Evolution

The armadillo's shell is an adaption that allows it to survive and pass its genes on to its offspring.

No - it was officially ruled to be compatible with Roman Catholic doctrine in 1950, by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis.

as stated above (no). this is possible because though the bible says the world was created in seven days, we do not know how long gods seven days were. they could be centuries, millions of years, or entire evolutionary periods. also, the writers of the bible knew not about science and how the universe came about. we have a pretty good idea about it today. to them, they needed a story. and God did create everything, but not in a mere seven days. animals slowly evolved into humans, and plants evolved also. But the Bible is more for use of metaphorical interpretation. Like the parables, it have a message between the lines that many people do not understand. They become frustrated and turn angry at God, because they have misread he messages. So the bottom line is that the Bible is compatible with modern science, and God wants us to explore this universe he has created for us.

That's not really true, most all atheists believe in evolution.

Answer:

Atheists do not "preach" evolution. They view it as the most logical explanation for the plethora of different species in the world today.

As to the "missing link" this is a common misconception among people who wish to disprove evolution. It is not necessary to find every step along the path to a speces from a previous species to demonstrate its descent, any more than police must find every footprint made by a criminal from the site of the crme to the point where he is captured.

I believe the Big Bang played a part in the creation of the Earth

First the universe was created, via the now-famous "big bang". Before the big bang, scientists believe there was pure vacuum. By means of a random quantum fluctuation the universe 'tunnelled" from pure vacuum to what is called a false vacuum, a region of space that contains no matter or radiation but is not quite nothing. The space inside a bubble of false vacuum is curved, or warped, and a small amount of energy is stored in that curvature. This ostensible violation of energy conservation is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for sufficiently small time intervals.

The bubble then inflated exponentially and its curvature energy transformed into matter and radiation. Inflation stopped and the more linear big bang expansion commenced.

Almost all the matter of the early universe was hydrogen, helium and light elements. These elments coalesced into stars, which gradually formed heavy elements by nuclear fusion, a natural process in all stars. Some of the earliest stars reached the end-point, where they exploded as super-novas, spewing out great volumes of heavy elements. These heavy elements were attracted towards other stars, such as our Sun, and went into orbit as gas clouds. Again, these clouds coalesced into solid objects - the planets, such as our world.

The Torah has one creation-narrative, which takes the form of a summary (Genesis ch.1) followed by an in-depth recap (Rashi commentary, Genesis 2:8). In accordance with that system, Genesis ch.1 is stating that God created humans in general, while the following chapter delves into some detail, including the name of the first man and how he got that name. See also:

Is there evidence against Evolution?

Can you show that God exists?

Using tools has been interpreted as a sign of intelligence, and it has been theorized that tool use may have stimulated certain aspects of human evolution-most notably the continued expansion of the human brain. Paleontology has yet to explain the expansion of this organ over millions of years despite being extremely demanding in terms of energy consumption. The brain of a modern human consumes about 20 Watts (400 kilocalories per day), which is one fifth of the energy consumption of a human body. Increased tool use would allow for hunting and consuming meat, which is more energy-rich than plants. Researchers have suggested that early hominids were thus under evolutionary pressure to increase their capacity to create and use tools.

Precisely when early humans started to use tools is difficult to determine, because the more primitive these tools are (for example, sharp-edged stones) the more difficult it is to decide whether they are natural objects or human artifacts. There is some evidence that the australopithecines (4 mya) may have used broken bones as tools, but this is debated.

It should be noted that many species make and use tools, but it is the human species that dominates the areas of making and using more complex tools. A good question is, what species made and used the first tools? The oldest known tools are the "Oldowan stone tools" from Ethiopia. It was discovered that these tools are from 2.5 to 2.6 million years old, which predates the earliest known "Homo" species. There is no known evidence that any "Homo" specimens appeared by 2.5 million years ago. A Homo fossil was found near some Oldowan tools, and its age was noted at 2.3 million years old, suggesting that maybe the Homo species did indeed create and use these tools. It is surely possible, but not solid evidence. Bernard Wood noted that "Paranthropus" coexisted with the early Homo species in the area of the "Oldowan Industrial Complex" over roughly the same span of time. Although there is no direct evidence that points to Paranthropus as the tool makers, their anatomy lends to indirect evidence of their capabilities in this area. Most paleoanthropologists agree that the early "Homo" species were indeed responsible for most of the Oldowan tools found. They argue that when most of the Oldowan tools were found in association with human fossils, Homo was always present, but Paranthropus was not.

