We are still evolving but you dont see it in a century, it takes millions to billions of years but one thing you can notice is humans are getting taller every generation. As you guessed I'm for evolution because I find the evidence in the research scientists do into atoms - The higgs boson is surposed to be the atom that made it happen and it is now trying to be recreated by the new machine that will fire two phontons at each other hoping they will hit and in the smallest amount of time possible the higgs will appear. Your proberly thinking now *How can we know it was there* well the higgs will leave particals of other atoms behind. Another point is that if you watch programs like evolution of dinosaurs it shows you what came before the dino's and how they changed - The giant sea scorpion was actually one of the first real dino's which I found surprising seen as you would think the first creatures would be small until you relise at this time life was going mad and starting in water it could go big without crushing itself as it would if it went straight on land. I hope I didn't offend anyone I have no problem with people believing different things as me, I just wanted to add my point. Edit: My mother works as a Humanist minister who does non-religious funerals, weddings and baby names that also have time for people with their beliefs to say their goodbyes (In a funeral case). Just wanted to add that.
I'd say it's really hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of years. Billions is a little on the outward edge seeing as the universe is only 14 billions years old. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the Large Hadron Collider's attempts to discover new subatomic particles. The Higgs Boson is the last remaining particle of the Standard Model of Physics that has yet to be discovered and is thought to have given all matter its mass in the moments following the big bang. The Large Hadron collider seeks to to synthesize this by colliding two beams of protons (not photons) together at 99.999% the speed of light such that they will interact and form such particles which will rapidly decay into other more common particles. By tracking the paths and speeds of these more common particles, scientists can infer what the original particles were.
Giving all matter its mass has nearly everything to do with evolution as if you believe as I do it made the planet we live on exist.
Evolution is the process that allows already living creatures to change over time. Evolution has nothing to do with planets.
The two are entirely separate theories though. Evidence found by the LHC will help the Standard Model, not evolution in any way. Evolution requires a planet and lifeforms to take place, but we don't need to prove that a planet was formed in order to prove evolution, since we are living proof of lifeforms living on a planet..
Technically evolution doesn't even require life to function. Viruses are not considered living but are subject to the process of evolution.
Creation makes more sense, how is it possible that the other animals from the huge variety that there are do not have the slightest of intelligence compared to us. We can not teach a monkey to write properly throughout its lifetime, but we can teach a human to write in 3 years. Why are all the other animals so close together in intelligence, we are literally 23,000 years apart from our closest relative species. We are made out of non-living materials which sort of started me thinking that Creation is real, you can throw a boomerang and it comes back, but if you throw the chunk of wood used to make it, it does not comeback. We could also have been made in Gods image, don't we as humans also create robots which are not equal to us, but are made in our image? God made us in his image, but not 100%.
Because they don't need it. If the evolutionary imperative was to become intelligent or die out, everything would be intelligent. Instead, the imperative is just to survive, and as I said in the God thread, there are many ways of doing that. Did you even think before you wrote that? Your proof that nonliving materials can't create living materials is that wood doesn't behave like a boomerang? What? Boomerangs are specifically carved so that their flow causes them to spiral back to you, similar to how humans have evolved to perform incredibly complex motions, even when formed by (nonliving) atoms. I have to ask: have you taken a biology class in school yet? If not, wait until you do before forming such important decisions..
You missed the point, a boomerang is created to do what it does using primitive elements but these elements that the boomerang was created from does not, such as us we are created from simpler items, but put together and we do a lot more... A computer is just 1's and 0's but the intelligence put into creating it is what makes it useful, which can be said the same for us humans.
Yes, and those simpler items started as extremely simple microorganisms, and over time evolved into all the life we see today.
No. The intelligence put into creating something is what makes it functional. Utility is a highly subjective characteristic that I would not extend to humans. In what way could we possibly be useful? All we have done on our planet/ecosystem is slowly destroy it during our very short existence on it [Earth]. Complexity does not imply construction.
I just wanted to add another point, Alot of people say why arn't other animals evolving like us but who is to say our intellectual abilities are best, is you look at how long a cockroach or a crocodile has been on Earth for then you realise that they don't need to change, they have all they need to survive.
True, intelligence does not necessarily ensure a higher rate of survival. Sometimes brute strength or small size and the ability to live through almost anything is all a species needs.
Personly i think it was evolution and not creation that put us here. Despite this i think it's still a good idea to keep a open mind because after all i could be wrong.
I know I'm not... creationists can't even agree with themselves, let alone scientifically proven facts. If they ever even start to do science, then people might listen to them. So far, though, they haven't brought anything constructive to the table, other than circles of logic that always end up at the "faith" argument. It's particularly frustrating, because you can show them reams of impeccably documented evidence, and at some point they're going to stop listening and put their mental fingers in their ears. Their level of interest for hearing evidence is inversely proportional to their self-ascribed piety, and often their volume as well, lol.