Neanderthals what do religious people think of them?

There is proof of that they existed and they are basicly a different humanlike species(nota different race!). They had language and they made tools. Seeing as the bible says humans are like the chosen one and all the different species are animals. Isn't it kinda weird something like the neanderthal was created by god only to be wiped out?

I'm not religious but I think they make great pets.mtmatt

isnt it obvious to everyone that they are fake and this so called "proof" was put there by the government to hide the truth

Many religious people believe in intelligent design and I'm pretty sure intelligent design theory allows for their existence. Meinhard1

isnt it obvious to everyone that they are fake and this so called "proof" was put there by the government to hide the truth

aeronauseophile

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough (edit: in science) to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"]Many religious people believe in intelligent design and I'm pretty sure intelligent design theory allows for their existence. hungry_pirate

they also had bigger brains than modern humans.Atheists_Pwn

neanderthals and other hominid species prove human evolution, so its no wonder this topic just flat out gets ignored. rarely do you ever get a responseAtheists_Pwn

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

gameguy6700

[QUOTE="hungry_pirate"]

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"]Many religious people believe in intelligent design and I'm pretty sure intelligent design theory allows for their existence. Meinhard1

Neanderthals buried their dead with gifts and flowers, had jewlery, and made tools. They were most certainly self-aware.

And while this doesn't have anything to do with being self-aware, it should be noted that neanderthals and humans didn't get along very well and as a result humans nearly got wiped out by neanderthals (they were quite bigger than us) until we figured out how to make thrown weapons at which point it was game over for the neanderthals (they apparently weren't as intelligent as us when it came to inventing things and were never able to come up with anything other than melee weapons).

You can't win with creationists. Even though we have trees dating back millions of years, they still say the earth was created 6000 years ago or whatever the bible says. And say God made that million year old tree 6000 years ago. bobaban

You can't win with creationists. Even though we have trees dating back millions of years, they still say the earth was created 6000 years ago or whatever the bible says. And say God made that million year old tree 6000 years ago. bobaban

Gap Creationism

Day-Age Creationism

I'm not saying I am correct, but I stand by my beliefs.

Neanderthals buried their dead with gifts and flowers, had jewlery, and made tools. They were most certainly self-aware.

And while this doesn't have anything to do with being self-aware, it should be noted that neanderthals and humans didn't get along very well and as a result humans nearly got wiped out by neanderthals (they were quite bigger than us) until we figured out how to make thrown weapons at which point it was game over for the neanderthals (they apparently weren't as intelligent as us when it came to inventing things and were never able to come up with anything other than melee weapons).

gameguy6700

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

Snipes_2

Well seeing as how they never reply I'd say it does a pretty good job at silencing them.

If you want to be the first to take a stab at it though, feel free to explain to me how that pic doesn't show a gradual change of an ape-like species turning into a human (ie evolution). Keep in mind each of those skulls is much older than the one after it so it's not like any of those ever co-existed. And if you do wish to argue that it doesn't explain evolution then please do explain why God apparently created so many similar looking species when we were supposed to be "special".

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

gameguy6700

Well seeing as how they never reply I'd say it does a pretty good job at silencing them.

If you want to be the first to take a stab at it though, feel free to explain to me how that pic doesn't show a gradual change of an ape-like species turning into a human (ie evolution). Keep in mind each of those skulls is much older than the one after it so it's not like any of those ever co-existed. And if you do wish to argue that it doesn't explain evolution then please do explain why God apparently created so many similar looking species when we were supposed to be "special".

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] How does this "Shut up the uneducated Creationists"?

Snipes_2

Well seeing as how they never reply I'd say it does a pretty good job at silencing them.

If you want to be the first to take a stab at it though, feel free to explain to me how that pic doesn't show a gradual change of an ape-like species turning into a human (ie evolution). Keep in mind each of those skulls is much older than the one after it so it's not like any of those ever co-existed. And if you do wish to argue that it doesn't explain evolution then please do explain why God apparently created so many similar looking species when we were supposed to be "special".

I fail to see how that disproves evolution in any way seeing as how you invoked evolution in attempting to rebuke it. If anything you only just strengthed my argument by stating that neanderthals, despite looking almost exactly like humans, are not even our closest evolutionary relative.

