Science VS Religion

[DJ-Jerakai]

Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic.

Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve.

So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

Any other questions?

Any answers?

[poxpower]

I'll tell you right now where 99% of all problems stem from: People HATE HATE HAAAAAAAAAAATE TO BE WRONG.

Being wrong SUCKS ASS.
Now imagine you've lived all your live believing something. Like fucking HELL you'll just change and go "oh right I guess it was pretty stupid".

Especially when there's still tons of people just like you out there, all believing the same stuff. Why should you admit you're wrong when you can still blend-in?
If there was like one christian left, he'd change his mind pretty fast, let me tell you that, because people HATE being wrong. So if everyone tells him he's an idiot douche, he's probably going to shut the hell up with his bible babble.

But as long as there's a million people believing something, and a million people believing something else, no one will admit to being wrong.

[Peter-II]

Arguably, religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, and anything out of a religion that science has disproven is just a "theistic metaphor"...

But, to me, it'd be weird if God created the big bang and arranged it so the dust and gas blew out, formed other elements, attracted to each other due to gravity, formed trillions upon trillions of galaxies, each composed of billions of stars, just so that, BILLIONS of years later, in a very minor, completely insignificant but still gigantic galaxy, on a minor planet in one of millions, possibly billions of solar systems amongst that galaxy, a load of complex shit happened in primeval oceans with self-producing RNA molecules formed the very first, very simple cells, which then evolved over millions of years to form complex cells, which then evolved to form multicellular life, which then evolved to form invertebrates, then vertebrates, then simple fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, and then, millions upon millions of years later, the first apes, which steadily evolved into humans as we know today, which started to build societies over tens of thousands of years, all the while worshipping false gods, ALL so that this one Jew could die for everyone's else sins and "God's plan could be fulfilled", by which I mean us fucking up our planet and blowing each other's brains out.

I mean, wouldn't it be easier if he just created humans straight away if they're the purpose of the ENTIRE FUCKING UNIVERSE, rather than doing all this dramatic cosmological bullshit?

[DJ-Jerakai]

But this isnt something thats debatable.
Its a fact.
Proven.

Its over.
It doesnt matter if one person or one million people are wrong. If they're wrong, they're wrong

[DJ-Jerakai]

At 1/18/07 11:21 AM, Peter-II wrote:

I mean, wouldn't it be easier if he just created humans straight away if they're the purpose of the ENTIRE FUCKING UNIVERSE, rather than doing all this dramatic cosmological bullshit?

To this christians would say "but god works in mysterious ways" which basically translates into "I don't have a logical rebuttle but I am good at shifting the focus of this issue."

[Bizarro]

At 1/18/07 11:21 AM, Peter-II wrote: Arguably, religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, and anything out of a religion that science has disproven is just a "theistic metaphor"...

But, to me, it'd be weird if God created the big bang and arranged it so the dust and gas blew out, formed other elements, attracted to each other due to gravity, formed trillions upon trillions of galaxies, each composed of billions of stars, just so that, BILLIONS of years later, in a very minor, completely insignificant but still gigantic galaxy, on a minor planet in one of millions, possibly billions of solar systems amongst that galaxy, a load of complex shit happened in primeval oceans with self-producing RNA molecules formed the very first, very simple cells, which then evolved over millions of years to form complex cells, which then evolved to form multicellular life, which then evolved to form invertebrates, then vertebrates, then simple fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, and then, millions upon millions of years later, the first apes, which steadily evolved into humans as we know today, which started to build societies over tens of thousands of years, all the while worshipping false gods, ALL so that this one Jew could die for everyone's else sins and "God's plan could be fulfilled", by which I mean us fucking up our planet and blowing each other's brains out.

I mean, wouldn't it be easier if he just created humans straight away if they're the purpose of the ENTIRE FUCKING UNIVERSE, rather than doing all this dramatic cosmological bullshit?

