The Theory of Evolution is a lie. We did not come from monkeys.

Thank you for offering this debate. I happily accept it. Let's start off with the basics your argument is an argument from ignorance. Simply because you do not understand how we can have a common ancestor with monkeys does not preclude the fact that we do. The principle force behind your inability to fathom that evolution could be true is that you don't understand what evolution actually entails. Years before Charles Darwin's explanation of the mechanism of natural selection in order to explain evolution we had mounting evidence for evolution itself. We had fossils which properly and consistently were of extinct animals. It was previously believed that there were no extinct animals and, in fact, the theory of extinction took a while before it was widely accepted. It was believed that there was literal truth to the story of Noah's Ark and all the animals were saved so they were all around. However finding large fossils like mastodons and knowing most of the world by that time it was quickly becoming evident that there were some species which stopped existing (we know know it's about 99% of all species). Further, it seemed that the older fossils were more simple. The older the fossil the more simple and there seemed to be a remarkable progression of one species into many similar species and the body plan seemed to be, moreover, rather similar. A head, four limbs, a tail, ribs, backbone, and this pattern was repeated even in the thunder lizards (dinosaurs). We had, long before Darwin's time, an astounding array of different lines of evidence suggesting that the planet was extremely old and that as time went on the organisms on the planet got more and more complex. The facts of evolution were mounting and despite some previous attempts such as the one by Lamarck to explain how an organism could possibly change over time (evolve) it was notably unsatisfactory. Then Darwin came along with the key to explain it all in an amazing and downright simple way. Artificial selection had been known to every farmer and breeder in England for generations. If you want a faster horse you breed your fastest horse. If you want a sheep with more wool you breed the woolliest sheep. If you want better wheat you plant the seeds of your best wheat. Darwin's insight was to suggest that this same concept applies to nature as well as to the stewardship of human farms. Any species if allowed to breed and have all viable children survive to breed would quickly overrun the planet. If every cricket which could exist did exist the planet would be quickly overflowing with crickets. So there must be some forces, predation, weather, breeding, food, etc. which keep the population of animals in check. Now, what if one of these organisms had a monstrosity (as Darwin called them) which allowed them to gather food a bit better or avoid a predator? He, rather than his numerous cousins would be more likely to survive in the ebbs and flows of nature's selection process. Each species would inevitably be pushed toward the most adapted members. Those members of the species best able to exploit the niche occupied by the species would have more children. Rather than end up with the human selection of the beefiest cow or the fastest dog, nature would select for the fittest individual. This same process expanded over millions and even billions of years quickly does all the heavy lifting needed to explain life on this planet, it's arrangement, and how it formed. Your understanding of evolution and it's implications are completely wrong. The fact is that we, and all other species are well adapted for their environment. They are the chief-most members of the species, the best at exploiting their niches. That humans and all species are well adapted for their environment is simply one of the facts of evolution which Darwin's theory explains. Why are we adapted to our environment? Because those members of our species best adapted are the ones who had children. So you see, we don't "evolve" ourselves. We are who we are and nothing is going to change that. Rather, it is through the selection of the best among us to do the best in the environment we are in. Evolution isn't something an individual does, rather it's something a species does. The majority of mutations do not help an individual. Most of them are neutral and don't have a net effect at all, but many of those which are not neutral do not help us. Those mutations are less likely to pass to the next generation whereas the diamond in the rough. The rare beneficial mutation which helps a species better live in the environment they reside is more likely to pass on. So when mutations arise and cause problem they are quickly rid of, however when they arise as beneficial changes they are that much more likely to pass on to the next generation. For evolution to occur does not matter how many mutations are bad rather that that far away chance exists that one can do better. Every mutation which has made me who I am has been a positive mutation. How about the mutation which helped to change what was once just a light sensitive spot of skin into a pocketed light sensitive spot of skin during the very early stages of the vertebrate eye? How about the mutations which lead to the formation of my opposable thumbs? How about the gene for blue eyes which has given me blue eyes? How about the gene for hitchhiker's thumb which lets be bend my thumbs backwards at about a 60 degree angle? Pleading ignorance behind the science does not allow you to suddenly conclude that "We are made in the image of God" -- further to conclude that all genetic change is bad genetic change would force one to assume that God's mutations should be bad as well. Can you name me ONE mutation that is positive? Just one. That's all I'm asking for. You can't, simply because there is none. We are made in the image of God, our heavenly father, so when genes in our body changes it goes from good to something bad. The explanation of how complex things evolve is the same explanation as explaining how the small things evolve too. Light sensitive skin become more and more pocketed will help an organism. As well the formation of a pinhole eye, a lensed eye, and even reflective lensed eye (cats have these we don't). Further, there are some odd quicks with the eye like the veins and nerves run in front of the light sensing cells in something akin to running the wiring for a camera in front of the lens. Further, evolution is not chance. Sure, there's only such and such a chance of a beneficial mutation but when it happens it becomes important and when some bad mutation occurs, it quickly gets selected against. If you were allowed to keep your bet on a roulette wheel and spin as many times as you'd like would you win? Is that a game of chance? The odds of losing are overwhelming? But because you get to keep spinning you really can't lose and chance is no longer a factor. Evolution take about as much faith as believing the sun will rise in the morning whereas religion takes as much faith believing there are elves in my pants. However, I do find it hilarious you mention unicorns. You know they are twice mentioned in the Bible right? I highly recommend the following site: http://www.talkorigins.org... Several of the links and points made are fantastic. I could summarize a few on top of it if need be. http://www.youtube.com...