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

gameguy6700

God created a few different types of humans/human-like things/whatever and maybe not all at the same time and not all of them survived until now or he changed neanderthals into humans at some point.

I don't get it, how does that picture prove any of that couldn't have happened?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

KateTheGreat94

God created a few different types of humans/human-like things/whatever and maybe not all at the same time and not all of them survived until now or he changed neanderthals into humans at some point.

I don't get it, how does that picture prove any of that couldn't have happened?

Your argument doesn't work since the bible makes a massive point of us being special and the only thing on Earth crafted in God's image. Suggesting that God made a bunch of different variations, or that he had to make do-overs or changes (which would imply that God is capable of making mistakes and is thus not perfect which is, in turn, blasphemy according to the religion), simply does not fit with the religion's account of events.

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

gameguy6700

God created a few different types of humans/human-like things/whatever and maybe not all at the same time and not all of them survived until now or he changed neanderthals into humans at some point.

I don't get it, how does that picture prove any of that couldn't have happened?

Your argument doesn't work since the bible makes a massive point of us being special and the only thing on Earth crafted in God's image. Suggesting that God made a bunch of different variations, or that he had to make do-overs or changes (which would imply that God is capable of making mistakes and is thus not perfect which is, in turn, blasphemy according to the religion), simply does not fit with the religion's account of events.

You have some real balls to say that all creationists are all uneducated.

Where are the TEs when you need them? BTW are you trying to disprove Christianity game guy?alexside1

I'm disputing creationism, not Christianity. The two are not the same, nor does Christianity require creationism. Most denominations have no problem accepting evolution, it's only the pentacostals who seem to think that you have to take Genesis literally or else the entire religion is disproved.

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

gameguy6700

God created a few different types of humans/human-like things/whatever and maybe not all at the same time and not all of them survived until now or he changed neanderthals into humans at some point.

I don't get it, how does that picture prove any of that couldn't have happened?

Your argument doesn't work since the bible makes a massive point of us being special and the only thing on Earth crafted in God's image. Suggesting that God made a bunch of different variations, or that he had to make do-overs or changes (which would imply that God is capable of making mistakes and is thus not perfect which is, in turn, blasphemy according to the religion), simply does not fit with the religion's account of events.

This is the biggest problem with you evolution guys, you're too literal. The Bible is just a book that barely any of us have actually read. A lot of people talk about how "the Bible says" this and that, but what they really mean is "my religious beliefs say" this and that.

So yeah, the Bible might say that, but that doesn't mean any of us actually believe that. Religion is a belief, not a book.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

God created a few different types of humans/human-like things/whatever and maybe not all at the same time and not all of them survived until now or he changed neanderthals into humans at some point.

I don't get it, how does that picture prove any of that couldn't have happened?

CommonFable

Your argument doesn't work since the bible makes a massive point of us being special and the only thing on Earth crafted in God's image. Suggesting that God made a bunch of different variations, or that he had to make do-overs or changes (which would imply that God is capable of making mistakes and is thus not perfect which is, in turn, blasphemy according to the religion), simply does not fit with the religion's account of events.

You have some real balls to say that all creationists are all uneducated.

I should have been more specific. What I meant is that they're uneducated in science and I really don't think there's any disputing that.

edit: There, I've gone back and made the change just in case anyone thought I was suggesting that creationists are all high school dropouts or something.

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

God created a few different types of humans/human-like things/whatever and maybe not all at the same time and not all of them survived until now or he changed neanderthals into humans at some point.

I don't get it, how does that picture prove any of that couldn't have happened?

KateTheGreat94

Your argument doesn't work since the bible makes a massive point of us being special and the only thing on Earth crafted in God's image. Suggesting that God made a bunch of different variations, or that he had to make do-overs or changes (which would imply that God is capable of making mistakes and is thus not perfect which is, in turn, blasphemy according to the religion), simply does not fit with the religion's account of events.

This is the biggest problem with you evolution guys, you're too literal. The Bible is just a book that barely any of us have actually read. A lot of people talk about how "the Bible says" this and that, but what they really mean is "my religious beliefs say" this and that.

So yeah, the Bible might say that, but that doesn't mean any of us actually believe that. Religion is a belief, not a book.