Well if god went and just blinked us into existence we would probably end up figuring out that there is nothing beyond earth, If he planned on creating humans with the ability and need to discover and figure things out there would need to be an "ENTIRE FUCKING UNIVERSE" for us to explore and try and comprehend. Also there is the thought that maybe god couldn't just blink humans into existence or even something as large and ever expanding as the universe, maybe all god did was create the big band, knowing the results because god is just all knowing rather than all powerful. Thats just a though though.

As for the science vs religion deal. People will believe in religion and shun the ideas and discoveries because it seems to be human nature to have some sort of faith, since the beginning of civilization there as always been religion as something to live for, and as something to explain what goes on around them. Without religion a lot of people are lost with no purpose, some people need something to live for, and religion gives them the idea that they are living their life for an afterlife. The discoveries of science take that away and say that you are essentially living to die, and people cant accept that so they don't.

[White-hole]

Wow this threead hasnt been done before.

[EternalRabbit]

you're wrong! go to hell!

[Togukawa]

At 1/18/07 11:21 AM, Peter-II wrote: Arguably, religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, and anything out of a religion that science has disproven is just a "theistic metaphor"...

But, to me, it'd be weird if God created the big bang and arranged it so the dust and gas blew out, formed other elements, attracted to each other due to gravity, formed trillions upon trillions of galaxies, each composed of billions of stars, just so that, BILLIONS of years later, in a very minor, completely insignificant but still gigantic galaxy, on a minor planet in one of millions, possibly billions of solar systems amongst that galaxy, a load of complex shit happened in primeval oceans with self-producing RNA molecules formed the very first, very simple cells, which then evolved over millions of years to form complex cells, which then evolved to form multicellular life, which then evolved to form invertebrates, then vertebrates, then simple fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, and then, millions upon millions of years later, the first apes, which steadily evolved into humans as we know today, which started to build societies over tens of thousands of years, all the while worshipping false gods, ALL so that this one Jew could die for everyone's else sins and "God's plan could be fulfilled", by which I mean us fucking up our planet and blowing each other's brains out.

I mean, wouldn't it be easier if he just created humans straight away if they're the purpose of the ENTIRE FUCKING UNIVERSE, rather than doing all this dramatic cosmological bullshit?

But, that's exactly what happened! The earth is merely 6000 years old, evidence to that claim is the grand canyon. Evolution and the big bang are just theories, personal opinions. It's not like there's any basis or evidence to these opinions. It's not like anything about evolution is written in the Bible, literal and unfailing word of God. At least, not until the fundamentalists get it through their thick skull that evolution is actually a fact. Then there will suddenly appear a lot of theistic metaphors that have been supporting evolution all along. No worries, not like that's going to happen in our lifetime.

God created a perfect world, for the purpose of killing off his son for everyone's sins. And he gave us free will so he can look at our silly antics. And every now and then, when we cease to amuse him by doing things like idolizing images or other gods, he organizes a huge gayfest orgy. (Romans 1, my new favourite part in the Bible. And New Testament too!).

Of course, when we fuck up ROYALLY, a gayfest just isn't going to cut it anymore. Then God floods the entire earth, for the purpose of killing everyone and sculpting nice canyons for people to gawk at turkeys.

The Muslims are lucky the Lord is taking a nap or something. Maybe He got tired of waiting for us to blow each other's brains out?

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Taking ancient religious texts as literal facts and basis for argumentation however, is not just mutually exclusive with science, but with common sense, logic and rationality.

[Proteas]

At 1/18/07 11:31 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: It doesnt matter if one person or one million people are wrong. If they're wrong, they're wrong

And what exactly does being right in your case accomplish?

Imagine with me for a second... say you've definitively disproven the existence of God. Feels nice to have a little validation of your believes, doesn't it? Just freed the entire world of the bondage of Religion and all that goes with it... but there will be a downside. Not everyone is going to welcome this bit of news with open arms the way you did. There are upwards of 6.5 billion people on this earth and you've just single handedly managed to invalidate the belief systems of all but about 1.1 billion of them.

