[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Ok point out the .0001% exceptions and say that's how single cell organisms turned into people. Nice try Dave.

You were talking abiut chromosomes and how they don't gain more.  Well, they do.  Or lose some.

But you're missing the point: thst .001% exception?  If that makes survival/breeding easier, it becomes more common until its no longer .001% but 95%.



And now to swing the thread back on topic.
Science doesn't have the answers to everything but its the best tools we have.  However, much like you're demonstrating now, it doesn't always change minds.  Science has the best chance of doing it, but if anyone is as firmly grounded on the Earth's shape as you are on evolution, no amount of debate, evidence, or faith is going to change it.

Now imagine we had this debate on evolution and my only response is "God did it." Or "Have Faith".
Would it really be more convincing than the evidence you ignore?

I get your last point for sure. Thats why I didn't take it off faith alone to make my decision. Logically, as pointed out in OP, it is just too damn hard for me to accept the extremely ridiculous probabilities involved with big bang and evolution being the cause of our existence. I'd more likely believe an intelligent being, "aliens" did it, but that is approaching it from adherence to a stricly physical model of existence. I have experienced super natural phenomenon in my life, the likes of which studying the physical universe would never be able to explain.

Interestingly enough, if you follow the path modern physics is on, it is more and more becoming metaphysical. Where everything is a field, and nothing really exists, just manifestations of vibrations interacting with various mediums.

It is generally accepted that what we perceive is a small fraction of the totality of existence. It's not that I don't find science fiction fascinating, it's just that I'm entirely more fascinated with a deeper level of understanding than Neil DeGrasse Tyson could provide.

[Lord Dave]

Ok point out the .0001% exceptions and say that's how single cell organisms turned into people. Nice try Dave.

You were talking abiut chromosomes and how they don't gain more.  Well, they do.  Or lose some.

But you're missing the point: thst .001% exception?  If that makes survival/breeding easier, it becomes more common until its no longer .001% but 95%.



And now to swing the thread back on topic.
Science doesn't have the answers to everything but its the best tools we have.  However, much like you're demonstrating now, it doesn't always change minds.  Science has the best chance of doing it, but if anyone is as firmly grounded on the Earth's shape as you are on evolution, no amount of debate, evidence, or faith is going to change it.

Now imagine we had this debate on evolution and my only response is "God did it." Or "Have Faith".
Would it really be more convincing than the evidence you ignore?

I get your last point for sure. Thats why I didn't take it off faith alone to make my decision. Logically, as pointed out in OP, it is just too damn hard for me to accept the extremely ridiculous probabilities involved with big bang and evolution being the cause of our existence. I'd more likely believe an intelligent being, "aliens" did it, but that is approaching it from adherence to a stricly physical model of existence. I have experienced super natural phenomenon in my life, the likes of which studying the physical universe would never be able to explain.

Interestingly enough, if you follow the path modern physics is on, it is more and more becoming metaphysical. Where everything is a field, and nothing really exists, just manifestations of vibrations interacting with various mediums.

It is generally accepted that what we perceive is a small fraction of the totality of existence. It's not that I don't find science fiction fascinating, it's just that I'm entirely more fascinated with a deeper level of understanding than Neil DeGrasse Tyson could provide.

Rediculous (astronomical) probabilities really begs the question: is it really?  Gravity naturally makes planets and stars.  Once you have all sorts of elememts and chemicals on a hunk of rock, the probability of something happening increases.

But even if it is, time solves the issue.  If its a 1 in a quintillion chance then it'll happen eventually.
The Universe is (as far as we know) 13 Billion years old.  And its a very big place.  Billions of galaxies exist each with billions of stars.  And there could be 10s of billions of planets per galaxy.  How big do you need it before even the nearly impossible happens?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Time alone doesn't just make inert materials become organic beings. Something had to happen. The odds of one, two, or ten of the factors needed for Earth to exist may somehow develop over a few billion years. But the 40+ criterion for it to be the bastion of life it is are one in some crazy big number like a septillion or something like that. Divide that into 13 billion and see if there would be enough time for a planet like ours to naturally come about.