Most creationists claim that they take Genesis literally, and the bible does indeed explicitly state that God created exactly two people in the beginning who were crafted in his image and meant to rule over all the other animals. If you think that's all up for interpretation, that's fine, but then I don't really understand why you would reject evolution at that point since it would easily fit into your beliefs if you just think that God guided evolution.

I'm only disputing people who think that God zapped everything into existence as they exist today out of nothing. If you think God guided evolution to create humans then it's impossible to dispute such a claim (although biology does show that such a presence would be unnecessary the only way to definitively disprove it would be to disprove God which isn't happening).

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Your argument doesn't work since the bible makes a massive point of us being special and the only thing on Earth crafted in God's image. Suggesting that God made a bunch of different variations, or that he had to make do-overs or changes (which would imply that God is capable of making mistakes and is thus not perfect which is, in turn, blasphemy according to the religion), simply does not fit with the religion's account of events.

gameguy6700

This is the biggest problem with you evolution guys, you're too literal. The Bible is just a book that barely any of us have actually read. A lot of people talk about how "the Bible says" this and that, but what they really mean is "my religious beliefs say" this and that.

So yeah, the Bible might say that, but that doesn't mean any of us actually believe that. Religion is a belief, not a book.

Most creationists claim that they take Genesis literally, and the bible does indeed explicitly state that God created exactly two people in the beginning who were crafted in his image and meant to rule over all the other animals. If you think that's all up for interpretation, that's fine, but then I don't really understand why you would reject evolution at that point since it would easily fit into your beliefs if you just think that God guided evolution.

I'm only disputing people who think that God zapped everything into existence as they exist today out of nothing. If you think God guided evolution to create humans then it's impossible to dispute such a claim (although biology does show that such a presence would be unnecessary the only way to definitively disprove it would be to disprove God which isn't happening).

I never said God guided evolution, the way I see it it doesn't matter if God made us this way or if God changed us to be this way.

And why dispute those people? Can you prove that God didn't zap neanderthals into existence and then let them die out? Or if not that, maybe there's another way it could have happened.

It's best just to respect people's beliefs is all I'm saying, after all evolution is just a belief based on today's science. Every science teacher I've ever had has stressed that plenty of scientific theories in the past have been disproven later, and that it's possible that any of today's scientific theories could be disproven in the future.

[QUOTE="hungry_pirate"]

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"]Many religious people believe in intelligent design and I'm pretty sure intelligent design theory allows for their existence. Meinhard1

wat?

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

This is the biggest problem with you evolution guys, you're too literal. The Bible is just a book that barely any of us have actually read. A lot of people talk about how "the Bible says" this and that, but what they really mean is "my religious beliefs say" this and that.

So yeah, the Bible might say that, but that doesn't mean any of us actually believe that. Religion is a belief, not a book.

KateTheGreat94

Most creationists claim that they take Genesis literally, and the bible does indeed explicitly state that God created exactly two people in the beginning who were crafted in his image and meant to rule over all the other animals. If you think that's all up for interpretation, that's fine, but then I don't really understand why you would reject evolution at that point since it would easily fit into your beliefs if you just think that God guided evolution.

I'm only disputing people who think that God zapped everything into existence as they exist today out of nothing. If you think God guided evolution to create humans then it's impossible to dispute such a claim (although biology does show that such a presence would be unnecessary the only way to definitively disprove it would be to disprove God which isn't happening).

I never said God guided evolution, the way I see it it doesn't matter if God made us this way or if God changed us to be this way.

And why dispute those people? Can you prove that God didn't zap neanderthals into existence and then let them die out? Or if not that, maybe there's another way it could have happened.

It's best just to respect people's beliefs is all I'm saying, after all evolution is just a belief based on today's science. Every science teacher I've ever had has stressed that plenty of scientific theories in the past have been disproven later, and that it's possible that any of today's scientific theories could be disproven in the future.

Ah, but you see, I'm a neuroscientist. I know too much about biology to be able to respect a belief that is so painfully wrong. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the theory. There's no disputing that species change over time. Even before Darwin arrived on the scene scientists had long been aware that species consistently morphed into new ones. The only question Darwin solved was how that change occured.

And sure, theories have been disproved in science on many occasions but those theories were never on the same level of understanding that evolution is. Natural selection theory stands about the same chance of being disproved as does atomic theory, germ theory, or gravitational theory.