To say that your life expectancy will drop exponentially an understatement.

[qygibo]

Actually, evolution isn't incompatible with religion. The Catholic Church accepts the validity of the theory, for one, and reconciles it enough with the Bible to be able to admit that Genesis isn't to be taken literally. Even when the theory first came out, there were lots of church leaders in England who were all prepared to accept the theory---BUT then came the hardcore atheists. Those atheists wanted to use the theory of evolution in order to attack religion head on, and thus any attempt to try to reconcile a huge part of Protestantism with evolution failed.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

Interesting quote

I will never trust scientists to be right, but I will always trust non-scientists being wrong.

Bit of a bias quote isn’t it?

[geforce7800GT]

I fucking hate this mentality so, so much.

People need to realize that science and religion are NOT incompatible. Evolution is still a theory, not a fact. This is NOT to say I beleive that evolution is incorrect. But people who actually beleive that the two ideas are incompatable really need to study both sides more carefully. I do not beleive in taking the bible literally word for word, nor do I think science is flawless.

There should never be a conflict between science and religion. If anything, scientific discoveries only enforce religious ideas.

People who really believe that evolution and religion are completely incompatable are ignorant of both arguments.

[Goldensheep]

At 1/18/07 03:36 PM, geforce7800GT wrote: There should never be a conflict between science and religion. If anything, scientific discoveries only enforce religious ideas.

In the sense that the claim that the Earth has to be flat in Daniel 4:10-11 enforces the scientific idea that the earth is flat, right?

Or that the claim the Earth does not move in Micha 6:4 enforces the idea that the earth does not revolve around the sun

Or amybe the claim that the hare chews the cud (Leviticus 11:6), when in fact the hare does nothing of the sort somehow backs up science?

Damn you're athiest division! Let the people belive in what they want even if it is not supposrted by science they still have faith! Do you actually think that discriminating against the religious will actually lead to some sort of peace?

[Goldensheep]

At 1/18/07 04:13 PM, zeus-almighty wrote: Let the people belive in what they want even if it is not supposrted by science they still have faith!

So if I have faith I can cure a broken leg by kicking a door repeatedly, this is better than going to a doctor?

Do you actually think that discriminating against the religious will actually lead to some sort of peace?

Arguing that they're wrong to hold wild, fundamentalist views might well lead to some kind of improved society. There are a lot of good reasons to believe in a religion; "A book tells me it is so" is not one of them.

[Togukawa]

At 1/18/07 03:59 PM, Goldensheep wrote:

At 1/18/07 03:36 PM, geforce7800GT wrote: There should never be a conflict between science and religion. If anything, scientific discoveries only enforce religious ideas.

In the sense that the claim that the Earth has to be flat in Daniel 4:10-11 enforces the scientific idea that the earth is flat, right?

Or that the claim the Earth does not move in Micha 6:4 enforces the idea that the earth does not revolve around the sun

Or amybe the claim that the hare chews the cud (Leviticus 11:6), when in fact the hare does nothing of the sort somehow backs up science?

Don't forget that Pi is exactly three.

I don't have an issue with religion as long as it doesn't go and tangle with science. Creationism is an insult to common sense and basically a crackpot theory. No biggie, plenty of crazy religious sects with crackpot theories. The difference is that supporters of this crackpot theory have a lot of sway in the government, to the point where NASA scientists are told that the big bang "is just a theory, a personal opinion" and where people in public parcs are not informed about the geological age of the park, where the OFFICIAL stance of the park officials on its age is "no comment".

What's even worse, is that the church is making claims based on their religious convictions. Claiming the condom and other contraception is highly immoral is downright immoral in itself.

Instead of commiting two sins by having sex and using a condom, people only commit one sin by only having sex. Oh so much better then sex and a condom, good lord, the immorality!

If the Pope would change his stance to "premarital sex is sinful, but premarital sex without contraception is even worse" , AIDS wouldn't be such a big problem. No, instead he drones on about how contraception in itself is sinful. Showing a complete lack of connection with the real world.