Also, please explain the mechanism by which "Gravity naturally makes planets and stars." Isn't gravitation just a property of mass? If there is star dust out there what makes it pull to a central point? Wouldn't every piece of dust be attracted to one another, or whatever big object is closest to each particle? You say absurd crap like that with absolutely no proof or evidence, then ridicule me for alluding to faith and religion.

Anyway, we're obviously on total opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue. But if we are being totally honest, and using logic and reason over faith, it becomes increasingly clear how remarkable our existence is. I refuse to accept it's a very happy coincidence in light of that.

[Saddam Hussein]

True, cells may mutate, but it's hardly ever lead to anything beneficial to the affected creature.

Yes, beneficial mutations are rare, but when they do appear, they're more likely to be retained and spread throughout the population precisely because they increase the species's odds of survival.  Over time - millions of generations - many surviving species have been molded into highly-complex organisms.

Have you actually looked at the evidence used behind postulating the existence of other human species? It's based on circumstantial shit like Piece of a jaw bone. Even when it's more, it's based on one skull. Not thousands, or even hundreds if similar fossils. I know, it's a shame that there just isn't a glut of fossils to substantiate these assertations, but one mutated skull, of an ape or a man doesn't an entire species make.

I wouldn't say hundreds, but there's a fair amount of them.

An excerpt from the wiki page you linked about transitional species, perhaps you should do more than link the first google result to prove a point:

Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms.

That's not surprising, given how many species have come and gone over this planet's long history.  I don't know why you quoted that as if it somehow counters my arguments, though.  Are you saying that natural selection might have happened for all those extinct species, but not for the currently living ones?

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that man emerged from a primordial ooze and life somehow emerged from it.

I didn't say that.  I have no idea how life first began, but that subject and natural selection are two different things.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.

Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.

Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.

So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.

When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10^{big fucking giant, unfathomable number}. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 10⁴⁰. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?

Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.

Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.

You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc. It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men?

You are putting entirely too much weight of your argument into the "fossil record."  It is hopelessly incomplete, for many of the reasons others have listed in this thread. It is a complete fallacy to think it offers any accurate snapshot of history life on this earth.

So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?

Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.

It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

[garygreen]

we don't know for certain how life began, therefore we know for certain that god created life.

compelling.

[Lord Dave]

So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.

When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10^{big fucking giant, unfathomable number}. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 10⁴⁰. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?

So?  From the blog, the odds of YOU, specifically, existing as you are are 10^2,685 (according to one guy).
But you exist.  Probability is often misleading.  Yes, the odds that something very very specific happens is pretty impractical. the odds of SOMETHING happening are usually close to 1.

The odds of winning the NY lotto are 1 in 45 million yet dozens of people have won.

10⁴⁰ is still less than the number of planets in the universe.  After all, there's roughly 10²⁸ Stars in the universe.  That's a lot of stars for life to form around, isn't it?

Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.

Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.

You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc.

Wrong.
The most common fossils are shell invertebrates.  Like Triolbites.  Plants are also pretty common.

It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men?

Woah now.  Why would you say that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#History_of_the_study_of_fossils
Looks like Davinci himself knew fossils were ancient life.  He predates Darwin by a fair bit.
Oh and so did Aristotle. 

You've got a lot of wrong information.  No wonder you're so confused.

So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?

Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.

Barely represented?!
How do you figure that? 

It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

1. 3 Billion years is a long time.  The fact that you can't understand that is not surprising.
2. How life began is called Ambiogenesis and is not the same as Evolution.  It's less understood, actually.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.

When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10^{big fucking giant, unfathomable number}. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 10⁴⁰. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?

So?  From the blog, the odds of YOU, specifically, existing as you are are 10^2,685 (according to one guy).
But you exist.  Probability is often misleading.  Yes, the odds that something very very specific happens is pretty impractical. the odds of SOMETHING happening are usually close to 1.

The odds of winning the NY lotto are 1 in 45 million yet dozens of people have won.

10⁴⁰ is still less than the number of planets in the universe.  After all, there's roughly 10²⁸ Stars in the universe.  That's a lot of stars for life to form around, isn't it?

Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.

Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.

You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc.

Wrong.
The most common fossils are shell invertebrates.  Like Triolbites.  Plants are also pretty common.

It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men?

Woah now.  Why would you say that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#History_of_the_study_of_fossils
Looks like Davinci himself knew fossils were ancient life.  He predates Darwin by a fair bit.
Oh and so did Aristotle. 

You've got a lot of wrong information.  No wonder you're so confused.

So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?

Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.

Barely represented?!
How do you figure that? 

It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

1. 3 Billion years is a long time.  The fact that you can't understand that is not surprising.
2. How life began is called Ambiogenesis and is not the same as Evolution.  It's less understood, actually.

Dave, I'm done with you man. All you did is cherry pick things I say and address it whatever way makes you feel superior. Doesn't change the validity of my arguments in any meaningful way whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned. I'm so wrong and confused but you said probability of something happening is 1. Since you have such a firm grasp on evolutionary science, and pretty much every god damn thing else, I really hope you are doing well for yourself in some kind of professional sense.

It's actually called "abiogenesis" btw, and your wikipedia article is exactly what is wrong with science and, in general, the dissemination of unproven hypothetical concepts as facts.

[Lord Dave]

So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.

When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10^{big fucking giant, unfathomable number}. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 10⁴⁰. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?

So?  From the blog, the odds of YOU, specifically, existing as you are are 10^2,685 (according to one guy).
But you exist.  Probability is often misleading.  Yes, the odds that something very very specific happens is pretty impractical. the odds of SOMETHING happening are usually close to 1.

The odds of winning the NY lotto are 1 in 45 million yet dozens of people have won.

10⁴⁰ is still less than the number of planets in the universe.  After all, there's roughly 10²⁸ Stars in the universe.  That's a lot of stars for life to form around, isn't it?

Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.

Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.

You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc.

Wrong.
The most common fossils are shell invertebrates.  Like Triolbites.  Plants are also pretty common.

It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men?

Woah now.  Why would you say that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#History_of_the_study_of_fossils
Looks like Davinci himself knew fossils were ancient life.  He predates Darwin by a fair bit.
Oh and so did Aristotle. 

You've got a lot of wrong information.  No wonder you're so confused.

So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?

Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.

Barely represented?!
How do you figure that? 

It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

1. 3 Billion years is a long time.  The fact that you can't understand that is not surprising.
2. How life began is called Ambiogenesis and is not the same as Evolution.  It's less understood, actually.

Dave, I'm done with you man. All you did is cherry pick things I say and address it whatever way makes you feel superior. Doesn't change the validity of my arguments in any meaningful way whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned. I'm so wrong and confused but you said probability of something happening is 1. Since you have such a firm grasp on evolutionary science, and pretty much every god damn thing else, I really hope you are doing well for yourself in some kind of professional sense.

It's actually called "abiogenesis" btw, and your wikipedia article is exactly what is wrong with science and, in general, the dissemination of unproven hypothetical concepts as facts.

Cherry pick?  I literally went point by point.  I did not take a sentence, I took the whole post.  So no, I did not cherry pick.

Secondly, your arguments are based on wrong information yet you think its still valid?  How is that?

Third: yes.  Mispelling on my part.  And yes, abiogenesis is unproven.  Nothing in that article says otherwise.  Care to explain where it says "Abiogenesis is a fact."?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years ago, and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living system.

If there was a place to clearly clarify that it is strictly hypothetical, the introductory paragraph would've been the right place to do it.

Example of cherry picking is trying to refute my point about the unreliable, untrustworthy, and fairly recent phenomenon know as the study of fossils BUT you never address the reality of the numerous "paleontologists" found to be complete hacks and frauds. You conveniently don't address any of the highly plausible reasons for skepticism, you just gloss over looking for a convenient place to interject your wikipedia information. This whole thread you have glossed over a paragraph of my reasoning to attack a few words or a sentence and ignoring the rest.