Cro-magnon

Homo Eructus(That sounds wrong)

Homo Sapiens

Homo Sapiens Sapiens

This list goes on and on.

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"]

[QUOTE="hungry_pirate"]

Yes but most religions also say humans are special and there is nothing like us.

Pixel-Pirate

wat?

Take a walk around a mall or other heavily populated location. I swear too you, you will find a handful of individuals that resemble neanderthals.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

God created a few different types of humans/human-like things/whatever and maybe not all at the same time and not all of them survived until now or he changed neanderthals into humans at some point.

I don't get it, how does that picture prove any of that couldn't have happened?

CommonFable

Your argument doesn't work since the bible makes a massive point of us being special and the only thing on Earth crafted in God's image. Suggesting that God made a bunch of different variations, or that he had to make do-overs or changes (which would imply that God is capable of making mistakes and is thus not perfect which is, in turn, blasphemy according to the religion), simply does not fit with the religion's account of events.

You have some real balls to say that all creationists are all uneducated.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="Meinhard1"] Well no other animals are self aware

hungry_pirate

wat?

Cats as well, I've heard elephants are self aware as well.

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Most creationists claim that they take Genesis literally, and the bible does indeed explicitly state that God created exactly two people in the beginning who were crafted in his image and meant to rule over all the other animals. If you think that's all up for interpretation, that's fine, but then I don't really understand why you would reject evolution at that point since it would easily fit into your beliefs if you just think that God guided evolution.

I'm only disputing people who think that God zapped everything into existence as they exist today out of nothing. If you think God guided evolution to create humans then it's impossible to dispute such a claim (although biology does show that such a presence would be unnecessary the only way to definitively disprove it would be to disprove God which isn't happening).

gameguy6700

I never said God guided evolution, the way I see it it doesn't matter if God made us this way or if God changed us to be this way.

And why dispute those people? Can you prove that God didn't zap neanderthals into existence and then let them die out? Or if not that, maybe there's another way it could have happened.

It's best just to respect people's beliefs is all I'm saying, after all evolution is just a belief based on today's science. Every science teacher I've ever had has stressed that plenty of scientific theories in the past have been disproven later, and that it's possible that any of today's scientific theories could be disproven in the future.

Ah, but you see, I'm a neuroscientist. I know too much about biology to be able to respect a belief that is so painfully wrong. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the theory. There's no disputing that species change over time. Even before Darwin arrived on the scene scientists had long been aware that species consistently morphed into new ones. The only question Darwin solved was how that change occured.

And sure, theories have been disproved in science on many occasions but those theories were never on the same level of understanding that evolution is. Natural selection theory stands about the same chance of being disproved as does atomic theory, germ theory, or gravitational theory.

My grandma always likes to say this one, "the only person who knows anything is the person who knows they don't know anything". You're arrogant. Every scientist who ever believed in a theory felt the same way. And they probably did understand better than the people who had failed before them, but then we came along and "understood" better than them. I'm not smart or anything, but I at least know that we always think we know more than we actually do.

It's really just arrogant to think that you've got something figured out.

you shouldnt try to see reality as it is, and try to fit it into the bible. you shouldnt ignore reality, and only trust the bible you should simply try to see reality as it is, uncompromising.Atheists_Pwn

If you're talking to me, I don't try to fit things into the Bible. In fact I already said the Bible's just a book that most of us haven't read.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

I never said God guided evolution, the way I see it it doesn't matter if God made us this way or if God changed us to be this way.

And why dispute those people? Can you prove that God didn't zap neanderthals into existence and then let them die out? Or if not that, maybe there's another way it could have happened.

It's best just to respect people's beliefs is all I'm saying, after all evolution is just a belief based on today's science. Every science teacher I've ever had has stressed that plenty of scientific theories in the past have been disproven later, and that it's possible that any of today's scientific theories could be disproven in the future.

KateTheGreat94

Ah, but you see, I'm a neuroscientist. I know too much about biology to be able to respect a belief that is so painfully wrong. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the theory. There's no disputing that species change over time. Even before Darwin arrived on the scene scientists had long been aware that species consistently morphed into new ones. The only question Darwin solved was how that change occured.

