Spider wrote:
“One of the basic facts of Evolution is that it cannot be observed.”

We don’t need to observe “evolution” to know that it had to have occurred.

Spider posted:
===============================================================
A scientific theory must:
1. be empirically testable or lead to predictions or retrodictions that are testable
2. actually make verified predictions and/or retrodictions
3. involve reproducible results
4. provide criteria for the interpretation of data as factual, artifactual, anomalous or irrelevant
===============================================================
“See number three? That is covered by your astrophyicist strawman. Everybody who looks into space sees the same thing. One of the basic facts of Evolution is that it cannot be observed. The few cases which evolutionists clam that they have observed evolution are demonstrably false.”

This is just a gross misunderstanding on your part.

Number three does not mean that the final thing you are concluding must be reproducible! What it means it that any evidence you have for basing your conclusions upon be reproducible! And in the case of fossil records they are reproducible! Many paleontologists have gone out and found the same kinds of fossils all over the world that all match up with the original hypotheses.

They don’t need to show every tiny little specific link. The overwhelming (and reproducible) results are simply that life on earth become increasingly complex over millions of years with each geological age producing fossils of similar levels of complexity.

Number 3 doesn’t mean that they need to actually reproduce evolution in the lab.

That’s not what it means at all.

The evidence for evolution HAS been reproduced by many paleontologists. Evolution is hard-core science and satisfies the scientific method completely.

As to the rest of your post I don’t have time to look into those things right now, but I’m sure they are no differnet from your chili pepper example before. They are logically flawed in some way I am sure. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it’s NOT going to be overturned. It’s as well-established as the fact that the earth goes around the sun. It’s just not going to be overturned. Most scientists don’t even question it anymore, and the few that do are most likely religion-motivated because there is no scientific motivation to question it. There simply isn’t a better theory available.

The Biblical story is so full of holes that it falls apart on it’s own account and doesn’t need any observational evidence to disprove it.

Like I say, believe whatever you like. Your understanding of science is simply wrong.

==============================================================
Most scientists don’t even question it anymore
==============================================================

You say that like it's a good thing.

==============================================================
The Biblical story is so full of holes that it falls apart on it’s own account and doesn’t need any observational evidence to disprove it.
==============================================================

Please offer an example.

==============================================================
What it means it that any evidence you have for basing your conclusions upon be reproducible!
==============================================================

Really? It says "involve reproducible results" not "involve reproducible evidence".

Here's an example for you. I think that humans are actually walking jellyfish. My proof is water. Since all you have to do is turn on a facet to get water, I am correct. Reproducible evidence, what a wonderful concept. Sorry, but it's reproducible results.

==============================================================
The evidence for evolution HAS been reproduced by many paleontologists.
==============================================================

Fossils are not evidence for evolution.

1) You have no proof that the fossil produced children
2) You have no proof that the fossil produced children which were different from it.

Therefore, stating the fossils are evidence for evolution automatically assumes that evolution is real. Otherwise, you wouldn't conclude that fossils are evidence of evolution, you would conclude that fossils were evidence of extinct species.

basically every single bit of information is going to be denied by people like spider. No mattter how much proof we give they will continue to say NO NO NO NO NO
Faith based denial is unfortuanatly a very common thing.
it no use arguing as the only response these people will have is to cover their eyes and say NO

oh heres a bit of evolution 4 u, in young people my age our thumbs have become stronger and r used more than our pointer finger due to the use of videogames over a generation
providing that video games continue to be a cultural tool in use for many generations, then the human thumb will gradually assume dominance over the rest of the hand

But hey like i said denial is a strong emotion

Here, let me put a bullet in a dead horse.

Abra - you said evolution is a proven fact because it's evidential? Where's the evidence? I'd like to go see it.

If this is true:

"We don’t need to observe “evolution” to know that it had to have occurred."

Explain to me why this isn't

We don’t need to observe “the resurrection” to know that it had to have occurred.

Eljay,

==============================================================
If this is true:

"We don’t need to observe “evolution” to know that it had to have occurred."

Explain to me why this isn't

We don’t need to observe “the resurrection” to know that it had to have occurred.
==============================================================

Great point! As the young people say "PWND!"

lizardking19,

If you look at my posts, you will find that faith has nothing to do with my denial of evolution. Evolution is questionable science at best. Even among evolutionists, there is debate on if Bird evolved from dinosaurs or parallel to dinosaurs. There is no agreement and I feel evolution is not an accurate conclusion based on the facts.

