Oh now we are going on some dangerous grounds.
Evolution is a fact?
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_disp.htm)
You might find that its have been disproven and evolution is a model, rather then a fact.
Also, there are animals that defies the laws of evolution. If you know your biology, you should understand what this means.

yes, they believe in SCIENCE MORE!!!!!

Just in case you miss read what I am trying to say, I will word it slightly better.
Theirs many types of Evolution. So in general, Evolution is actually both a fact and a theory.
It would be ignorent to say that Evolution doesnt occur, becuase happening all the time. Basic example would be us. We are gradually getting taller. If you look at the house that was made 200 years ago and compared it to the onces we have now, you will see a big difference.
But some aspect of Evolution has been disproved or is just a model to use. Basic answer is, Dogs will always be dogs. It will never evolve into something totally different. Thats goes the same for all animals. Well this is what I am aware of. I have known many intelegent athiest that doesnt agree with evolution.
Did you guys know that our DNA structure 99%(may of been 98%) identical to gorillas. At the same time, we share the 100% DNA structure with a cabbage.

^ And just 2.5% of DNA is different between us and mice. Anyway, I agree with what you said completely. Well said, Leo.

First your initial link actually refuted your point of quote "You might find that its have been disproven". It did nothing of the sort if you actually read it.

Evolution refers to the gradual change and survival of individuals of a species with elements best suited for surviving the environment at tha time, reproduction of those same individuals and thus pread of those same factors through the population. This is a principle, there are not as you say "many types of Evolution." Bacteria evolution against antibiotics and evolution of fins in fish are on the same principle, not types of evolution

For the gradual increase in height, it has been hypothesised to be a factor of nutrition rather than evolution.

As for your "disproven" quote, back it up. I see nothing. Dogs are a domesticated subspecies of wolves or their ancestors. Look it up. http://www.wolfcountry.net/information/WolfOrigins.html

Also if you even read your own link, you should have been aware that evolution of physical features moves at a glacial pace. Not decades, certainly not centuries, not even if you counted using millenia (1000 years). It moves at more a rate of 1000 millenia. Unless you're telling me humans have recorded history of a million years, trying to say a dog is a dog and will always remain a dog is silly.

As for the 98% DNA, sorry you're outdated. Its chimpanzees and its 94%. As for your cabbage example, please show a notable scientic link backing up your "100% DNA structure"

Wov...okay. I actually posted the wrong link XD!!!
I was in a rush this morning...so my bad!
This is the link, I am suppose to paste (http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm)
Mind you, I dont mean the entire thing has been disproved, so you know.

'For the gradual increase in height, it has been hypothesised to be a factor of nutrition rather than evolution.' So its a theory correct?
Hypothesized Definition: consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible.

Also may I ask. On this website you have given is given dates like 20 Million years! I am curies how they got this. Carbon Dating is only works up to 1000 years, or should I say its accurate up to 1000 years. So I am sure you know what I am trying to say.
'Some authorities believe'
'Thought to possibly related'
'Still Others believe'
'Probably appeared'
No offence but....you expect me to be serious with you, when the page is filled with words such as this.

I found something interesting though:
In one ancestor of the wolf,Tomarctus, the fifth toe on the hind leg became vestigal and is evidenced today by the dew claw on both wolves and dogs.
Okey here is a picture of this animal and how they think it may of looked like:
(http://home1.gte.net/fossils/art/page31.JPG)
Like I said, dog will always pretty much look like a dog. Lets be honest, when you look at a dog and wolf they look very similar. This is what I mean by Dog will always be a dog. It wont suddenly grow a wing or two. It wont start breathng under water like a fish.

I may of been wrong about cabbage, but I found this(http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/)
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is one of the reasons, why I laugh at evolution. We are more similar to mouse then chimpanzees. You would think, it be other way around. But some people really do look like mouse XD

Umm what are you trying to point out with the site with nothing but religiously non-science rambling?

My point still stands and is the truth. Evolution Is in deed a fact!
The "theory of evolution" is the explanation of that fact.
The only people challenging the fact of evolution is people who read the bible take it as 100% fact with no proof or research than attacks anything that may go agents it. Thats not science and thats why they fail.
The truth is Evolution is indeed a fact, with more evidence for it than even Gravity. Just because some uneducated people do not want it to be true does not change a thing.


http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=s_dD_VepS7U
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nL5GotAVN58
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tCU3bCQ34x8&feature=related
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KX4c2xOqplw&feature=related

And you really need to look at this one as well. It will educate you on the this topic.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=related

Did you read your own link? Your link gave nothing, merely misquotes and pretty much rubbish. Nothing, not even any actual data supporting their stand.
A few examples
"Mutations Are Typically Harmful, Sometimes Neutral and Are Rare" section refuted itself by saying mutations were rare then shooting themselves in the own foot by pointing out bacterial adaptations are plenty and backtracking by saying mutations from one form to another have never been shown.

Then there is the "Read quotes from Darwin himself shooting down his own theory here" deliberately taking bits and pieces of different paragraphs and linking them up. Incredible. This would likely have been considered fraud if this was attempted in actual science. The real paragraphs are at http://darwin-online.org.uk/

This is just 2 of them. Before posting more of these stupidity, at least read the rubbish first



Theory supported by data. Do you have any data supporting yours? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height



Carbon14 dating is reiable up to 60,000 years not 1,000, Potassium-argon dating is eliable up to 1.3 billion years.
You do know how to double check any claims made on that link right? I am not interested in spoon feeding you.



In your link below you again just shot your self in your own foot on not "growing a wing or two". Quoted from the link "Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not "switched on" in humans."



Quoted from the link "About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."

99% counterparts total
80% of 1 to 1 counterparts
Number of genes exactly the same? Not shown.
But as quoted "But about 40 percent of the two genomes are directly aligned. "

40% vs 94%. Did basic maths change? Because unless 94% is less than 40% "We are more similar to mouse then chimpanzees" is false.

The funniest thing is that human genome research is supporting evolution (as shown in the cnn link), so unless the genome research is all wrong (and all those medicines being researched based on the genome project are not working), i would like to see someone "disprove" the human genome project as well

I think statistics are gay, even if they are in favor of my stance. It's usually because the study was taken in a specific place where the numbers were in the researchers favor.
And you are basing this off just whether or not the scientist was religious or not? Okay, that is retarded, even from an atheistic standpoint. That's one occupation. Just because somebody is good in science doesn't mean they are overall smart. I suppose their way of thinking in specific matters, yes, but higher IQ does not necessarily mean smarter person. Smart, is a relative term anyways.

well, most of the scientist will belive more in the science, so many of them wont be religious...

DarkPhoneix.....your ignorence is a bliss. End

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Well that and many christians out there going to poor countries and building them hospitals and schools. Not behind desks.
Which doesnt generelly mean bad, because theirs christian scientists as well.

What the statistics say is that today, more scientists are likely to be atheist than otherwise. You could say its a correlation, but definitely not a causation. It doesn't mean being an atheist will make you smarter, or being smarter will make you an atheist because there is little on it about intelligence. I could say that atheists are simply more interested in science, especially biological science. Interpreting the statistics to say that atheists are smarter is simply off.

Yes, evolution is indeed a fact.

However, what about the origin of life based on the theory of evolution? Like it or not, it is still debatable.

^ Finallly!
Some that can actually engage their brain cells