Exactly, Evolution is a well grounded theory that is accepted by the scientific world and will stand until (and if) another theory proves it wrong.

When it comes to creationism, it's a matter of religious belief... so no posibility to debate on the two.

I am sorry Yiannis it is a totally unproven theory. show me in the fossil record where it shows one species evolving into another, too many gaps.

I do not deny of its possibility but it is still a theory and not fact!!

eaglecap i can easliy say that your sources are limited on the matter.

Evolution is a proven theory,It has been proven that there is a change.

Fossil record is one of the  biggest proofs of evolution.If there was o evolution,one would find human bons in the same layer as dinasaurs.Yes,there is a gap,but  it proves evolution.

You need some information on natural selection,mutation,adaptation and the theory of evolution itself.

It is not  a possibility,there is a change

No Eaglecap, it's not! A theory is not someone's guestimation. It's founded upon experimental and theoretical basis and is proven and accepted as a fact by the scientific community until someone proves it wrong. E.g. Newton's theory of gravity describes the impact of gravity  and is a fact until proven wrong. That is the meaning of the term Theory.

Coming back to crationism, it has a simple basis. That all living organisms evolved from other, previous ones and that these traces can be retracted. I cannot possibly desrcibe it in this limited space of my reply but one can easily fing more in the internet. DNA sequense is the key and it shows the relation between the species by comparing DNA samples.  

Evolution isnt a proven theory, so it cannot be a law. And it cant be proven that one day, a fish in the ocean decided to discover the life on earth, so there appeared its legs and it is our ancestor...

Theres one fish thats made its steps into amphibian. It uses its fins to move across land to find another pond. And it changes from fish to amphibian and back at certain times of the year if I remember right. These are the first steps of evolution into a total land animal, it happens over millions of years, to change into something else. Whatever that exists now and seems to keep the species alive will pass it on to its offspring until the whole population has the same mutation and now is passed on with stronger genes.

Evolution seems to hold more water then creationism in that I'd rather believe in something that can be shown and has been proven more accurately then saying some guy in the sky snapped his fingers and man was created. They actually found two more human species, one sub human group that they nicknamed the Hobbits in southern asia, and another group that actually filled in one of the gaps in our evolution in ethiopia. So you see evolution not only shows how species begin the break into different species, but the gaps are slowly being filled in. As science grows stronger in many ways, the religeous will only be left with the same faith they had and no evidence what so ever. 

And like akyncy said, there layers in the soil of earth that are proven to be layers of time. In those layers modern humans and dinosuars are no where near the same layer and as far as I know were never even found in the same layer. They gap in millions of years with those time tables. The planet evolves as we do, its a constant change on earth and creationist need to open their eyes to see that and stop living in the dark age. I don't mind them keeping their faith, but they are fighting a losing battle against science and its gonna be sad one day when science has reached that point to prove evolution law and creationist are still the way they are today. 

CREATIONISM IS A SCIENCE.

Visit http://www.creationscience.com - www.creationscience.com if you don't believe me.  Creationism challenges macroevolution (origin of speciation), not microevolution(change in frequency of alleles).   

You should better read about "punctuated equilibrium" theorem, "gradualism" theorem, "Miller Urey experiment", "photobionts/ribozymes" "endosymbiotic theorem".....Basically you need to re-educate yourself in the area of Evolution.  Survival of the Fittest is not always the case of evolution, you know.

Oguzoglu,i respect your deep knowledge of intellectual things and history,but you do not know the theory of evolution,so please.

Evolution is proven,that's why i asked the question

yes it isn't always but most of the time.Creationism is not  real science

It has it's existence based on miracles,god,the will of god,and hoc moves.

And on experiments,they did create a new species using a bug that had a life spam of 2-3 hours.the experiment took decades,but they did see the creature evolving,and a new species came out

Survival of the fittest is mainly the idea,beacause animals would evolve in bad ways also.

