding by an unforeseen,undesigned amd unmanned streak of chance...and if you're yet to know that both theories complement each other,then you're a learner.......Now,about the debunking part,Google is always there for you...you surely know how to ask questions on it....get to know people who 'killed' these two principal atheistic theories and see why Charles Darwins could make Guiness book of records as the most ridiculous joker of all time...