God has real never given us a detailed outline on how we were made but just simply stated that He has created us in his image. He did say though that we were created from the dust of the earth. Why is it so important to know if we were from Adam & eve or from monkeys. The person that we are talking about wanted to disprove the Bible and to show that we can do anything on our own but that Theory has been blown out of the water as well. We have our own selfish desares and wants. May GBU and your families.

Your new friend,
Sam

is the theory of evolution

relative

hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

Eljay wrote:
“"We don’t need to observe “evolution” to know that it had to have occurred."

Explain to me why this isn't “

Ok, I’ll humor you and Spider for a moment.

You guys claim that there’s no evidence for “evolution”. And perhaps your right in the most technical sense. However, that’s just a feeble play on semantics.

The evidence is that life became increasingly complex over geological time. Does this prove evolution has occurred? No, not at all. One could argue that a supreme creator has simply chosen to continually create more complex life over time. Shoot evolution down and the idea of a supreme creator reigns.

Sure, you can do that. But now your faced with a supreme creator that obviously does things by trial-and-error and doesn’t appear to have a “master plan”.

Fine, you can go with that if you like. But what has that accomplished? Not much. It just threw a wench in your own doctrine.

Science has also discovered DNA and genetics which are a viable mechanism for how evolution can work. Not only can we see genetic mutations occur over short breeding processes, but genetic experiments in the laboratory clearly show how it can work and even be manipulated.

So science has not only shown evidence for how life became more complex, but it has also shown the mechanism that was used. What more do you want?

Spider wrote:
==============================================================
Most scientists don’t even question it anymore
==============================================================
“You say that like it's a good thing.”

It is a good thing. Once you understand something as thoroughly as we understand evolution there’s simply no need to question it anymore. That would be like continuing to question whether or not the earth goes around the sun, after we have already verified that it does.

Scientists still pursue the details of evolution and probably will for millennium to come. It’s not that they don’t believe it, they just want to gain a better understanding of how it works. They still study the biology of humans too but it’s not because they don’t believe in humans.

Moreover, scientists are always open to a better theory. If you can come up with a better theory than evolution that fits the data by all means do it. But if your theory is that a mystical God created life, then they are going to ask you for two kinds of evidence. First, they’ll ask you for the evidence of your god, and an old mythological book written by men is not evidence, because there are many such fictional stories of gods. And secondly they’ll ask for your evidence that your god did not actually use a process of evolution to create life.

If you can bring forth that evidence I’m sure that any rational person would listen to what you have to say. But no such evidence exists.

Let’s face it. You guys have a religious agenda. PERIOD! You couldn’t care less what the evidence is or isn’t. All you care about is preserving a fairytale that HAS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.

You’ll both be glad to hear that I’m leaving the forums for the holidays. Talking to irrational people on the web is highly unproductive and seriously serves no purpose. If you guys want to keep your head planted in mythology and distort the truth of science to the public be my guest.

My cat carries on better conversations than this.

Spider wrote:
“If you look at my posts, you will find that faith has nothing to do with my denial of evolution. Evolution is questionable science at best. Even among evolutionists, there is debate on if Bird evolved from dinosaurs or parallel to dinosaurs. There is no agreement and I feel evolution is not an accurate conclusion based on the facts.”

These kind of trivial ‘arguments’ against evolution are a waste of everyone’s time. The details of precisely what evolved from what are totally irrelevant to the bigger picture that life on earth evolved.

To say that evolution is question science at best, is totally untrue Spider. You just refuse to accept it is all.

Sweetlove wrote:
” God has real never given us a detailed outline on how we were made but just simply stated that He has created us in his image. He did say though that we were created from the dust of the earth. Why is it so important to know if we were from Adam & eve or from monkeys.”

If I were a religious person that’s precisely the stance I would take.

I would completely accept evolution and just say, “So that’s how God created us then”.

It’s no big deal.

You see, I’m not against the religion in it’s truest form.

What I’m against are fanatical radicals who try to use religion to incite ignorance and bigotry. Usually the two go hand-in-hand with fanatical radicals.

