What is your opinion on evolution?

There are six kinds of evolution.which one are you talking about?

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observe.

and if you want my opinion the first five are religious, there is no real scientific evidence to support any of them. The sixth one it the only one that has been observed and is provable.

I believe that we evolved from something else. I don't have that big of an imagination where I can picture God snapping his fingers, and six days later, here we are.

Well one thing we know for absolutely certainly is that God is creator of all. How he went about it and let it evolve is His business and the moment we die I think we'll quickly see the answer to that. I watched a program on TV recently that made reference to a huge group of scientist from all around the world that concluded that for our universe and all that's in it to have evolved from nothing all by itself to where it is today would be a chance of one (1) in 10 to the 40,000th power. A chance of 1 in 10 to the 50th power is no chance at all! 10 to the power of 40,000 is the number 10 followed by 40,000 zeros. Big chance, huh? So to your question, the theory of evolution is full of crap!!

If I come from a monkey then that explains why my family likes to throw their crap at people.

I just saw in the news about scientist finding a lung-less frog. That's right, the frog had no lungs, look it up. The frog evolved like this to be able to sink to the bottom of the rivers in Africa, because the currents were too strong at times for the frogs to find habitable (the lungs were like flotation devices, because of the air in the body it gave natural buoyancy to the frog, and carried them to where the river feeds into a bigger body of water, usually salt water which was uninhabitable for the frog). So over time the frogs adapted to their surroundings; adaptation = evolution. And the frog starts it's life as a tadpole, and evolves into a frog.

Now look at this animal called the Aye-Aye: it has long skinny middle fingers compared to the rest. Their middle fingers have adapted to become skinny and long by the way their diet is developed. The knock on tree limbs looking for insects and when they find an area they think has insects in it(which is what they eat) they gnaw a hole in the tree and stick their middle finger in the hole and use it like a hook(because that's what the finger has evolved into), to collect insects/food. And when scientists look at other Lemurs(thats what the Aye-Aye is) and the ancestors of the Aye-Aye, they have regular middle fingers.

Now as for evolution in general, only the strong survive, and you have to be able to adapt (sometimes leading to a change) to survive, and over time it's an evolutionary process.

Now as for humans, there evidence up to a certain point and then it becomes so broad and branches into so many what if's. Now why is that? Where does evolution leave off, and religion, or something else step in? Does evolution leave off somewhere, or have we just not looked in the right places?

I say this because if you find remains of a frog, you most likely found them on land, even though they primarily live & are born in the water. (And you can find remains of frogs in the water too, this is just hypothetical) but what would happen to the theory of people being so closely related to primates along the lines of evolution, if at sometime they found remains of humans who were water bound in some way like the lung-less frog. But that's just hypothetical. (And we are born in an amniotic fluid, and don't use our lungs due to an umbilical chord. ) Or what would happen if they found the missing link out in a desert, then all other evidence wouldn't support it as much as if they found the missing link in the rain forest.

And then you got to think about what makes us different from primates, in a perspective of going back thousands and thousands of years. Monkeys groom themselves in their free time. And sleep. And at some point, humans started to develop speech in their free time, and their vocal chords evolved. And since they were grouping in some way, now they had a way to communicate. Which once you start to communicate, your understanding increases. Leading to a faster pace in adapting to your surroundings.

Its just a theory, the Darwinian theory. Its not a fact, do you think that we really evolved from monkeys? Mentally we evolve, the soul evolves but physically we are what we always have been. Our DNA has been manipulated hundreds of thousands of times to create a species
worthy of enlightenment.

It's one of the biggest loads of crap that's ever been so widely accepted...now I could go on, but I think you got the point.

It is 100% true. We have evolved from monkeys. One reply asks then why are there still monkeys, well that's a little thing called natural selection, survival of the fittest. If you are really interested in this you should read Darwin's theory, very interesting.

We evolve as individuals: our beliefs change, our opinions change, our attitude towards life changes. I think this is the only evolution that matters.

Not to be rude but I personally don't care. It doesn't matter to me and doesn't seem to affect me and doesn't change on if I'm human or not.

I believe in micro-evolution. I believe that years ago, perhaps people needed more hair on their body because they spent more time outside with less clothes than needed. Natural senses in the body made up for what people didn't have. They grew more hair

However, I do no believe in evolution as it is implied on here. Why would monkeys still be here if we evolved from them? Micro evolution proves that when an animal develops something new. . or different, the whole species in that demographic area would undoubtedly gather the same traits. Thus, if a monkey and a human colony grew up together, essentially, the monkeys would get smarter, less hairy, grow taller, develop vocal skill to speak English and higher brain capacity to actually understand more. I find this all entirely too far fetched. Yes, we do have similar genes. . . however, margarine and plastic are one molecule away from each other. . . does that mean one evolved from the other? I don't think so.

I can never understand why people don't just believe both things at the same time.

If you believe a deity created everything, maybe science is a way that you are able to witness first hand how he/she got it done. Maybe all of prior evolution was just a way to test out new creations. Most likely after humans die out, the deity will have fun creating new species.

Personally I don't put any stock in "holy scripts. " They were written by people needing answers, or needing a set of rules to rule over other people with. You already have the answers you need in life. We all came from a common direction, we all end up heading the same direction in the end. No one really knows the reason why or how of life. Just go out and live it.

Of course it's true. Is this some kind of Scopes Monkey Trial question? There is too much scientific evidence to ignore.

Science vs. The bible. Because the bible is based on faith it will lose this argument every time. Anyone who chooses faith over fact is delusional. This is not knocking a belief in God or a higher power because this does have a place in people's lives. But to ignore fact because it doesn't follow the teachings of the church is nonsense.