The problem is that "barrack room" scientists believe themselves to be experts in all sorts of fields. There is gross ignorance from both sides of the debate and that is when it degenerates into violent argument.

Because they are ignorant and confuse the big bang theory with the theory of evolution.

While there are people on one side so stupid as to ask "Did we evolve from rocks?" there are also people just as stupid on the other side, who also have no idea of what evolution is when they say (and I have answered and debated this a number of times) that evolution is a FACT ie a LAW, when it is not. It is a theory. The problem is that the entire schooling system of the western world has taught one view for 50 years now, without ever acknowledging that there are scientists of great repute on both sides of the argument. I say, present all views. That is how a very enlightened Science teacher in the 70s taught us. We learnt 5 theories: 1. The Biblical Theory (neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design had developed far then) 2. Darwin's original theory 3. Lamarckism 4. Von Danieken (it was topical at the time) 5. Modern Evolutionary Theory I learnt a lot from looking at all the different views. Sadly, the strong atheists in our class refused to read the Bible passage and discuss it, and just didn't turn up to class in protest.

A lot of the time, people are against things they don't even know about fully. When they try arguing against it, the "facts" they say are things they vaguely heard about, not actual information they researched.

Hello, it's me. I'm laughing at myself for answering this question, but here it goes: Because they don't. I was only asking you if we evolved from rocks. You told the truth: No, we did not. Now I have another question for you: Did you and I evolve from fish?

Because they just don't like to be uncomftorable and try to make flaws where there are not any so they don't have to see the truth and feel uncomftorable. Because people don't like to accept that we are no different then any other animal, that we are not some specail creature. Only our intelligence and thumbs seperate us, really - and sometimes, it only seems to be the latter that seperates us from animals.

To extend the discussion, I would assume the question was more symbolic, as in "Did we evolve from that which is NOT life?", which is a good question, because scientists must assume there is a point where life 'popped' randomly into existence... (although this has nothing much to do the theory of evolution.)

I understand evolution and know what it is. However, I still don't believe in the theory because I believe in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. -In Christ's service. Thank you and God bless you!

Well, that's because the ONLY people who argue against evolution are ones who have no idea what evolution is. The entire "anti-evolution" movement is based on ignorance of science, and the desire to keep the next generation as ignorant as them. It is pushed by political special-interest groups like the Discovery Institute, who represent the Fundamentalist movement. There is not a single reputable scientist working in the field of biology who questions evolution. That would be like an astrophysicist who questions gravity; it's a fundamental principle that guides the entire field of study. Just look at some of the other answers here- people who don't know that evolution is a fact, that it's an observed phenomena, and that the word "theory" does not mean "guess". Thinking that a story in an ancient book of mythology is equal to the process of a hundred years of observation, documentation, and analysis is simply foolishness.

This is what happens when 'evolutionists' argue for evolution when they have no idea of what evolution is, against creationalists who have no idea of what evolution is. I never had gills, if I did I could swim better. Hardly anyone uses embyonic development any more in support of evolution , cause its so hard for most of us to understand. Fish embryos have branchial arches that become gill folds that become gills. Human embryos have branchial arches that become something that looks like and therefor is called gill folds that do not become gills, they become esophaghi, larynxes, and other throat parts. Many creationists laugh, Ha ha, if they were gill folds they would become gills! There fore I dropped my watch in the sand. The point of the similarity is not that human embryos repeat evolution, as it is that both parts derive from the same, more primitive (i.e. less differentiated or specialised), cells at the same time in embryonic growth. At that precise time of differentation there is no way of telling what cell came from which critter. I did not evolve from a rock, rocks and I are made from the same elements that make up the universe, we just developed in divergent ways. They had a better education than I did. I had to work for a living , I wasn't the fortunate son of a gold ingot. But I am a rock, I am an island, and an island never cries. But I wish I had a PhD.