And sure, theories have been disproved in science on many occasions but those theories were never on the same level of understanding that evolution is. Natural selection theory stands about the same chance of being disproved as does atomic theory, germ theory, or gravitational theory.

My grandma always likes to say this one, "the only person who knows anything is the person who knows they don't know anything". You're arrogant. Every scientist who ever believed in a theory felt the same way. And they probably did understand better than the people who had failed before them, but then we came along and "understood" better than them. I'm not smart or anything, but I at least know that we always think we know more than we actually do.

It's really just arrogant to think that you've got something figured out.

It's not arrogant to accept that something is true which has been documented countless times, for which there is no shortage of proof, and which explains just about all of biology. If evolution wasn't true then all domesticated organisms should not exist. We know that humans domesticated dogs, cats, farm animals, and crops from species that you wouldn't even recognize. This is not guesswork, it's recorded in history. The only difference between domestication and natural selection is that domestication by humans is just a consciously directed form of natural selection. And before you try to claim that they're somehow different, I will pre-emptively say that the conditions that allow for domestication to be possible automatically require that natural selection also be possible.

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

I believe that most creationists just believe that neanderthals were actually humans just like you see today. As for the other homonids, creationists aren't well educated enough to know about them and if you try to point those species out to them they'll claim that they're just exctinct species of apes or strange looking people (whichever is more easily believed depending on the fossil you're talking about).

Really the only way I've found to shut up creationists when it comes to homonid evolution is to just post this little gem:

I've yet to get a response from a creationist on that pic (at least one that doesn't immediately try to side-step the picture and change the subject).

gameguy6700

God created a few different types of humans/human-like things/whatever and maybe not all at the same time and not all of them survived until now or he changed neanderthals into humans at some point.

I don't get it, how does that picture prove any of that couldn't have happened?

Your argument doesn't work since the bible makes a massive point of us being special and the only thing on Earth crafted in God's image. Suggesting that God made a bunch of different variations, or that he had to make do-overs or changes (which would imply that God is capable of making mistakes and is thus not perfect which is, in turn, blasphemy according to the religion), simply does not fit with the religion's account of events.

Image is not mutually exclusive to physical appearance.........

[QUOTE="KateTheGreat94"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Ah, but you see, I'm a neuroscientist. I know too much about biology to be able to respect a belief that is so painfully wrong. Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the theory. There's no disputing that species change over time. Even before Darwin arrived on the scene scientists had long been aware that species consistently morphed into new ones. The only question Darwin solved was how that change occured.

And sure, theories have been disproved in science on many occasions but those theories were never on the same level of understanding that evolution is. Natural selection theory stands about the same chance of being disproved as does atomic theory, germ theory, or gravitational theory.

gameguy6700

My grandma always likes to say this one, "the only person who knows anything is the person who knows they don't know anything". You're arrogant. Every scientist who ever believed in a theory felt the same way. And they probably did understand better than the people who had failed before them, but then we came along and "understood" better than them. I'm not smart or anything, but I at least know that we always think we know more than we actually do.

It's really just arrogant to think that you've got something figured out.

It's not arrogant to accept that something is true which has been documented countless times, for which there is no shortage of proof, and which explains just about all of biology. If evolution wasn't true then all domesticated organisms should not exist. We know that humans domesticated dogs, cats, farm animals, and crops from species that you wouldn't even recognize. This is not guesswork, it's recorded in history. The only difference between domestication and natural selection is that domestication by humans is just a consciously directed form of natural selection. And before you try to claim that they're somehow different, I will pre-emptively say that the conditions that allow for domestication to be possible automatically require that natural selection also be possible.

That entire first sentence is arrogant, and missing the point. I didn't say you didn't have evidence or that modern science doesn't point towards you being right. I can't argue with you on it because

A) It'd be hypocritical since I put my faith in faith.

B) Like I already said, this is the answer that modern science has given us. There's no evidence I can show against it.

My point is that future generations could and probably will find that we overlooked soemthing, or that something else has been going on that we couldn't detect with our primitive technology. I'm not arguing that I can prove you wrong, I'm arguing that the future can and probably will prove you wrong, so there's no point in getting so arrogant about your belief. You may as well let everyone have their beliefs. You'd even get to argue less.