Go to google video and type in Richard Dawkins and enjoy. THE HELL I CAN'T, BUT WHAT MAKES YOU THINK I WANT TO? ASK ME POLITELY AND TURN OFF THE CAPS AND I WILL ENLIGHTEN YOU. For; 1. The skeletal remains of prehistoric life. ie; Anthropology. 2. The formation of the universe and our galaxy. ie; Astronomy. 3. Genetic Evolution. ie; Darwinian theory. Against; 1. Anti-Science. 2. Biblical theology. 3. Intelligent Design.

The type of chemical reactions that build up complex molecules happen rarely, and the kind that break them down happen far more frequently. If you had all the right atoms in the right place and under the right conditions without contamination, they would still be a collection of mostly unconnected atoms a trillion years from now because they break down faster than they form. Heck, if you had all the molecules of living cells in the right place under the right conditions without contamination, in a few thousand years they would turn into a collection of mostly unconnected atoms or small molecules and stay that way for a trillion years. Evolutionists continue using proofs that were disproved decades ago, such as Haeckel's comparative embryology, the horses series or the peppered moth. Creationists dump arguments as soon as they're shown to be incorrect. Evolution is a 19th century theory that everybody wants to believe despite the evidence against it because it frees them from the fear of God and from any restraints on their sexual behavior. Creationism goes back to the beginning of time and nobody wants to believe it, but we are compelled to by the complete incredibility of believing that all the millions of kinds of animals and plants in the world, with all their thousands or millions of perfectly-designed substructures, made themselves by pure and purposeless accident.

Three arguments for and against evolution For Evo 1)Evolution within species is observed so evolution between species is the best natural explanation for the variety of life 2)There are layers of earth strata revealing periods of organic variety and what appear to be intermediary fossils between major groups 3) Evolution is the best available scientific theory because intelligent design theory is not science. Against Evo 1) Since there is no natural mechanism for producing novel genetic info, the evolution within a species is the result of the decay of genetic information and can only lead to a sub-species, not a new species 2)Intermediary fossils are circumstantial since they cannot prove evolution exclusively; they fit within both the evolution model and the ID model. 3) Since nature and intelligent design are the two known causes for physical phenomena, philosophically excluding ID renders evolution true by default, unfalsifiable, and hence unscientific. Since ID is a cause for physical phenomenon (science is the study of physical phenomenon regardless of the cause of that phenomenon) ID must be proven false empirically.

I can against. 1. The inaccuracy of carbon dating. 2. It has taken man only a few thousand years to go from writing on stone to ink pens, typewriters, lazer printers, and computers. If man had "evolved" over a period of millions of years or even hundreds of thousands of years...you would think that we would have developed much more and learned how to use computers thousands of years ago and that we would be in space right now traveling planets and that we would have hover cars and such things. 3. Some scientests and anthropolegists simply make theories that the findings they have (such as teeth, skulls, etc.) were, when they were together as a skeloton and a living creature, some sort of animal that lived m/billions of years ago and was either extinct or evolved into something else. I hope that this is helpful. -In the Master's service. Thank you and God bless you!

For evolution: 1.) Observation. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. It has been proven to occur. There is no controversy about it within the scientific community, the only controversy exists within politics caused by religious people who don't understand science. With #1, I don't need a #2 or #3. Facts are facts, observation is observation.

FOR? No Against? I will try It is absurd to think that what we have become today could have been brought about by chance. Now, I suppose that I will agree that evolution may be possible, but God still created us, and it wasn't millions of years ago. I do know a couple of Christians who believe that evolution is possible, but they still believe that God created everything. I just can't imagine man changing in any way over millions of years, because there hasn't been millions of years, and we don't have millions of years left the sun will only last for so long, and God created everything with AGE (Adam wasn't a baby when he was created) so even if carbon dating was accurate, it wouldn't matter because if God just made everything obvious to us then there would be no faith involved. With enough faith, one can move mountains! Also, if evolution were true wouldn't all animals have evolved into a higher state? But NO it's just us Humans who are above the animals. Magenta Studios I am sure you have an essay to write in the comments for my answer, but don't bother I am tired of reading it....lol.

A) Good arguments for evolution: 1) "When organisms die, they often decompose rapidly or are consumed by scavengers, leaving no permanent evidences of their existence. However, occasionally, some organisms are preserved. The remains or traces of organisms from a past geologic age embedded in rocks by natural processes are called fossils. They are extremely important for understanding the evolutionary history of life on Earth, as they provide direct evidence of evolution and detailed information on the ancestry of organisms. Paleontology is the study of past life based on fossil records and their relations to different geologic time periods." "A succession of animals and plants can also be seen from fossil records. Fossil evidence supports the theory that organisms tend to progressively increase in complexity. By studying the number and complexity of different fossils at different stratigraphic levels, it has been shown that older fossil-bearing rocks contain fewer types of fossilized organisms, and they all have a simpler structure, whereas younger rocks contain a greater variety of fossils, often with increasingly complex structures." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_paleontology 2) "Comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals or plants reveals that certain structural features are basically similar. For example, the basic structure of all flowers consists of sepals, petals, stigma, style and ovary; yet the size, colour, number of parts and specific structure are different for each individual species." "If widely separated groups of organisms are originated from a common ancestry, they are expected to have certain basic features in common. The degree of resemblance between two organisms should indicate how closely related they are in evolution" "When a group of organisms share a homologous structure which is specialized to perform a variety of functions in order to adapt different environmental conditions and modes of life are called adaptive radiation. The gradual spreading of organisms with adaptive radiation is known as divergent evolution." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_comparative_anatomy 3) "A classic example of biochemical evidence for evolution is the variance of the protein Cytochrome c in living cells. The variance of cytochrome c of different organisms is measured in the number of differing amino acids, each differing amino acid being a result of a base pair substitution, a mutation. If each differing amino acid is assumed to be the result of one base pair substitution, it can be calculated how long ago the two species diverged by multiplying the number of base pair substitutions by the estimated time it takes for a substituted base pair of the cytochrome c gene to be successfully passed on. For example, if the average time it takes for a base pair of the cytochrome c gene to mutate is N years, the number of amino acids making up the cytochrome c protein in monkeys differ by one from that of humans, this leads to the conclusion that the two species diverged N years ago." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Evidence_from_comparative_physiology_and_biochemistry 4) There is also strong evidence coming from: - geographical distribution - antibiotic and pesticide resistance - studies of complex iteration - speciation All this can be read here (and in many other places): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent B) Good arguments against evolution: (with their discussion) 1) "Evolution has never been observed." "one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow [has never been observed]" "This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution." "The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild." 2) "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics." "This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."" "The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder." 3) "Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved." "First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. [...] Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved. Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [...]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)" Source and further information: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html