Craetionists save their theory using the floods (noah),god destroying proof and many mumbo jumbo

Creationists belive that universe is 6000 years old.Let me ask the creationists,what about the light coming from distant stars hat reach us in millions of years?Creationism is junk,not science,but belief,it is a matter of faith,not proven fact.

These monetary awards are just to draw attention and worthy of TV shows, not scientific debate. So no more comments on that.

Trust me when I say that I have read a lot on the theory of Evolution as well as on the faith to creationism to form my own opinion. So let's just agree that we disagree and stick to our own. (PS. I also have two degrees -bachelor & master- if that makes any difference)

I am skipping all your d hovinds and going strait to the point:

I am not brainwashed,i cannot.Usally the creationists are,they broke two of my ribs for saying the word"evolution"

Why are you giving examples from unnown dr that strongly go with hoc moves but not straait your point out with logical reasons and facts?

Yes.You are a two diploma graduate that thinks that the only proof for evolution is the rock strata

the rock strata proves that creationism is not real sceince.

The great thing about the scientist is he has no obstacles to change his thinking.  He may be wrong and he will have to accept it but the field of science is innately superior because:

Science is about acknowldeging we know nothing, and seeking to understand everything, with acknowledged stumbles along the way.

Religion is blind belief that one knows everything, that one is right, and that there is no room for revision.  It is based on fear that one may not know what is happening, and that there may be no absolutes out there.

I also think theres a hearty fear of death and fear being insignificant in there too, perhaps its pychological...

Thats just a thought I had to share.

To be as clear as possible at the very outset: Kent Hovind's "offer" has nothing to do with the validity of the vast body of evidence, from a breathtakingly broad range of disciplines, that establishes the Theory of Evolution as one of the bedrocks of modern science. His challenge, as will be seen, is a mere humbug without value in any rational appraisal of science. The terms of the offer are formulated to be unattainable and it would be nothing but a total waste of time and effort for any proponent of evolution to participate in his charade. The only intent of the offer is to gull the credulous and confuse the uninformed.

that is what it said in the site

There is a lot of confusion here about meaning of the scientific theory. Scientific theory is not an opinion as some of you suggest. It is unfortunate that in the common language, theory is often equated with opinion. Creationism on other hand can be considered an opinion or belief. Scientific theory has to be well proven to become one.

One of interesting proofs of evolution is the gene sharing, We share genes with fish and amphibians and other lower animals. It is interesting that sometime these genes malfunction and we get babies born with tails or vestigal gills. This could imply incompetence on the part of Creator.

Does that mean that we are created by some incompetent entity?

Are we defective?

It seems to me that both  "sides" of the argument are unwilling to even glance at the opposing view. This comes down to the idea that this is an argument between the religious community and the scientific. I see it going nowhere fast.

Both spontaneous origin and evolution are as well proven as any other aspect of science, with evidence abounding from nearly every field: geology, biology, genetics, anthropology, chemistry, climatology, etc. The only reason for the disbeleif in evolution, as opposed to gravity (which is no better proven), is the widespread beleif that the former contradicts religion.

today i had a little chat with my driver,he is muslim,and i asked him about evolution

he said:

"bah!they see sth. mutate and they all go,evolve our great master darvin!"

this is no worse than saying evolution is not proven,and i wonder,why are creationists so hostile to evolutionists?

I mean,look what h.m. Morris(a leading creationist) said;

"Evolution is the root of atheism,of communism,nazism,behaviourism,economic imperialism,militarism,libertinism,anarchism,and all manner of anti-christian systems of belief or practice"

sad ain't it?

There was plenty of racism on this planet before Charles Darwin was ever born.

Has anyone here heard about the Greek philosopher Anaximander? He was one of the earliest thinkers to develop a systematic philosophical view of the physical universe. He had an evolutionary view of the origin of life, holding that it arose in the sea, and that human evolved from some more primtive species.