Let me be clear: I am not an authority on all things evolution. I am not an authority on all things creation. I'm not particularly, or do I want to be an authority on much. I'm perfectly fine knowing that I can't know everything, and accepting that some things most likely will never be known. It's when bullshit hypothesis are taught in our schools, and passed off as fact (as it was presented to me during my middle school and high school education) that I see a problem. The only reason I researched flat earth in the first place is because the irony involved in the fallibility of our science. Every hundred years or so conveniently sweeping under the rug all the shit that was proven to be fallacy, and pretending like it didn't happen. Like Geocentrism. Knowing the Earth was flat, brilliant minds believing in the Aether.

But here is Lord Dave with all the fucking answers, praise be to science and hail hydra!

[Lord Dave]

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years ago, and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living system.

If there was a place to clearly clarify that it is strictly hypothetical, the introductory paragraph would've been the right place to do it.

Why?  The intro is defining what Abiogenesis is, which is a fact.  The idea that life arose on Earth from abiogenesis is a hypothesis.  Hence why they wrote "It is thought to have occurred..."

Example of cherry picking is trying to refute my point about the unreliable, untrustworthy, and fairly recent phenomenon know as the study of fossils BUT you never address the reality of the numerous "paleontologists" found to be complete hacks and frauds. You conveniently don't address any of the highly plausible reasons for skepticism, you just gloss over looking for a convenient place to interject your wikipedia information. This whole thread you have glossed over a paragraph of my reasoning to attack a few words or a sentence and ignoring the rest.

I point out when you have incorrect information.  If you'd LIKE praise for having one correct statement then fine.
Yes, there are frauds.  You'll find frauds everywhere.  What is your point?  They are frauds and through scientific discovery, they were found to be frauds.  Science checked itself.  Not sure what "numerous" is supposed to mean.  10?  20?  50?  Or are you implying that a large chunk(25%?) of paleontologists are frauds?

As for your "highly plausible reasons for skepticism", well, I fail to see why you shouldn't be skeptical.  If you aren't going to test science over and over again, there's no point in doing it.  Just do it with the correct facts, alright?

Let me be clear: I am not an authority on all things evolution. I am not an authority on all things creation. I'm not particularly, or do I want to be an authority on much. I'm perfectly fine knowing that I can't know everything, and accepting that some things most likely will never be known. It's when bullshit hypothesis are taught in our schools, and passed off as fact (as it was presented to me during my middle school and high school education) that I see a problem. The only reason I researched flat earth in the first place is because the irony involved in the fallibility of our science. Every hundred years or so conveniently sweeping under the rug all the shit that was proven to be fallacy, and pretending like it didn't happen. Like Geocentrism. Knowing the Earth was flat, brilliant minds believing in the Aether.

Wow, a lot to take in.
Ok, first off, a hypothesis (if you were taught correctly) is an idea that has no supporting data but is testable.  Evolution has supporting data.  Thus it's classified as a theory.  Well... it has been proven to happen, just not on the long term, complex organism scale.
Secondly, the term Evolution exists.  You can't say it doesn't.  Now, I don't know what kind of teachers you had so I'm just going to assume poor or bad textbooks or you just didn't pay attention enough.  Doesn't matter.  So here's the laydown.

The Theory of Evolution states that complex life arose from simple life through natural selection and genetic mutation over long spans of time.  There are numerous supporting data for evolution of various species throughout the history of the planet but we have yet to observe one species of animal changing into another.  Mostly because we haven't existed long enough.

Secondly, science has not "swept under the rug" it's failures.  Schools still teach that geocentrism existed, for example.  Science doesn't forget the lessons of the past.  But the Earth being flat?  We've known that since before the scientific method existed.  Not to mention the 4 humors of the body and what-not.  It was wrong, sure.  And what we know today may be proven wrong.  But you wanna know what won't prove it wrong?  Religion.

But here is Lord Dave with all the fucking answers, praise be to science and hail hydra!

I don't have all the answers.  I just link to basic information you seem to be wrong on.  Maybe you should do some reading and pay attention in science class more?

[Jura-Glenlivet]

So you have established you don't do probability too well and you don't understand evolution.