Most Christians I know have no problem with evolution.

spider the reason i brought up ur faith is bcause im aware of what u believe in due to previous arguments and a denial of evolution of has to do with an inadmitance of any wrongs with ones religion ESPECIALLY concerning whether or not god created us
the amount of evidence pointng towards evolution is massive, there a gaps that we still dont understand yet but they don NOTHING to disprove it so heres proof of evolution by way of a timeline from wikipedia
I challenge any creationist or faith based denier to give me evidence that proves their theory because as of yet there is none

Date Event
4000 Ma The earliest life appears.
See: Origin of life

3900 Ma Cells resembling prokaryotes appear.
See: Origins of cells

2500 Ma First organisms to utilize oxygen.
2100 Ma More complex cells appear: the eukaryotes.
See : Eukaryote Origin and Evolution

1200 Ma Sexual reproduction evolves, leading to faster evolution.[1]
900 Ma
ChoanoflagellateThe choanoflagellates may look similar to the ancestors of the entire animal kingdom, and in particular they may be the direct ancestors of sponges.[2] Proterospongia (members of the Choanoflagellata) are the best living examples of what the ancestor of all animals may have looked like.

They live in colonies, and show a primitive level of cellular specialization for different tasks.

600 Ma It is thought that the earliest multicellular animal was a sponge-like creature.
Sponges are among the simplest of animals, with partially differentiated tissues.

Sponges (Porifera) are the phylogenetically oldest animal phylum extant today.

580 Ma The movement of all animals may have started with cnidarians. Almost all cnidarians possess nerves and muscles and, because they are the simplest animals to possess it, their direct ancestors were very likely the first animals to use nerves and muscles together. Cnidarians are also the first animals with an actual body of definite form and shape. They have radial symmetry.
550 Ma
FlatwormFlatworms are the earliest animals to have a brain, and the simplest animals alive to have bilateral symmetry. They are also the simplest animals with organs that form from three germ layers.
540 Ma Acorn worms are considered more highly specialised and advanced than other similarly shaped worm-like creatures. They have a circulatory system with a heart that also functions as a kidney. Acorn worms have the gill-like structure it uses for breathing, a structure similar to that of primitive fish. Acorn worms are thus sometimes said to be a link between vertebrates and invertebrates.
530 Ma
PikaiaThe earliest known ancestor of the chordates is Pikaia. It is the first known animal with a notochord. Pikaia is believed to be the ancestor of all chordates and vertebrates.[3]




The Lancelet, still living today, retains some characteristics of the primitive chordates. It resembles Pikaia

Other earliest known chordate-like fossils is from a conodonts a "eel-shaped animal of 4-20 cm (1½-8 in) long" with a pair of huge eyes at the head end were and a complex basket of teeth.

505 Ma
AgnathaThe first vertebrates appear: the ostracoderms, jawless fish related to present-day lampreys and hagfishes. Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia are examples of these jawless fish, or Agnatha. (See also prehistoric fish). They were jawless and their internal skeletons were cartilaginous. They lacked the paired (pectoral and pelvic) fins of more advanced fish. They were the Precursors to the bony fish. [4]

480 Ma
A PlacodermiThe Placodermi were prehistoric fishes. Placoderms were the first of the jawed fishes, their jaws evolving from the first of their gill arches [5]. Their head and thorax were covered by articulated armoured plates and the rest of the body was scaled or naked.

400 Ma First Coelacanth appears; this order of animals had been thought to have no extant members until living specimens were discovered in 1938. It is often referred to as a living fossil.
375 Ma Tiktaalik is a genus of sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fishes from the late Devonian with many tetrapod-like features.
365 Ma
PanderichthysSome fresh water lobe-finned fish (Sarcopterygii) develop legs and give rise to the Tetrapoda.

The first tetrapods evolved in shallow and swampy freshwater habitats.

Primitive tetrapods developed from a lobe-finned fish (an "osteolepid Sarcopterygian"), with a two-lobed brain in a flattened skull, a wide mouth and a short snout, whose upward-facing eyes show that it was a bottom-dweller, and which had already developed adaptations of fins with fleshy bases and bones. The "living fossil" coelacanth is a related lobe-finned fish without these shallow-water adaptations. These fishes used their fins as paddles in shallow-water habitats choked with plants and detritus. The universal tetrapod characteristics of front limbs that bend backward at the elbow and hind limbs that bend forward at the knee can plausibly be traced to early tetrapods living in shallow water.[6]

Panderichthys is a 90-130 cm (35-50 in) long fish from the Late Devonian period. It has a large tetrapod-like head. Panderichthys exhibits features transitional between lobe-finned fishes and early tetrapods.