In 1994, Randall Susman used the anatomy of opposable thumbs as the basis for his argument that both the Homo and Paranthropus species were toolmakers. He compared bones and muscles of human and chimpanzee thumbs, finding that humans have 3 muscles that chimps lack. Humans also have thicker metacarpals with broader heads, making the human hand more successful at precision grasping than the chimpanzee hand. Susman defended that modern anatomy of the human thumb is an evolutionary response to the requirements associated with making and handling tools and that both species were indeed toolmakers.

Stone tools:
Stone tools are first attested around 2.6 million years ago, when H. habilis in Eastern Africa used so-called pebble tools, choppers made out of round pebbles that had been split by simple strikes. This marks the beginning of the Paleolithic, or Old Stone Age; its end is taken to be the end of the last Ice Age, around 10,000 years ago. The Paleolithic is subdivided into the Lower Paleolithic (Early Stone Age, ending around 350,000-300,000 years ago), the Middle Paleolithic (Middle Stone Age, until 50,000-30,000 years ago), and the Upper Paleolithic.

The period from 700,000-300,000 years ago is also known as the Acheulean, when H. ergaster (or erectus) made large stone hand-axes out of flint and quartzite, at first quite rough (Early Acheulian), later "retouched" by additional, more subtle strikes at the sides of the flakes. After 350,000 BP (Before Present) the more refined so-called Levallois technique was developed. It consisted of a series of consecutive strikes, by which scrapers, slicers ("racloirs"), needles, and flattened needles were made. Finally, after about 50,000 BP, ever more refined and specialized flint tools were made by the Neanderthals and the immigrant Cro-Magnons (knives, blades, skimmers). In this period they also started to make tools out of bone

hope it will help u all guys

(deep gandhi)

Evolution has always been a hotly debated topic within society. It is widely accepted as the origin of all life, including humans. It is supported by a broad array of scientific disciplines. Every theory is incomplete because in science, any theory can be potentially shown to be false,but some have such broad data supporting them that they come to viewed as established fact. Evolution has just such broad data support, enough to be considered fact.

Since evolution is taught as an indisputable fact in public schools and colleges and is promoted vigorously in the media, most people do not realise how unproven it really is. Many people have never heard of frauds when they are exposed. Some continue to appear in textbooks for years after their exposure as fakes. Two good examples of this are the classic peppered moths and the faked embryo drawings of Ernest Haeckel upon which the false idea of embyonic recapitulation is based.

Most people also do not realise that Creation scientists have access to exactly the same facts as do evolutionists. They, after all, live on the same planet, and research the same rocks and fossils and universe etc. The difference is not the evidence at all but the presuppositions which each brings to their science. A good example would be the Grand Canyon. The evolutionist will explain its origin by saying that it took a long time and a little bit of water (as today). The Creationist will say it took a lot of water and a little bit of time.

The theory of evolution is the best explanation of the existing data that has emerged from multiple fields -- biology and all of its various sub-branches, genetic research, paleontology, and so forth. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a theory, like the theory of gravity. No theory is every finished, because new data may emerge to force alteration. But theory is the highest order of scientific organization of data. It allows for multiple hypotheses that can then be tested, and allows for the data to be integrated into a larger picture. The vast majority of life scientists endorse the theory of evolution because it makes the most sense of the data. (Many also retain their religious beliefs.) Many of the scholars who challenge evoltuion have advanced degrees in other fields of inquiry, not in the field that directly deals with the data of evolution.