Not all creationists argue that way.. Do you know what evolution is? Most people who subscribe to the theory of evolution (by the way, thats what it is.. A THEORY) don't even know. Evolutionary scientists can't agree on the age of the earth or universe, the lineage of evolution, the links between species, the time-frame between one evolution link and another etc etc. Science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.. evolution is not science as it doesn't study a body of facts as evolution is a theory to begin with that has not been proven.

it's not a stupid question at all, after all evolving from rocks is more feasible than evolving from nothing, which is what you have to believe if you believe in the "the big bang".

Usually it is because quite sincere church-going folk "research" evolution by reading materials produced by other creationists. It is my strong impression that the people producing that material are deeply dishonest - to have done enough research to produce the books they have to know that a lot of what they write is a bending of truth, misrepresentation of fact or outright lies. In fact, I have listened to one of the more famous creationist writers lie blatantly on national radio. People trust them though because they are (apparently) "christians".

Not all believers in creation are scientific buffoons!

i do. you have to ask wear did it all come from. like matter wear didd it all come from. something had to of made it. God made science. but if you have something to tell me or want to ask someting please contack me.

That question was obviously a baiting question, poking fun at the theory of evolution. These types of people are not common within the religious community.

Many do because they were taught a bunch of rubbish by a pastor - and because they have already accepted things like a virgin birth, rising from the dead, and god creating the universe in 6 days some 10,000 years ago - they have no problem accepting that we were created as is. They don't even read the popular books on evolution written by those who believe it. They quote from straw men built and propagated by a great many religious leaders. It's quite sad. They should read some - there are tons of them.

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events. However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events. Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know. On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present. Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present. Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

Perhaps the person you're referring to actually understands it better than you. If all life evolved from a single living cell, and that single living cell was but a chance combination of compounds, primarily water and various minerals, then the evolutionist is essentially saying that all life evolved from "rocks". Though it is a crude way of putting it, allowing for the rhetorical jab, it pretty fairly characterizes the position. While some might complain that a chance combination of compounds producing a single living cell isn't "evolution" (as that's what happens with the living cells afterward), it quickly becomes apparent that it is a distinction without a difference. In each case, you're talking about chance combinations and alterations that just happen "to work". And as the definition of evolution has been dishonestly revised to encompass phenomena that the first 4 generations of evolutionists insisted would disprove evolution (i.e., catastrophism and what they term now "macro-evolution"), there's no reason the term shouldn't be extended to the chance combination of non-living matter to form the first living cell.

One of the worst things about religion is that it teaches people to accept truth from authority. In other words, if a source of authority says X is true and Y is false that's the end of the debate regardless of evidence. It also teaches that believing in something in spite of a lack of supporting evidence and in spite of evidence to the contrary is a virtue. They call it faith. So, when their priests and preachers tell them to disregard fossils, DNA, taxonomy,etc and instead accept some Bronze Age superstition - they do. It's very sad, really.

To 23Skidoo: One of the worst things about our public education system is that it teaches people just to accept stupid fadish ideas uncrytically, including the patently false lie that "religion teaches people to accept truth from authority." It also teaches them that believing in something in spite of a lack of supporting evidence and in spite of evidence to the contrary is a virtue. They call it "being educated" and "being enlightened." So when teachers and pundits tell them to disregard fossils, DNA, taxonomy, etc., and instead accept some 19th Century racist, "Cult of Progress", flim-flam - they do. And that is what's sad, really. I should also point out you haven't got a clue what we call "faith". Faith is NOT believing in something despite a lack of evidence to support it and despite evidence against it. When we say "Have faith in God" we don't mean "Believe He exists, even though there isn't enough evidence." We know God exists on the basis of reason and the evidence. What we mean by "Have faith in God" is: "Trust that God's ways are the best ways. Do the hard right thing, not the convenient and easy wrong thing: trust that God's ways will be best for you and everyone else in the end even though your fear, your pride, and your instinct for self-preservation are all screaming, 'Screw the right thing!'"

That is a really over simplified question of the oraginal theory. It is a Red Herring argument and such inquisitors are nothing more than a Kent Hovind ditto head. If yould see them you would see that they still drag their knuckles and are troglodytes. Yeah that last part was an adhom attack.