Lungfishes retain some characteristics of the early Tetrapodas. One example is the Australian Lungfish.

315 Ma
Acanthostega
IchthyostegaAcanthostega is an extinct amphibian, among the first animals to have recognizable limbs. It is a candidate for being one of the first vertebrates to be capable of coming onto land. It lacked wrists, and was generally poorly adapted for life on land. The limbs could not support the animal's weight. Acanthostega had both lungs and gills, also indicating it was a link between lobe-finned fish and terrestrial vertebrates.

Ichthyostega is an early tetrapod. Being one of the first animals with legs, arms, and finger bones, Ichthyostega is seen as a hybrid between a fish and an amphibian. Ichthyostega' had legs but its limbs probably weren't used for walking, they may have spent very brief periods out of water and would have used their legs to paw their way through the mud.[7]

Amphibia were the first four-legged animals to develop lungs.

Amphibians living today still retain many characteristics of the early tetrapods.

300 Ma
HylonomusFrom amphibians came the first reptiles: Hylonomus is the earliest known reptile. It was 20 cm (8 in) long (including the tail) and probably would have looked rather similar to modern lizards. It had small sharp teeth and probably ate millipedes and early insects. It is a precursor of later amniotes and mammal-like reptiles.

Evolution of the amniotic egg gives rise to the Amniota, reptiles that can reproduce on land and lay eggs on dry land. They did not need to return to water for reproduction. This adaptation gave them the capability to colonize the uplands for the first time.

Reptiles have advanced nervous system, compared to amphibians. They have twelve pairs of cranial nerves.

256 Ma
Phtinosuchus, an early TherapsidShortly after the appearance of the first reptiles, two branches split off. One is Synapsida: they had a pair of holes in their skulls behind the eyes, which were used to increase the space for jaw muscles. The other branch is Diapsida.

From synapsids came the Therapsida, the direct ancestor of mammals. They are often called mammal-like reptiles.

The earliest mammal-like reptilian are the pelycosaurs. The pelycosaurs was the first animals to have temporal fenestra. Pelycosaurs are not Therapsida but soon they gave rise to them. The therapsids have temporal fenestrae larger and more mammal-like than pelycosaurs, their teeth show more serial differentiation; and later forms had evolved a secondary palate. A secondary palate enables the animal to eat and breathe at the same time and is a sign of a more active, perhaps warm-blooded, way of life. [8]

220 Ma One sub-group of therapsids, the cynodonts have evolved more mammal-like characteristics.
The jaws of cynodonts resemble modern mammal jawsis very likely to be the direct ancestors of all modern mammals.[9]

220 Ma
RepenomamusFrom eucynodonts (cynodonts) came the first mammals.Most early mammals were small and shrew-like animals that fed on insects. Constant body temperature. All mammals have milk glands for their young. Neocortex first evolved in mammals. This brain region is unique to mammals.

125 Ma
Eomaia scansoriaEomaia scansoria, a eutherian mammal, leads to the formation of modern placental mammals. It looks like modern dormouse, climbing small shrubs in Liaoning, China.

100 Ma Common genetic ancestor of mice and humans.
65 Ma
Carpolestes simpsoni
A Plesiadapis without fur.A group of small, nocturnal and arboreal, insect-eating mammals called the Euarchonta begins a speciation that will lead to the primate, treeshrew and flying lemur orders. The Primatomorpha is a subdivision of Euarchonta that includes the primates and the proto-primate Plesiadapiformes. One of the early proto-primates is Plesiadapis. Plesiadapis still had claws and the eyes located on each side of the head, because of that they were faster on the ground than on the top of the trees, but they begin to spend long times on lower branches of trees, feeding on fruits and leafs.The Plesiadapiformes is very likely to be the ancestors of all primates.[10]

One of the last Plesiadapiformes is Carpolestes simpsoni. It had grasping digits but no forward facing eyes.

