Lens N Light wrote:
The only hard evidence that exists points to evolution.

Really?   And where would that be?   I've been doing Paleontological and Archeological research, studies and digs since 1982 and have never seen conclusive evidence to the evotheory.

However, research in arcjeology from the M.E. including Israel and surrounding areas has given conclusive evidence that the bible is at least true in most of it's stories-as to whether they are God inspired or more of a History book is up to debate but Evotheory has no conclusive proof for it being anything more than a theory/speculation.

If you take a million dogs and breed them for a million years you are still going to have a dog.

Any alterations to the genetic structure of the animal is an aberration that causes that particular strain to be come fragile to the point that it cannot exist naturally-my boxer is a prime example whereas she cannot eat wild food without having it become projectile from one end or the other.   Having been in the vterinary business for many years I have seen this oft repeated in many breeds.

Carbon 14 dating is no longer used because it is extremely innacurate-one may as well use a stopped watch to date something.

There has been no found or observed evidence of any forms of 'evolution' to date-anything that might be considered as a link has either been unprovable [theory] or has complpetely failed.   Again the genetic breakdown does not allow for errant codeing that becomes a mutation to survive except in limited circumstances.

WhiteBears Visions wrote:

...

If you take a million dogs and breed them for a million years you are still going to have a dog.

Any alterations to the genetic structure of the animal is an aberration that causes that particular strain to be come fragile to the point that it cannot exist naturally-my boxer is a prime example whereas she cannot eat wild food without having it become projectile from one end or the other.   Having been in the vterinary business for many years I have seen this oft repeated in many breeds.

...

There has been no found or observed evidence of any forms of 'evolution' to date-anything that might be considered as a link has either been unprovable [theory] or has complpetely failed.   Again the genetic breakdown does not allow for errant codeing that becomes a mutation to survive except in limited circumstances.

Great example.  A million dogs for a million years?  You should know you have no evidence of that... because dogs have only been around for about 15,000 years, and _every_ breed you see has evolved with man since that time, often with the explicit intent to modify the species.

Everybody knows that most mutations are more likely to do harm than good... but within populations of millions over thousands of years, the occasional beneficial mutation will develop.

Observed evidence of evolution?  a) The fossil record for just about anything; b) pathogens.

Yes, it's just a 'theory'.  Like gravity.  Trust that one?  How about atomic theory?  You should also be very familiar with the fact that science has a much more stringent definition of 'theory' than common use: a predictive model which can be empirically observed and/or tested through experiment.  Evolution satisfies this very well.

Hall Photo wrote:

Great example.  A million dogs for a million years?  You should know you have no evidence of that... because dogs have only been around for about 15,000 years, and _every_ breed you see has evolved with man since that time, often with the explicit intent to modify the species.

Everybody knows that most mutations are more likely to do harm than good... but within populations of millions over thousands of years, the occasional beneficial mutation will develop.

Observed evidence of evolution?  a) The fossil record for just about anything; b) pathogens.

Yes, it's just a 'theory'.  Like gravity.  Trust that one?  How about atomic theory?  You should also be very familiar with the fact that science has a much more stringent definition of 'theory' than common use: a predictive model which can be empirically observed and/or tested through experiment.  Evolution satisfies this very well.

bravo...you answered that better than I was going to.

WhiteBears Visions wrote:

Really?   And where would that be?   I've been doing Paleontological and Archeological research, studies and digs since 1982 and have never seen conclusive evidence to the evotheory.

However, research in arcjeology from the M.E. including Israel and surrounding areas has given conclusive evidence that the bible is at least true in most of it's stories-as to whether they are God inspired or more of a History book is up to debate but Evotheory has no conclusive proof for it being anything more than a theory/speculation.

If you take a million dogs and breed them for a million years you are still going to have a dog.

Any alterations to the genetic structure of the animal is an aberration that causes that particular strain to be come fragile to the point that it cannot exist naturally-my boxer is a prime example whereas she cannot eat wild food without having it become projectile from one end or the other.   Having been in the vterinary business for many years I have seen this oft repeated in many breeds.

Carbon 14 dating is no longer used because it is extremely innacurate-one may as well use a stopped watch to date something.