If only people were sensible, there would be no conflict between science and religion. But so many religious people cling fanatically to the literal meaning of the Bible. The Bible says we should be circumcized, let's conveniently ignore that, but the Bible says things that could be interpreted in a way that says the Earth is 6000 years old, this must be the one and only truth!
Especially considering the symbology of a lot of the numbers in the Bible.
If we compare 6000 to the Noah's final age, 950, we could say the Earth is about 7 generations old.

Interpreting the Bible literally and unquestioningly just does not make any sense. And least of all doing it selectively.

[AtomicTerrorist]

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic.

science is all about theories. and it changes all the time because new things are discovered all the time. Some may be made fact, but lots of it is only theories.

Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve.

evolution is retarded and not christian btw.
if we came from something, where did that come from, and where did that come from, and so on. did we come from nothing? Explain evolution to me so that noone can say its not true. It is not FACT but a THEORY.

So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

evolution is not scientific fact

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

nit gonna happen

couldnt God have created Earth with the Big bang? couldnt that have been how he created it?

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

nothing cause it isnt going to happen

[Goldensheep]

At 1/18/07 04:44 PM, AtomicTerrorist wrote: science is all about theories. and it changes all the time because new things are discovered all the time. Some may be made fact, but lots of it is only theories.

Thing is, it only gets more and more correct.
Archemedes was correct when he said heavier things do more damage when they fall
Newton was more correct when he said F = MA
Einstein was even more correct when he said F = MA + Some hellhole of an equation which shows that things get heavier as they accelerate
Planck was damn near to perfect when he proved that (F = MA + hellhole of an equation which shows that things get heavier as they accelerate) all divided by the probablitity of a number of atoms existing in space at that moment

Who knows what the truth is - all I know is that Planck's equation allows us to transport information faster than light, which Einstein said was impossible. Sure, its only a theory, but its a damn good way of explaining how the world works.

if we came from something, where did that come from, and where did that come from, and so on. did we come from nothing?

I'm not a biologist, but we've proved you can grow RNA from ammonia and lightning. From these, you end up with DNA in certain conditions. DNA can become amoeba, and from that point on, survival of the fittest applies.

Explain evolution to me so that noone can say its not true. It is not FACT but a THEORY.

Yup its a theory... just like the theory of gravity. When do you suppose the Alabama fundementalist lobby will propose "Intelligent falling"?

[geforce7800GT]

At 1/18/07 03:59 PM, Goldensheep wrote:

At 1/18/07 03:36 PM, geforce7800GT wrote: There should never be a conflict between science and religion. If anything, scientific discoveries only enforce religious ideas.

In the sense that the claim that the Earth has to be flat in Daniel 4:10-11 enforces the scientific idea that the earth is flat, right?

Wow...

"These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. 11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth."

That's a pretty strict interpretation you have there, sonny. Saying something is "visible to the ends of the earth" is a literary device. This passage doesn't mean that the earth is flat at all.

Or that the claim the Earth does not move in Micha 6:4 enforces the idea that the earth does not revolve around the sun

4For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.

Yes, that's exactly what the passage says... </sarcasm>

Or amybe the claim that the hare chews the cud (Leviticus 11:6), when in fact the hare does nothing of the sort somehow backs up science?

That's the only valid point here. But that passage has no implication on our life at all. It's defining the laws of Kashrut (known as being "Kosher.") And it doesn't matter, because the Hare doesn't have split hooves, thus it isn't Kosher.

[Memorize]

I'am holding my breath. Trying, trying as hard as I can not to insult him in some way due to his stupidity.

[Togukawa]

At 1/18/07 04:44 PM, AtomicTerrorist wrote:

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote: Ok, so religion has the bible, the koran, the holy scriptures and so fourth and so on, but Science has everything else plus logic.

science is all about theories. and it changes all the time because new things are discovered all the time. Some may be made fact, but lots of it is only theories.

