The problem with Evolution is the chaos theory.  When left to its own design, life itself falls further into chaos, disorder and will eventually cease.  So how could it have "evolved" into what it is now?

If there were Proof of evolution (not just natural selection) then Evolution would be upgraded from it's current theory status.  And it has not, because there is no direct evidence.  There are NO partial species, there are NO advances within species, and there are fewer species now, then even 10 years ago. 

I'm sorry, I have studied this crap down to the microbe, and it just cannot be proven true.  Nature contradicts it.

Moved to the "Science and God" thread.

I do not think you understand what scientists and natural philosophers mean by chaos. It is merely a name given to the trillions on trillions on trillions of interactions that go on in the universe every moment. Individually the vast majority of these things can be understood, but no human can possible comprehend their combined influence; even if we could collect all of it as data, its simply too much to go through to see the big picture.

Chaos will at various times create both order or disorder (which are really just arbitrarily defined concepts with no basis in reality). While time does eventually randomly break down everything, chaos also contains processes to create new things. A mountain eroded to sand will eventually be part of a beach, then eventually pressed into sand stone, further pressed and transformed until it melts into the earths core, perhaps to one day be ejected out of a volcano to form a mountain again.

Once life enters the picture however, organisms that can survive will tilt the odds of chaos in its favor. Sure an asteroid could hit the Earth tomorrow and kill all life as we know it, that is part of the infinite amount of variables of which we are ignorant of. But life is very good at taking advantage of chaos. The best way to ensure your species survives is to have diversity, give the best odds that a given disaster won't eliminated the entire population. Not all species succeed, but those that do will have the traits they need to survive in that environment. And so on until the next disaster.

1. Modern Atomic Theory, 2. Kinetic Molecular Theory, 3. Germ Theory of Disease, 4. Big Bang Theory, 5. Theory of Evolution, 6. Theory of Gravity, 7. Cell Theory, 8. Theories of Relativity, 9. Plate Tectonic Theory, 10. Quantum Mechanical Theory, 11. String Theory or 12. Unified Field Theory.

What would you call the process of “natural selection” constantly being applied to a species over a million years??? Do you think that, with the constantly changing environment would leave us discussing the same exact creature that started this million year advance, I think not … I would call that evolution … but that’s just me. It seems to me that evolution has nothing to do with the death of over 99% of the creatures that have gone extinct ... that was just the result of failed evolution ... the dead ends. Evolution is only forward looking because the complete past is accurately represented in the cells of the entire genus spectrum. If you have not seen found any evidence of transitions … then you haven’t been looking in the right places is all.

Experts are not always what they claim to be. Kurt Wise has a PhD in geology from Harvard no less and made this statement; "If all the evidence in the universe pointed to an old earth, I would be the first to admit it but I would still be a young earth creationist … because that is what holy scripture teaches me.” At what point does this “Lula” attitude allow for any reasonable or useful discourse at all? And based on what I have seen here, theology supporters always insist that god has been proven to exist and rules over everything and just piss on the rest of us. This is an unacceptable starting point for any discussion outside the confines of ‘just religion’ period ... as proof belief of gods’ existence has nothing to do with evolution, science or me. At what point (if any) does a thinking man have to get to in order to begin to think of questioning the veracity of his own beliefs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

The clamor for teaching both sides of the origins debate wasn't to teach what Catholic schools teach, namely, Special Creation or Creationism.  

Creationism shouldn't be confused with Intelligent Design, a scientific theory. 

In the name of academic freedom and wanting to help students to understand the full range of scientific views, ID theory should be taught as well.

In 2008, Louisiana's Gov. Bobby Jindal signed a bill into law that would have the schools teach both sides. I haven't followed up on that.    

I've been "Jafo-d" from that thread. Check out #843 and 846 comments. Seems as though "condemning another's beliefs, be they religion or Atheism" is prohibited by JAFO. 

It's appears though that it is quite permissible for others to condemn Catholicism and belief in God. 

Yeah, if all things where equal, Boobz and smooth would both be locked out of these threads.....

But whatev.  What I mean as to theroies, btw, is this....

At one time it was a theory that the world was round.  But science had no way to prove it conclusively.  Now it is a FACT that the world is round.... cause it can be proven completely. That is my meaning.  And evolution (most notably, origin of the species) will never be proven, CONCLUSIVELY. 