40 Ma Primates diverge into suborders Strepsirrhini (wet-nosed primates) and Haplorrhini (dry nosed primates). Strepsirrhini contains most of the prosimians; modern examples include the lemurs and lorises. The prosimian tarsiers, along with the simian monkeys and apes are the haplorrhines. One of the earliest haplorrhines is Teilhardina asiatica, a mouse-sized, diurnal creature with small eyes.
30 Ma
AegyptopithecusHaplorrhini splits into infraorders Platyrrhini and Catarrhini. Platyrrhines, New World monkeys, have prehensile tails and males are color blind. They may have migrated to South America on a raft of vegetation across the Atlantic ocean (circa 4,500 km, 2,800 mi). Catarrhines mostly stayed in Africa as the two continents drifted apart. One ancestor of catarrhines might be Aegyptopithecus.

25 Ma
ProconsulCatarrhini splits into 2 superfamilies, Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) and apes (Hominoidea).

Proconsul was an early genus of catarrhine primates. They had a mixture of Old World monkey and ape characteristics. Proconsul's monkey-like features include thin tooth enamel, a light build with a narrow chest and short forelimbs, and an arboreal quadrupedal lifestyle. Its ape-like features are its lack of a tail, ape-like elbows, and a slightly larger brain relative to body size.

Proconsul africanus is a possible ancestor of both great and lesser apes, and humans.

15 Ma Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the gibbon (lesser apes).
13 Ma Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors the orangutan[11]
. Pierolapithecus catalaunicus is believed to be a common ancestor of humans and the great apes or at least a species that brings us closer to a common ancestor than any previous fossil discovery.

Pierolapithecus had special adaptations for tree climbing, just as humans and other great apes do: a wide, flat ribcage, a stiff lower spine, flexible wrists, and shoulder blades that lie along its back.

10 Ma Human ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the gorillas.
5 Ma
Sahelanthropus tchadensisHuman ancestors speciate from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. The latest common ancestor is Sahelanthropus tchadensis.The earliest in the human branch is Orrorin tugenensis (Millennium Man, Kenya). Both chimpanzees and humans have a larynx that repositions during the first two years of life to a spot between the pharynx and the lungs, indicating that the common ancestors have this feature, a precursor of speech.

4.4 Ma Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus
3.7 Ma Some Australopithecus afarensis left footprints on volcanic ash in Laetoli, Kenya (Northern Tanzania).
3 Ma The bipedal australopithecines (early hominines) evolve in the savannas of Africa being hunted by Dinofelis.
2 Ma
Homo habilisHomo habilis is thought to be the ancestor of the lankier and more sophisticated, Homo ergaster. Lived side by side the Homo erectus until at least 1.44 Ma, making it highly unlikey that Homo erectus directly evolved out of Homo habilis. see: Homo rudolfensis

1.8 Ma Homo erectus evolves in Africa.
Homo erectus would bear a striking resemblance to modern humans, but had a brain about 74 percent of the size of modern man. Its forehead is less sloping and the teeth are smaller.

It is believed to be an ancestor of modern humans (with Homo heidelbergensis usually treated as an intermediary step).

1.75 Ma Dmanisi man / Homo georgicus (Georgia, Russia), tiny brain came from Africa, with Homo erectus and Homo habilis characteristics.
700 ka Common genetic ancestor of humans and Neanderthal, though the accuracy of this finding has been questioned.[12]
355 ka Three 1.5 m (5 ft) tall Homo heidelbergensis left footprints in powdery volcanic ash solidified in Italy. Homo heidelbergensis is the common ancestor of both Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. It is morphologically very similar to Homo erectus but Homo heidelbergensis had a larger brain-case, about 93% the size of that of Homo sapiens. The species was tall, 1.8 m (6 ft) on average, and more muscular than modern humans.
195 ka Omo1, Omo2 (Ethiopia, Omo river) are the earliest Homo sapiens
160 ka Homo sapiens (Homo sapiens idaltu) in Ethiopia, Awash River, Herto village, practise mortuary rituals and butcher hippos.
150 ka Birth of the mitochondrial Eve in Africa. She is the most recent female ancestor common to all mitochondrial lineages in humans alive today.
130 ka FOXP2 (gene associated with the development of speech) appears.
100 ka
Homo sapiensThe first anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) appear in Africa some time before this, they evolved from Homo heidelbergensis.

At present estimate, humans have approximately 20,000–25,000 genes and share 99% of their DNA with the now extinct Neanderthal [13] and 95% of their DNA with their closest living evolutionary relative, the chimpanzees[14].