There are no absolute facts in natural science. "Only" theories.

Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve.

evolution is retarded and not christian btw.
if we came from something, where did that come from, and where did that come from, and so on. did we come from nothing? Explain evolution to me so that noone can say its not true. It is not FACT but a THEORY.

Evolution is beyond reasonable doubt. The very fact that bacteria grow resistant to antibiotics is proof enough that evolution is in fact real and happening today. Or the fact that human foeti actually develop (useless) gills. The entire human evolution is repeated in the development after birth. We start off as a single cell, develop something like an egg, grow a tail and gills and eventually grow to be a human baby.
Evolution is just as much a fact as the earth being round is.

If you want to know more about the theory you're so eagerly rejecting without any basis, open a science book. Or check out this site for a start site

So! This raises several questions.
Firstly, why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

evolution is not scientific fact

If there would be anything like "scientific facts", evolution would be one of them.

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

nit gonna happen

couldnt God have created Earth with the Big bang? couldnt that have been how he created it?

Pure speculation. It's equally likely that the Big bang comes from a collision between parallel universes as predicted by string theory.

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

nothing cause it isnt going to happen

Indeed. The faithful's capacity for disregarding all proof and maintaining a stubborn belief in the things that have been proven wrong is astounding. As evidenced by the creationists and flat earthers. Or people shouting "evolution is a theory, not a fact" when actually they don't know what a scientific theory is, or what the evolution theory is a about.

[Memorize]

At 1/18/07 05:10 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Evolution is beyond reasonable doubt. The very fact that bacteria grow resistant to antibiotics is proof enough that evolution is in fact real and happening today. Or the fact that human foeti actually develop (useless) gills.

So many things being said are useless, like the apendix... oh wait, that filters out bacteria or other harmful things that come into an infant. So much for that.

Evolution is just as much a fact as the earth being round is.

*yawn* prove it.

[Goldensheep]

At 1/18/07 05:04 PM, geforce7800GT wrote:

Or that the claim the Earth does not move in Micha 6:4 enforces the idea that the earth does not revolve around the sun

I'm terribly sorry, I meant Micha 6:2. Apparently I can't remember enormous tracts of Old Testament prophets. Again, sorry for the inconvenience.

To avoid that happening again, I'm sourcing the following quotes form the Skeptic's Annotated Bible at www.skepticsannotatedbible.com.

Then spake Joshua to the LORD ... Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. -- Joshua 10:12-13
The sun does not move. Even if you argue that it is a poetic device, intended to convay the appearence of the sun standing still, this still means God has to intevene in a totally random way - why bother breaking His own rules of physics in such a big way when he could just end a plauge of something?

And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ... the bat--Leviticus 11:13, 19
Like the cud thing, the bat is not a fowl. You could argue its irrelevant, I say it proves the fallability of the Bible

For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind.-- James 3:7
This is just flatly wrong. If you don't believe me, go find a polar bear and bother it.

[Togukawa]

At 1/18/07 05:15 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/18/07 05:10 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Evolution is beyond reasonable doubt. The very fact that bacteria grow resistant to antibiotics is proof enough that evolution is in fact real and happening today. Or the fact that human foeti actually develop (useless) gills.

So many things being said are useless, like the apendix... oh wait, that filters out bacteria or other harmful things that come into an infant. So much for that.

Please oh great Techware, educate me on the use of gills and and tail that disappear after 7 weeks. What is the use of putting energy into these appendages that disappear later in the development?

Evolution is just as much a fact as the earth being round is.

*yawn* prove it.

Are you going to deny that bacteria grow resistant to antibiotics?

[Memorize]

At 1/18/07 05:21 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Please oh great Techware, educate me on the use of gills and and tail that disappear after 7 weeks. What is the use of putting energy into these appendages that disappear later in the development?

Hey, you guys were the ones saying an appendix had no purpose.

Are you going to deny that bacteria grow resistant to antibiotics?