I would just like equal say on possible theories to where life came from... and you "enlightened" folks don't seem to be too into equality....

Hard to be impartial when you have skin in the game.

The law doesn't allow teaching both sides. It allows for teaching opposing scientific theory. The federal courts have so far ruled ID as being creationism and not scientific theory.

Having opposing views is not condemning something.

There is nothing equal about locking out opposing views. That is called censorship not equality. Amazing how some who claim they simply want equal treatment advocate the exact opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

“ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science. It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer. The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism, and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.” ... “Although arguments for intelligent design are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer, the majority of principal intelligent design advocates are publicly religious Christians who have stated that in their view the designer proposed in intelligent design is the Christian conception of God.”

"word of mouth" . Guess it doesn't take much faith for some to believe almost everything they hear.

Smoothseas; from what I read, there are over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominations who have spoken out against ID because it undermines gods presumed role … and equates him to little more than a cosmic architect. There is no logic and very little common sense in what is going on here, but there sure is a lot of bellyaching for sure. It just seems typical that when most of the arguments for creationism fall apart as they must, the ‘believers’ always revert to 'religious intolerance' … all the while lacking any tolerance for anything unbiblical themselves, this is simply amazing to watch unfold.

It's all about the politics and money hiding under the covers. Another example of how politicians buy votes, and how "groups" manipulate an issue to get government grants and/or public donations.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute

As to the proper terminology, let's turn to thedefinition of evolution.....

From the World Book Dictionary, A-K, Vol 23 page 737, the definition of "Evolution"...(aka "macro-Evolution" or "Darwinian Evolution").

n. 1. any process of formation or growth; gradual development. 2 something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. 3 the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile, and ultimately all forms are traced back to a simple single-celled organism. ........9 Philosophy....the theory that a process or progressive change, with the development of more complex entities, characterizes all force and matter in the universe. Evolution is advance from the simple to the complex.

From a 10th grade biology book, by Miller/Levine, in the chapter on evolution, page 269,  the definition of "Evolution" is "process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms."   

on pg. 271, "In the Origin of Species, Darwin maintained that modern organisms were produced by a process called evolution. Evolution is a process of change over time. Darwin argued that just as each new organism comes from pre-existing organisms, each species has descended from other species over time. If you look back far enough in time, you will see that all species have shared, or common ancestors."

Page 272, "Darwin and other scientists have accumulated a vast amount of evidence that proves that evolution has occurred."   

(My emphasis....and this is a lie as no such evidence that proves evolution according to this definition has ever been provided.)

And from a book entitled, "Understanding Science and Nature, Evolution of Life" which is found in just about every public school library or science class...is this

Pages 4-5,7 ..."The oldest known living creature, a bacterium, took form in the earth's oceans some 3.5 billion years ago. In the eons since life has become tremendously diverse. Living organisms now include as many as 30 million species...yet every species----the worms that endure precariously at the bottom of the ocean, the insects that live in the treetops of the tropical rain forest, the tiniest bacterium, the largest redwood tree, the hemlock, and the human being----can trace its origin back to a common, single-celled ancestor. The process by which this transformation occurred is known as evolution.

A new species evolves as it responds to changing conditions on Earth. The pattern of evolution resembles a tree, with the end of each branch representing a species. When a branch splits, life becomes more diverse. One of the first splits in evolutionary history occurred when the eukaryotes--organisms with complex cells---evolved from the prokaryotes, simple single-celled organisms. Other major branches appeared when multicelled eukaryotes evolved from the single celled eukaryotes, and when the plant and animal kingdoms separated. At each split, some trait appeared that distinguished one group of organisms from another."

Page 13, "Naturalists beginning with Aristotle have known that organisms fall into groups that progress from simple to complex. It wasn't until the 19th century that Charles Darwin developed the modern theory of evolution, successfullly explaining how more complex species arose over time from simpler ones."

Another science book entitled, "The Human Race" starts out on page 4, "the earliest human ancestors were ape-like animals, and the only remains they left behind were their teeth and bones which sometimes turned to fossils. The study of fossils human or animal is known as paleontology."

(Truth is, those fossils of teeth and bones are proven to be either fully human or fully ape, there hasn't been any found that were in-between, so this is a lie that is being told to children in public schools.)

To say that Evolution falsifies the literal interpretation is nothing but wishful imagination on your part.  

Evolution as described above is impossible. Check this out. It is as you say .... the truth accounts for something,