What comes to mind when I say "Johnny Depp"?

The incongruity of insisting that evolution is a fact when it cannot be replicated in a laboratory, or be seen to be happening in front of us, or can be evidenced by fossil finds makes your question reasonable. We would probably be in agreement saying that evidence of adaptation is not evidence of new species arising out of different species. For example, the theory is proposed that Polar bears evolved from Brown bears caught in a sort of ice-age trap a few million years ago.

The Brown bear has many similarities but the shape of its skull is not 'suitable' for shoving down ice holes in order to snatch seals. The Polar bear has a slightly curved skull from snout to top, making it ideal for catching its prey in polar conditions. This means that the trapped Brown bears must have had the shape of their skulls gradually changed over the centuries (begging the question as to how they could have survived on seals over those centuries till the skull smoothed out sufficiently to catch them down ice holes, but let's press on.) This is according to evolutionary theory - so all that is needed is for skulls of bears to be found showing an interim shape between that of Brown bears and Polar bears.

No such skulls have ever been found. Which is where evolutionists invoke the point deists are accused of using: just because such evidence has not yet been found is no reason to say it isn't there - somewhere. Well, your question asks about people in their right minds.

I must assure you that eminently logical, well educated and balanced people have insisted that evolution is a fact. One of them wrote a book - he is an Honorary Research Fellow of Green Templeton College at Oxford University and Research Leader at the Natural History Museum, and a Professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. He has written two other books.

This one I refer to is called "The Genesis Enigma" - does modern science, while agreeing with Darwinian evolution, the big bang theory and the complexity and deep age of the universe, prove the order of creation as described in the Bible to be true? His answer is, "Yes!" Surprised?

Yes, I was too. After reading it, with much shaking of my head at his insistence that evolution is absolutely true, I was still pleased that - at the end of the day - he has been able to see how the order of creation fits in with modern science. This gives the answer to those who mock Genesis chapter 1, saying how ridiculous it is that the sun, moon and stars don't seem to 'appear' till Day Four.

It is scientifically correct, in fact, in light of the Big Bang theory. The author concludes his book with: "The true account of how we came to exist may have been handed to humans by God. In any case, our strong preconception that science has, with each discovery, chipped away at the notion of God is proved wrong in this book.

Now we can live with the real possibility that God exists while fully accepting science, rather than straining to find contradictions. Faith suddenly appears that much stronger." Now, do you think the author is in his right mind?

I think he's having second thoughts that are putting him in the right direction, heading in a God-ward direction, which he had not been in before. That's got to be evidence of attaining a certain balance, don't you think? For a totally non-religious scientist to write a book like that, with such a conclusion, is encouraging.

He is still a long, long way off what you or I might think on related matters, but it is only people who adamantly refuse to consider other possibilities on a matter who are not in their right mind. And that works both ways.

First of all a theory isn't "made up" second of all I don't see why a grand mechanism such as evolution should be easily seen...God isn't easily seen and yet you believe in him. I think I will clear a few things up for you: "Only a theory" is what creationists like to say about evolution. And that seems to carry greeat weight with some people.

Such people don't understand what that word means to a scientist. As used in science, "theory" does not mean the same thing as it does in everyday life. A theory is not a guess, hunch, hypothesis, or speculation.

It is much more full-blown. A theory is built upon one or more hypotheses, and upon evidence. The word "built" is essential, for a theory contains reasoning and logical connections based on the hypotheses and evidence.

Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These theories are self-consistent and consistent with one another. Construction of good theories is a major goal of science.

Yes, a scientific theory can be wrong, as shown by experiment or observation, since one of its hypotheses might be wrong or the reasoning might be flawed or new data might come along that disagree with it. Or its validity might be limited (as are some of those listed above). So in science, a wrong theory gets modified, discarded, or replaced.

This has happened, for example, in physics with the caloric theory of heat and the theory of the luminiferous ether, and in chemistry with the phlogiston theory of combustion. Supernatural creation is not a theory, but a hypothesis. Considered in a scientific sense, it has a fatal flaw: it is sterile.

If someone asserts that there is a creator-god, one can ask "So what?" Nothing follows from it; it leads nowhere. Some religions have additional hypotheses, such as: only one creator-god, a great flood, the sun standing still, a virgin birth, a trinity, a resurrection, the efficacy of prayer; but no one of these is logically demanded, or even suggested, by the others.

They are just added on. Anti-evolutionists sometimes say that evolution has not been "proven". In a strict sense, no theory is ever proven in any field, with the possible exception of pure mathematics, since new data might come along that require a change, and there are always details that haven't been tested.

Sure, there are things not yet understood about evolution, as in many other fields; but that is why scientists do research! I have encountered the statement - meant as a put-down - that scientists don't know everything. Well of course not, but we expect to know tomorrow more than we know today.

Waking up in the morning and running downstairs, being greeted by presents :) ahh, memories...

Sitting in the kitchen waiting for my sisters lazy *** to wake up so we can open presents.

Boxing day sales. Six E Mails already today advertising sales Argos,Marks and Spencer etc.

Ugh I slept all night again and didn't see santa leave the presents.

Whenever you say I am ready to answer you in your expected way.

Food. That might just be because I'm hungry.

That you seem to have an incorrect picture of yourself.

What comes to my mind is the overuse of the word "actually".

A woman trying to compliment me that didn't want to be with me for some reason or another .

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.