Wow, Forgiven, there are people who have stated over and over again what evolution is. And then you give that post. Please, please look up what evolution actually is. Look up wikipedia for five minutes. Look up talkorigins.org for an alternate perspective (I look up creationist websites to see their side of the story). Evolution is definitely not what you think it is. You believe in some strange, ridiculous evolution where things suddenly appear and change out of nowhere because some entity wills it.

Forgiven, I'd feel like I should clarify on the whole God subject. I'm not saying that there is no God. All I'm saying is that I don't believe in a God because I see no reason to do so and I see no evidence for a God. Those are two different things.

hey forgiven, i respect ur belief, cuz if there is one of thing that "god" done right is that he or she give us freewill,(well depends on if u believe in multiverse, which i am not going to get in to that.) but i got to say this, is it being human that we should accept more than one ideas?

Personally, I believe all theories(intelligent design vs. evolution) and beliefs(Christanity, Islam, Hinduism,etc.) should be taught in schools it provides an unbiased educational experience and prepares students for much more than what is being taught now. Besides providing people with just some information and not all is foolish.

Forgiven, I have a question about seeing design in nature.

One of the arguments you've used is that living things must have been designed because they are more complex than any of the machines we as humans have built, and all those machines were designed.

However, hundreds of engineers have worked on our most complex machines (cars, airplanes, computers, etc). So, shouldn't living things, which by your own argument are even more complex, have to have been designed by many gods? Maybe thousands, or millions. Isn't Intelligent Design then an argument for a polytheistic religion like Hinduism?

Believing in the monstrous bridge between (proven) micro-evolution and (theorized) macro-evolution is to have more faith than a person of faith.

There IS no bridge.

well lets say this what if we found a rock on mars, which it have a fossil of viruses or bacterium. and we cant say there wasnt life on mars. in the end lets just say they are a different form of being alive.

Thanks for asking, and especially being civil about it!
I believe every single word in the Bible. I might not understand all of it, but I get something new each and everytime I read from it.
I do believe that the earth was formed in 6 literal, 24 hr days. Why would God need a million years? I guess He could have created it all in the blink of an eye, but He chose to do it in 6 days. You need to understand that the Bible is not a science book. It is a book to introduce us to God. It isn't a minute to minute account of each and every step of the process. It is meant to help us understand God. Not everything God did was written down. God chose what He wanted recorded for history sake. The entire life of Adam and Eve, and their children are not known. We know what God wanted us to know from Genesis to Revelation.
As far as the age of the earth. I personally think it is only about 10,000 years old or so. But does it really matter? Either way, God created it. If He took millions of years to do it, so what. He still created it. To me, those things are not the issue. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other if earth is 10,000 years old or 10 million. Six days to make or millions of years. My belief is not tied to knowing the answers to those questions. I believe that Jonah was really shallowed by a large fish. What is so hard to believe about that? It is totally feasable. I believe that Noah built a boat on dry land, and that the earth was flooded, and he and his family (and the animals) survived. There is evidence to support a flood approximatley 10,000 years ago. And I certainly believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. And His Literal death and resurrection 3 days later. No, I can't prove it, nor can the skeptics disprove it. I believe it by faith.

I have not meant to sound hostile. I am just very passionate in what I believe in. I guess sometimes it comes out as sounding hostile. That is human side of me showing. I am not perfect, nor claim to be. I am not all knowing, nor claim to be. I don't understand everything about God, but I still believe in Him.

Some post earlier talked about going door to door talking to people about God. That does give some people a bad taste for Christianity... I understand that. I had a guy bug me everyday about it when I was young, and was an unbeliever. So I know how that feels. But I am thankful to that person now, for planting a seed.
When you believe in something, and think it is the best thing that has happened in your life, you want to share it with everyone. Some folks doing this do come on a bit strong, I agree. It may even turn people away. If you had something that could change your life in a positive way, you want all your friends to have it also. So don't blame those that try to share what they have found.

Good night. Its bed time.

You are putting God in a little tiny box. If He is God, why would He need "help". Man needs help to build those things because he is NOT God. Maybe the god of some religions are not capable of creation on their own power, but the God I believe in, the God of the Holy Bible, can... and did it all on His own. My God is big enough. Maybe the gods of some of the other religions are false gods, and therefore need "help". I certainly wouldn't want to worship such a weak excuse of a "god" that needed help in creation. (please note... I did NOT mention any other religion by name).
Obviously, one religion is right, which makes all the others wrong (Atheism is a religion as well... it's also a belief system). I happen to believe that the God of the Christian faith is the right one. I have staked my life on it. I make life's choices based on that belief. I could be wrong. All Christians could be wrong. Those that belive that there is no God might be wrong. I personally won't know until I die. But I am willing to bet my life on it. I think it's a sure bet.

which version of the bible do u believe? cuz i read the st james bible, if i remember right, it said if i work on sunday, i have to be kill. so does that goes for everyone who worked on sins.(i can bet with all the money i have, sometime they worked on sundays).

You're right. Yet somehow, people believe macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution plus time.

You misunderstand what I said. There is no bridge in the sense that evolution takes place the same way whether it's speciation or trait changes, because there is no discreet thing called a "species". Please read my earlier posts.