No. I'm denying how a particular species can completely change it's genetics and develop into a different species. I'm still waiting on those missing links by the way.

At 1/18/07 05:18 PM, Goldensheep wrote:

This is just flatly wrong. If you don't believe me, go find a polar bear and bother it.

Are you honestly that stupid? For one, you're not putting into context and two, you're leaving out what comes before and after the verse (which makes a big difference).

Saying that it implies the earth is flat is just plain stupidity. That's like me reading or hearing someone say "i'm watching the sun rise" and calling him an idiot for actually thinking the sun moves.

Think before posting.

[Togukawa]

At 1/18/07 05:24 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/18/07 05:21 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Please oh great Techware, educate me on the use of gills and and tail that disappear after 7 weeks. What is the use of putting energy into these appendages that disappear later in the development?

Hey, you guys were the ones saying an appendix had no purpose.

Ahh, but THIS TIME you are going to give a quote! I'm looking forward to it. Or is it YET MORE OF THE SAME BASELESS BLABBING?!

Are you going to deny that bacteria grow resistant to antibiotics?

No. I'm denying how a particular species can completely change it's genetics and develop into a different species. I'm still waiting on those missing links by the way.

Oh that's an easy one. Crossing over and copying errors that aren't fixed after the meiosis leads to small changes in the properties of the creature. From there on, natural selection takes over.

Besides, species don't "change their genetics". Species develop from other species due to small changes to genetics over a loooooong time.

Another piece of evidence that's quite recent: the evolution of the coronavirus into SARS. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3442317.stm

It just goes a lot faster in bacteria, organisms with slower reproductive cycles (as in generations per unit of time) take a lot longer to change in absolute time. But it's the same principle.

[Memorize]

At 1/18/07 05:40 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Ahh, but THIS TIME you are going to give a quote! I'm looking forward to it. Or is it YET MORE OF THE SAME BASELESS BLABBING?!

Kind of like that I assume?

It just goes a lot faster in bacteria, organisms with slower reproductive cycles (as in generations per unit of time) take a lot longer to change in absolute time. But it's the same principle.

*sigh* you're doing it again. Telling me things I already know. What I'm asking is proof, not their theories. You're just telling me how it happens in a long, useless post while avoiding what i'm asking for again.

[Togukawa]

At 1/18/07 05:48 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/18/07 05:40 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Ahh, but THIS TIME you are going to give a quote! I'm looking forward to it. Or is it YET MORE OF THE SAME BASELESS BLABBING?!

Kind of like that I assume?

You're talking about me not giving what you ask for. Start by giving the right example and give me the quote where any of "us guys" claim the appendix is useless.

It just goes a lot faster in bacteria, organisms with slower reproductive cycles (as in generations per unit of time) take a lot longer to change in absolute time. But it's the same principle.

*sigh* you're doing it again. Telling me things I already know. What I'm asking is proof, not their theories. You're just telling me how it happens in a long, useless post while avoiding what i'm asking for again.

I gave you proof, the BBC article that covers how SARS has came to be. Since you already know what evolution is, then you should know that that is definite, observable proof of evolution.

[Memorize]

At 1/18/07 05:53 PM, Togukawa wrote:

You're talking about me not giving what you ask for. Start by giving the right example and give me the quote where any of "us guys" claim the appendix is useless.

Oh yee of short attention span: Appendix

You know, all you have to do is google "useless Appendix" and you'll get loads of... useless appendix. But most are just forums with people asking about its purpose.

There, you get 2 in 1. How it states how people once believed it was entirely useless til now.

I gave you proof, the BBC article that covers how SARS has came to be. Since you already know what evolution is, then you should know that that is definite, observable proof of evolution.

You're going to have to do give me real proof. But in order to do that, you'll need to find the many labeled "missing links". Since you have yet to find any, you can't. What you did was provide me with what we found, and used it to theorize and further advance our knowledge about evolution (based on evidence).

Evidence is different than proof.