"first of all unknown, who knows whether or not God used evolution to "create" all the species and organisms on this planet. To creationists it really doesnt matter either way.  The reason people believe that there is a God is because they see a certain design in the biology of all these organisms therefore there must be some kind of higher power that atleast set this in motion."

Those 2 things contradict eachother. If there was a plan, then why is evolution so random?

"Most people believe it to be literal."

Not true, catholics believe it's not literal, and they're the largest group of christians

"also if evolution where true wouldnt there be some other sentient species on this planet other than ourselves?"

Not necessarily, but there were other sentient species in the past, the prime example is the Neanderthal.

"we have never observed two completely different species forming from a common ancestor."

Yes we have. Biologicly, a species is a group of animals that can produce fortile offspring. So donkeys and horses are 2 different species with a common ancestor. But since you ask for completely different species: apes and squirrels.

"however adaptation is a good and provable argument."

Then we're back at lamarckism, wich has been proven wrong.

It's not really rocketscience:
science: facts based on a transparant process to obtain evidence
religion: belief in unprovable events caused by an unproven something cause the human mind can't comprehend today's complexity and diversity.
Which of those 2 looks more probable?

"Religion is based on faith and doesnt need to explain the beginning.  its a way of life.  why should we care as to whether or not God used evolution or selective introduction to form the planet and its life forms?  why should science care if someone believes in a supreme being?
actually what it sounds like is that those who are touting science as this big shield to keep religion out of their lives are just arguing against religion because they dont want to find out whether they are wrong in their life.  they want to be able to do whatever they want.  which is fine.  they can go and do that.
however, science should not be making sweeping arguements against something just because they cant see it."

Yes it should. Even more, exactly that is the very base of the scientific method.. Something that has not a single shred of evidence to prove it, should not be tolerated by science. Defenatly when it's passed on as an alternative to science I have nothing against religious people, but they have to bear in mind that there's only room for a divinity outside science. Scientific evidence is correct and true by its nature, whatever claims some religion makes that goes against it is misleading, a lie and immoral. A very clear proof of that is this: there's only 1 scientific correct result, and there are hundreds of different interpretations by different religions

In Medival times, science (proto-science would make a better term perhaps) and religion had a common goal: to understand the world to find god in it. I think that was a marvellous goal and I regret the church has become more and more irrational as a reaction to the world that has become more and more rational. I think it's for the best interest of all religion that it seeks how it can coexist with scientific discoveries.

"about as small as you if you think that."

Refusing to take a look at a source that's from another religion that shares the same root as yours, is by all means something you ought to do. Think about how silly your statement is.. You don't buy a pair of trousers without trying them on and carry them for the rest of your life, do you? You don't marry a girl for the rest of your life after only seen a single hotograph of it, do you?
It gets even worse when that same source even tries to prove the very same thing you're trying to prove, yet you consider a muslim way of thinking wrong, without even reading it. Don't judge a book by it's cover. And you defenatly shouldn't close your mind from other influences, after all, is religion not a spiritual quest? Don't let your life be influenced by only 1 book, or it'll be a poor life..

Chris, that's a bunch of wackos (comparable to the 12 monkeys in many ways), but they can't represend the "environmentalists", I think that's rather clear isn't it?

"They use lawsuits as their weapons, and we stupidly allow them to do it. When lawsuits fail they protest, often violently. These environmentalists have used arson, bombs, murder, sabotage, vandalism, kidnappings, and more to pursue their agenda."

that's a harsh thing to say, can you supply some proof?

Panda Bear - Bro's
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=6GQCVOLbRU8

I'll help keeping the right-wingers at bay!

I'm a heavy fan of pirate day.

In fact, I really hate the attitude around here. When no changes are made, people moan about it; when actual changes are made, people moan about that.. Spoiled fils

I agree that th' scallywags who lost their lives is a terrible tragedy, but what's even worse is that th' scallywags who snuffed it on an' after Pinochet's coup aren't even mentioned.  Pinochet's regime arrested 130.000 scallywags, is responsible fer 30.000 tortured scallywags an' at least 2200 "disappeared" scallywags.

They too should not be forgotten..

a flat sales tax is silly. Luxurious products like chocolate, caviar, champagne, luxurious cars etc. should be taxed more to make the tax basic products less and thus make those basic products cheaper...

The number of posts doesn't determine the quality of the thread.

Nick Cave!
http://www.dgdesignnetwork.com.au/dgdn/wp-content/images/Nick_Cave_02.jpg