When?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568
http://blogs.plos.org/mitsciwrite/2011/12/31/life-the-universe-and-everything-what-are-the-odds/
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.reasons.org/articles/probability-for-life-on-earth
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

Most numbers there are quoted as 1 in 10^{big fucking giant, unfathomable number}. And there are some articles there attempt to narrow that number down and the best they can do is 1 in 10⁴⁰. Still a tall order in what, 14 billion year old universe?

Let's go back to a good point made by our Lord Dave earlier and see if we can pin down any of your beliefs.

Hopefully you admit there are Fossils, and NASA hasn't been burying them in our gardens, rivers and cliffs to confuse us. If so most of these don't exist anymore, pterodactyls, Ichthyosaurs , Stegosaurus, smilodon etc. there are insects, arachnids, crustaceans fish etc. but not the ones we have now (I have a sea urchin dug from my garden), but the further you go back i.e. looking at lower strata, or using relative faunal succession, radioactive decay , magnetic field switches, mammals disappear, in fact none of the mammals currently running around are present in the fossil record at all.

You do realize 90% of fossils are things like teeth, partial jaw bones, etc. It's also interesting no one found anything notable in the history of excavation in any massive project in recorded history, but once Darwin came around, people were finding them in droves. All of a sudden there was a litany of finds, all by people with a very vested interest in finding them. Validation, fame, money. How many times do we have to find out the missing links were hoaxes perpetrated by desperate men?

You are putting entirely too much weight of your argument into the "fossil record."  It is hopelessly incomplete, for many of the reasons others have listed in this thread. It is a complete fallacy to think it offers any accurate snapshot of history life on this earth.

So why for much of the record were there no mammals, why are there no modern ones in the record and how if there is no evolution did they all of a sudden appear?

Not every animal gets fossilized. Mammals are barely represented in the "record," so to use that as a means to prove forms of the mammals we see today weren't alive is flimsy. But sure, animals go extinct. Obviously. A lot of the links to living animals are purely hypothetical and are actually still heavily debated.

It's not a slam dunk to assume evolution is what made single cell organisms eventually (in a relatively short amount of time) turn into humans, and even IF it is the cause, a very big IF, it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!

I have pretty much decided that you are a Gainsaying troll, the alternative to this is you have a massively overinflated view of your own meagre knowledge, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and go for the former.

Here’s why;

In your rebuttal based on very big numbers you add a bunch of links, in the third that mentions the number 10⁴⁰ specifically, is the quote.

“Though, to be fair, 10⁴⁰ is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10²⁴ litres, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10³¹ self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10⁴⁰, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.”

So, you either never read it or …(see my first line).

You then erroneously state that “no one found anything notable” until Darwin.
Have you even checked this? Origin of species – 1859, Megalosaurus bucklandi named in 1827, Richard Owen’s (an opponent of Darwin but dino’ man) Dinosauria – 1842, the Crystal Palace Dinosaur sculptures representing 15 genera’s of extinct animals 1852, Mary Anning (she sells sea shells) for gods sake 1799-1847  and so on.
Megalosaurus bones had been recorded much earlier in the 17th century and had been catalogued as both a Roman war Elephant and a biblical giant, that from memory and a quick search for confirmation.
No way couldn’t you have found this or any number of other examples, unless… (See first line).

Hoaxes? Misinterpretations? Where humans/money are involved, seriously! Proved to be hoaxes by scientists not priests or (See first line)?

I could go on down your list of badly researched tirade but you get my drift.

And then finally, “it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!” Well no shit Sherlock! Nobody is saying it does! But science is the process of trying by incremental steps, each building on the former to join the dots, we may never know, but how is that either a surprise or an argument? If you stretch out your arms either side of you, take that width as a representation of the age of the Earth, the whole of human history would be erased with one stroke of a nail file. That is how insignificant we are, that is the relative time span you expect science to have all the answers for, all in the scrape of a file.

The truth is on here, but you can’t handle the truth.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I have pretty much decided that you are a Gainsaying troll, the alternative to this is you have a massively overinflated view of your own meagre knowledge, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and go for the former.