There has been no found or observed evidence of any forms of 'evolution' to date-anything that might be considered as a link has either been unprovable [theory] or has complpetely failed.   Again the genetic breakdown does not allow for errant codeing that becomes a mutation to survive except in limited circumstances.

You, in a more technical way, pretty much stated was I was going to say.  I, personally, don't believe in either.  I don't think we have the mental capacity to fully understand this existence we find ourselves in because our brains are so limited in ranges of frequency, light, and inherent thought processing.
I do have a theory about truth though and maybe you can also add some feedback on this.
To understand the TRUTH, three things need to take place.
1. Death:  This mortal body does not have the capacity to fully interpret everything at once.  It's processes are limited for whatever reason.  There has to be some kind of change that takes place; some kind of release from these bonds.
2. You would have to be able to exist in all times, places, and ocurances at once.  Incomplete data takes away from truth.  In fact, anything that leaves a question mark is only a theory.  There is no such thing as a partial truth.
3. You would have to be able to start with a clean slate and forget everything that you think you know previously to allow for understanding of the truth.  Pre-conceived thoughts and beliefs will only cloud your judgement.
Again, this is just an opinion.

Ed Remington wrote:

OK...If it was true that we came from Adam and Eve, Which one was Asian???

Hahahaha...very funny. I am a Christian, and I do believe that the Bible offers good guidelines to help us live our daily lifes, and I think it is fantastic that there is historical evidence to support most of the generalities stated in the Bible, but why was the Bible brought into this debate on proofs of the theory of evolution....Just because the general history in the Bible has been prooven somewhat accurate, there has been no proof in the way that God created us....meaning it could be creation, evolution, or anything in between....not a good back up fact.

Anna Michelle wrote:

Hahahaha...very funny. I am a Christian, and I do believe that the Bible offers good guidelines to help us live our daily lifes, and I think it is fantastic that there is historical evidence to support most of the generalities stated in the Bible, but why was the Bible brought into this debate on proofs of the theory of evolution....Just because the general history in the Bible has been prooven somewhat accurate, there has been no proof in the way that God created us....meaning it could be creation, evolution, or anything in between....not a good back up fact.

Hmmm - You should read the DaVinci Code - and the books written by the authors who just tried to sue the writer of that book for copyright infringement (they lost by the way)

Anna Michelle wrote:

Hahahaha...very funny. I am a Christian, and I do believe that the Bible offers good guidelines to help us live our daily lifes, and I think it is fantastic that there is historical evidence to support most of the generalities stated in the Bible, but why was the Bible brought into this debate on proofs of the theory of evolution....Just because the general history in the Bible has been prooven somewhat accurate, there has been no proof in the way that God created us....meaning it could be creation, evolution, or anything in between....not a good back up fact.

Yes, science has done a good job at proving the Bible correct. But to what extent. Was there really a flood that covered the whole world and did Noah really build an Ark? Did he really travel the entire globe (which would have proved the Earth was indeed round and thus screwing up that whole Christopher Columbus argument)  in search of two of each animal and doing so in 40 days and nights all while building the Ark itself? And why didn't he just use the ship he traveled around the world with instead of the Ark?

Although I guess he could have sub contracted the work out. I only wonder if he went with the lowest bidder?  

OK, Seriously...

Many of the books written in the Bible were written a long time after Jesus supposedly walked upon the Earth. There were no reporters and photographers taking pictures of these things. No movie or television crews documenting what Jesus did..."Live at five only on FOX News channel" Nope...Only a bunch of people whose education was at a minimum (at least for the common folks) whose writing skills could be considered average (by today's standards) at best.

Well, OK, maybe Jesus did walk this Earth. But are the facts 100% correct? I don't think so either.

For instance, Without any research...Could anybody write a detailed and accurate account of World War I? Including who all the major players were (Military leaders from all involved nations), the biggest battles, heroic deeds and the Heroes who performed them, and better yet..Quotes from the battlefield?

Would it be accurate? Or would it be biased on your personal beliefs, knowledge and nationality?

P.S....

I use the Asian reference due to never recalling any mention of the Far East in the Bible. (I could be wrong...Proving my point about facts) Even though History has proven that Asians were around long before The New Testament was written.