The theory of evolution is just the most logical conclusion available based observation and evaluation of the existing evidence that is available. There is a wealth of evidence to support it as the most logical and most plausible explanation for how things came to be.

The only "evidence" that supports any sort of "intelligent design" or creationist theory is people's illogical belief in an imaginary, supposedly omniscient and omnipotent entity, as well as texts written thousands of years ago that have been repeatedly translated, retranslated, and mis-translated for centuries.

Macro-evolution is the theory that people widely call simply Evolution. It's the belief that based on evidence of adaptation on animals, or micro-evolution, life came into existence after billions of years of such tiny adaptations.

The problem with that part of "science" is that it is determined to find an answer to the origin of life by purposely excluding options that "scientists" don't want to consider. And shaping research and evidence around that is contrary to the scientific process.

That shows ignorance of the history of evolutionary science. Plenty of scientists disagree about key tenets of evolutionary lineage, and the "theory" itself has been constantly revised. "Neo-Darwinism" was coined for a reason.

A little post to Uranium 235.... Actually I grew up in Germany so no Fox News there... nd I have studied cosmology and astrophysics since I was 15. That's roughly 10 years. And just because someone recants his theory (Think Galilei) doesn't mean it's wrong. So please stay focused here.

Hey, evolution is a much more logical theory, with more empirical evidence supporting it, than the theory that someone's imaginary friend snapped their fingers one day (or once every day for six days) and everything just magically appeared.

Oh, and the whole point behind science and the results of scientific research, is that it provides empirical evidence generated by repeatable observation and/or experimentation. Anything that does not hold up to serious scrutiny -- especially something as (ridiculously) controvertial as the theory of evolution -- gets debunked pretty quickly.

how did life begin?

well because a bunch of protoaminoacids bunked together to form the firsts stransd of DNA... there that's how it started. The question how:

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life. Scientific consensus is that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when water vapor first liquefied,[2] and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.[5][6] This topic also includes panspermia and other exogenic theories regarding possible extra-planetary or extraterrestrial origins of life, thought to have possibly occurred sometime over the last 13.7 billion years in the evolution of the Universe since the Big Bang.[7]

If you believe else.... play Spore, be a heretic and create you own life

STOP!
Forgiven; I'm a Christian. But what you are saying is outside the bounds of this topic.

WHAT IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN? It is the idea that there is/was an intelligent being (usually named as God) that guided our development. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Note also that this is separate from Creationism, which states that the Universe was created in 6 days.

WHAT IS SCIENCE? It is the investigation of how the universe works. Scientific method is its primary tool, and consists (in part) of observing verifiable and repeatable evidence.

Does ID fall under the definition of science? No. The reason is that ID concerns non-verifiable, non-repeatable evidence. So we can't teach it as science.

Now, to tell us that science is by its nature erroneous is outside the scope of this topic. If I may indulge though, I'd let you know that it has been said that science concerns the "how" of the universe, and religion the "why". There is therefore no conflict.
Asking "why" in science will give you more and more answers until you get to a point where you can't ask why anymore. You obviously realize this. However, science is more than this, and just because you can't ask why doesn't mean that science is erroneous.

For example, you can break any number into primes, eventually, but just because you can't break down the primes doesn't mean that the process of breaking down into primes is erroneous. It just means there is a limit. That's all.
30 = 10 x 3 = 5 x 2 x 3. Same with surds, and many other things. There just happens to be a limit.

That's a fairly definitive statement. It concerns verifiable evidence. ID does not.
For those ID enthusiasts, note that: God could have planned all this from the beginning. Is that hard to accept? Why would God create a universe where he'd have to intervene constantly to get anything done, while he could just create a set of physical laws to do it all for him? There is no contradiction, not even with Genesis 1. There is no true religious motivation to think that evolution is heresy, because that is remarkably primitive thinking.

For the guys out there who think that believing in the God of the Bible means believing in Creationism (6-day Creation), you should realise that it doesn't. I can tell you this pretty definitively, and I think a few others on here could as well.

Well keeping with the topic and not bashing anyone, my belief is that there is a God and He somehow created the universe/multi-verse/etc.

However, I do not believe ID should be taught in schools. Its not a science and should not be taught as one.

Yet, it seems to me that the evolutionary theory is not sound no matter what science has to offer till they can answer the universal question 'Why?' There are just too damn many Whys!

I don't think teachers whom tried to teach ID should be fired though...there heart is just in the wrong place. Besides if a teacher decides to teach it (Not as a science, more as a discussion based class period), he or she could just have a class discussion about it and evolution. It would be a nice learning experience. But, not one that should be required on tests...because lets face it guys, if your going to major in science, they will not be teaching ID!

On another thing, I personally think Philosophy needs to be taught more in schools. It really helps people asks questions about everything. I enjoy the my proff at college whom asks so many damn questions and challenges everything you say to such absurdity it gives you a mental headache...in a good way.

Just checked out a science magazine at my local college and a new theory is being formulated that challenges the Big Bang Theory...which a few years back I was verbally bashed for telling people why we can't look to other theories.../sigh

I agree with you, sort of I'm not saying that you think this, because you evidently don't, but the faults with evolution shouldn't be covered up with ID. It's like trying to cover up, say, a gap in history with philosophy. It just doesn't work - it misses the point of either topic.