Comments

It seems that theres been a lot of "mudslinging" on BOTH sides of the argument and until someone points out specific evidence that we can look up ourselves (we are on the internet after all) then all this will ever be is a philosophical debate. Until you put weight (examples/evidence) behind your words all it will be is an empty winded argument. Science unlike what a lot of us would like to believe is not infallible. ie: spontaneous generation by Aristotle (belief that maggots and other forms of life can spontaneously form in meat and other items) Religion unlike what a lot of us would like to believe is not infallible either. ie: the Catholic church insisting that the world was the center of the universe based off of a misguided translation of the Bible. And if you are a Christian then you should look up you should take a look at 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (NIV) which says, "Test everything, hold on to the good." Personally I take this passage very seriously. So some one please present a specific situation on the topic so we can look it up. Please source it.

This might be obvious but most good things are. I think that the reason we might have a larger part of out brain dedicated to situations that are immediate vs those that will happen later is simply the fact that we unconsciously recognize that when faced with a mad grizzly and global warming, global warming can wait and see if you are still alive after being mauled. So the obvious reason is we should worry about things that are happening to us now because if we don't, what might happen in the future might never happen at all. Evolution being the reason that we are scared of a grizzly? That is simply ridiculous. If evolution was the true reason for fear and objectivity then we would be born into it not develop it later in life because society taught us how to act.

I would just like to point out that there are two different kinds of evolution, Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is small differences like a tall person verses a short person. Macro-evolution is about large changes like a lizard giving birth to a chicken. By now you have probably guessed I do not know a lot about this topic. But what I do know I would like to ask seemingly obvious questions about. Where are the missing links? How can you tell that a skeleton that looks half way between a human and a monkey was not just a man with a bone disease? How reliable do you think carbon dating really is? How can carbon date a fossil for a date when part of the process of carbon dating is guessing at its age for a reference? ("The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks") (circular reasoning) How does Macro-evolution explain plant life or the ozone? Why are some of the planets in our solar system rotating opposite the average. Explain the perfect conditions for life on this planet. How is it possible to ignore the mathematical impossibility of Macro-evolution? Explain the obvious difference between animal intelligence and human intelligence. I.E. if the monkeys are mentally just like us then why haven't we discovered a "Planet of the Apes" environment yet? Thats all the questions I could come up with on short notice but I'm sure I'll think of many more. And if when you answer these questions you find it disagrees with what the theory of Macro-evolution states then maybe you should change your beliefs.