Here’s why;

In your rebuttal based on very big numbers you add a bunch of links, in the third that mentions the number 10⁴⁰ specifically, is the quote.

“Though, to be fair, 10⁴⁰ is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10²⁴ litres, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10⁴⁰, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.”

So, you either never read it or …(see my first line).

I did read it. I just wanted to supply a link to a source that wasn't strictly some creationist website. The fact still remains, 10⁴⁰ is a big fucking number. And saying that "the first stages of abiogenesis could have started..." isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Not only that, the author also states that "self-replicating peptides" aren't even the consensus view on origins of life and there is an RNA model instead.

You then erroneously state that “no one found anything notable” until Darwin.
Have you even checked this? Origin of species – 1859, Megalosaurus bucklandi named in 1827, Richard Owen’s (an opponent of Darwin but dino’ man) Dinosauria – 1842, the Crystal Palace Dinosaur sculptures representing 15 genera’s of extinct animals 1852, Mary Anning (she sells sea shells) for gods sake 1799-1847  and so on.
Megalosaurus bones had been recorded much earlier in the 17th century and had been catalogued as both a Roman war Elephant and a biblical giant, that from memory and a quick search for confirmation.
No way couldn’t you have found this or any number of other examples, unless… (See first line).

I didn't claim to be an authority on fossils. I just thought it was interesting that trying to prove that these extinct animals were transitional species of any kind whatsoever is a post-darwin phenomenon.

Hoaxes? Misinterpretations? Where humans/money are involved, seriously! Proved to be hoaxes by scientists or priests or (See first line)?

Are you doubting that hoaxes have occurred?
http://hoaxes.org/archive/display/category/paleontology
http://tumblehomelearning.com/top-ten-top-10-fraudulentfake-fossil-cases-in-history/
http://www.science20.com/between_death_and_data/5_greatest_palaeontology_hoaxes_all_time_4_irritator-75974
http://nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html (careful it's a creationist website, you might get turnt)
http://www.neatorama.com/2011/11/10/10-massive-screw-ups-in-paleontology/

That is just a few pages, and they don't even represent an exhaustive list of any kind, most are a top 10 or top 5. Piltdown man isn't the only "missing link" shown to be seriously missing credibility.

I could go on down your list of badly researched tirade but you get my drift.

And then finally, “it STILL doesn't account for HOW LIFE BEGAN IN THE FIRST PLACE!” Well no shit Sherlock! Nobody is saying it does! But science is the process of trying by incremental steps, each building on the former to join the dots, we may never know, but how is that either a surprise or an argument? If you stretch out your arms either side of you, take that width as a representation of the age of the Earth, the whole of human history would be erased with one stroke of a nail file. That is how insignificant we are, that is the relative time span you expect science to have all the answers for, all in the scrape of a file.

The truth is on here, but you can’t handle the truth.

As I said before, please feel free to continue you're apparently meaningless, insignificant life.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

I swear! Pearls before swine.

I did read it.

But didn't get the bit about the numbers.

Could have started

Of course "could" it was billions of years ago you muppet.

I didn't claim to be an authority on fossils.

And trust me no one is mistaking you for one, but don't write as if you are.

Are you doubting that hoaxes have occurred?

No read it  s l o w l y.

Not sure if I should have given you the benefit of the doubt now.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Attempts to discredit creationist

Uses biblical metaphor to do so

New meme, ironic evolutionist.

[Saddam Hussein]

The existence of these hoaxes demonstrates the strength of science, not its weakness.  They show that scientists, far from being yes-men who just go along with current trends, thoroughly investigate potential new evidence and discount it if it doesn't hold up.  Which is what happened with every single one of these hoaxes - they were exposed for what they were by experts in evolution, doing the work of evolutionists.  Creationists, or skeptics standing on the sideline complaining that science is unreliable and evolution is all a lie, have never managed to disprove or debunk anything in evolutionary science.  It's always scientists who correct the mistakes of earlier scientists.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Discredits creationist

Uses biblical metaphor to do so

New meme, ironic evolutionist.

I'll take that.