60 ka Birth of Y-chromosomal Adam in Africa (most likely Ethiopia or Sudan). He is the most recent common ancestor from whom all male human Y chromosomes are descended.
25 ka Neanderthals die out, leaving Homo sapiens as the only living species of the genus Homo

Abracadabra,

==============================================================
These kind of trivial ‘arguments’ against evolution are a waste of everyone’s time. The details of precisely what evolved from what are totally irrelevant to the bigger picture that life on earth evolved.
==============================================================

That's not true. If two people can look at the same data and come to different conclusions, then the theory doesn't work. The theory of relavitiy...if you do the equations right, everyone will get the same answer. That's how scientific theorys work, every person who follows the theory should come to the same answer. Evolution comes up with a scattershot answer of "It evoloved", but everyone gets a different answer of what it evolved from and to.

lizardking19,

If you think a timeline is proof, then look in the Bible at the geneology of Jesus. There is your proof that Jesus existed. A fake timeline, based on a fake geologic column isn't proof of anything. The geologic column exists nowhere on the planet, only bits and peices of it exist anywhere.

Excuse me but could you tell me what "LUDICROUS subjects" are?

We are close to monkeys. We developed from monkeys.
Umm some frogs in jungles developed poisonous or changed color in order to survive from their enemies, but some frogs don't have poison. Creatures have power to evolve.

Layers part.
Read Darwin's book.

and yes, I'm saying we are yeast.
pigs' hearts are used for kids' hearts when they replace their hearts.

I know I can't convince people like you, his theory is correct with all the results researchers have done.

Abracadabra thank you I try not to

Abra wrote:

"Let’s face it. You guys have a religious agenda. PERIOD! You couldn’t care less what the evidence is or isn’t. All you care about is preserving a fairytale that HAS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.

>>> You may think that if you wish - but you are wrong. My agenda is strictly centered on expressing and witnessing the TRUTH. Has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I find your agenda MUCH more religiously centered than mine. In every post you have written, you refer to the bible as a fairytale. You state this with absolute "fact" and consider those of us who disagree with you - dillusional and mis-informed. If that isn't an agenda centered on religion (an agenda of Anti-christianity basically) than what is? I'm still waiting for you to back up your point with reasonable premises and arguments. Your response is that you grew up watching people and decided this can't be so, because you think "God" is a bully. And everybody knows that YOU are the standard in which things are measured. Well - sorry Abra, you are not. "I can't believe in a God who is not as nice as I am" or so you say. Well - that sure convinces me!

Merely coming on the post and saying you don't believe in the "fairytale" of an old book, is not a valid premise to make it true. Therefore - seeking an agenda of truth, I've felt compelled to ask you for more. <<<

You’ll both be glad to hear that I’m leaving the forums for the holidays.

<<< Not at all. Although, like I've said, I wish that you would offer more in the way of explination towards your opinions, I respect your intelligence - and your valid attempts to respond to questions when asked. You demand the same validity in valid premises that I do - and give insight into false logic that others do not. Your comments on the threads will be sincerely missed. >>>

Talking to irrational people on the web is highly unproductive and seriously serves no purpose. If you guys want to keep your head planted in mythology and distort the truth of science to the public be my guest.

<<< I have never claimed to distort the truth of science - I've just merely asked for explinations and facts of some of the statements being made. I'm not convinced that "Evolution" is the reason why we are here, however that does not mean that things don't evolve - or that I think it couldn't be true. I just see the "facts" of evolution as the origins of man as a fairytale for the same reasons you see the God of the bible as one. And I'm as convinced about my opinion as you are about yours. Does that make you as irrational, unproductive - and serving no purpose, as Spider or I? Gee, I think it might.

Let's face it Abra - we're all irrelivant. So get over it, and lets get back to bashing each other's opinions. The rest of the people on this thread are counting on us!

Listen - Have a good break, and be in good health.

lj

I'm sorry but for me, myself & I.......I didn't come from a speck of dust, that fell from the sky, and turned into a tadpole, then frog, then climbed out and turned into a monkey, who eventually became an ape and hence man/woman........

A theory is just that.....

the only thing that makes it a theory is people like u unwillingto accept it. Evolution is far less a theory and far more fact than the bible