And take the mighty Saddams post as the best explanation of my hoax line, as you obviously need it spelling out.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

The existence of these hoaxes demonstrates the strength of science, not its weakness.  They show that scientists, far from being yes-men who just go along with current trends, thoroughly investigate potential new evidence and discount it if it doesn't hold up.  Which is what happened with every single one of these hoaxes - they were exposed for what they were by experts in evolution, doing the work of evolutionists.  Creationists, or skeptics standing on the sideline complaining that science is unreliable and evolution is all a lie, have never managed to disprove or debunk anything in evolutionary science.  It's always scientists who correct the mistakes of earlier scientists.

Why would you have to debunk something that hasn't been adequately proven in the first place? There is no concrete "scientific" evidence of any species becoming any other species. Evolution can not be replicated, in any form or shape, in any experimental sense. Isn't that what science is? You can not tell me, with a straight face, that the theory of evolution complies with any aspect of the scientific method.

Regardless, there are Christian Scientists, as stated in my OP, 15% of scientists apparently believe in some form of God. The consensus among them? Evolution is just as faith based as belief in a benevolent creator. Even the staunchest atheist evolutionists admit that you can not prove there is no God. However, it is evolutionists prerogative, at all costs, to reject any evidence suggesting the existence of a supernatural Creator; yet they cling to an unproven, pseudo-scientific worldview as the only alternative.

Bottom line, if you're an atheist, evolution is your religion. You are just as attached to your philosophical worldview, and predisposed to be existentially uncomfortable with anything that points to the contrary, as a bible-thumping soccer mom in Texas.

[Lord Dave]

The existence of these hoaxes demonstrates the strength of science, not its weakness.  They show that scientists, far from being yes-men who just go along with current trends, thoroughly investigate potential new evidence and discount it if it doesn't hold up.  Which is what happened with every single one of these hoaxes - they were exposed for what they were by experts in evolution, doing the work of evolutionists.  Creationists, or skeptics standing on the sideline complaining that science is unreliable and evolution is all a lie, have never managed to disprove or debunk anything in evolutionary science.  It's always scientists who correct the mistakes of earlier scientists.

Why would you have to debunk something that hasn't been adequately proven in the first place? There is no concrete "scientific" evidence of any species becoming any other species. Evolution can not be replicated, in any form or shape, in any experimental sense.
Isn't that what science is? You can not tell me, with a straight face, that the theory of evolution complies with any aspect of the scientific method.

That's not entirely accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Regardless, there are Christian Scientists, as stated in my OP, 15% of scientists apparently believe in some form of God. The consensus among them? Evolution is just as faith based as belief in a benevolent creator.

And?  They have their opinions.  Now let them prove it.

Even the staunchest atheist evolutionists admit that you can not prove there is no God. However, it is evolutionists prerogative, at all costs, to reject any evidence suggesting the existence of a supernatural Creator; yet they cling to an unproven, pseudo-scientific worldview as the only alternative.

Correct, you can't prove God exists or doesn't exist because by definition, God can simply alter any experiment to avoid detection.  Similarly, we don't know of anything reliable that will make God do something that we can attribute to God.  Prayer doesn't do anything.  Killing people doesn't do anything.  War, famine, disease, none of it causes God to intervene.  God is the equivalent of a unicorn.  We have pictures and an idea of a horse with a horn but no other evidence exists nor can we prove one never existed before.

Bottom line, if you're an atheist, evolution is your religion. You are just as attached to your philosophical worldview, and predisposed to be existentially uncomfortable with anything that points to the contrary, as a bible-thumping soccer mom in Texas.

No.
Right now there are only two option for life:  Intelligent Design and Evolution.  Until a third option exists, we go with what makes the most sense and has the most evidence.  Right now that's evolution.
Seriously, give me any evidence that we were made this way.  That all life on Earth was made exactly as it is now Billions of years ago.

Actually that begs the question:
Why aren't there more humans?  Why is our history so small?  If we were intelligently designed as was all life on Earth, surely we'd have more history than 20,000 years.  Especially since our species should have existed for at least a billion years.  Right?  Or did we just come into existence one day after the Dinosaurs died?