I am hiking today so I don't have much time to write, but these links seemed to have a pretty good understanding as to what the evoltionary theory is:
 
http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
 
http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/What_Is_Evolution.html
 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
 
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LJignc8YaIc/TISI86QVEPI/AAAAAAAAAA8/JZmeq7PGzxY/s320/b igbangtheory_big_bang_theory_www%5B1%5D.motivationalpostersonline.blogspot.com_demotivational_posters_motivational_poster_funny%5B1%5D.jpg    
 
Sorry just had to add the last one. Mathmeticians aren't trying to disprove Intellient Design and the evidence of a mighty living God.

fish evolved into air gulpers, then air breathers then land walkers. Examples of the intermediate stages still exist.
So given that the definition of a fish is a water dwelling gill breather. then yup fish did turn into nonfish. Just not overnight.
 
The thing about evolution is that it can just as easily be argued that it proves the existence of god as disproves it.  
 
You could say that it shows an intelligence at work in the correct mutations cropping up and becoming dominant to produce new, better adapted species.  
And that it's just simpler to desing life so that it can sort itself out i regard to biological niches.  
 
And you can argue just as effectively that the sheer number of minor mutations proves it's all random and the strongest survival traits are what win out, simply because they are the strongest.  
 
My question to both of you is a much simpler one:  
 
Why do you both feel the desire to prove the other person wrong on a theory that will only ever be proved one way or the other when you die ?  
 
ie: why does one point of view necessarily have to be superior to the other ?  
Why not just accept that all people believe different things and move on.  
 
This religion versus reason argument has been going on round here ever since I joined. It's not getting anyone anywhere, nobody ever changes their mind, nobody seem prepared to accept that people are entitled to believe whatever the hell they like.  
 
And while it does make for a mildly entertaining spectator sport, it is - in the long run - utterly pointless. And has frequently caused a lot of issues between slinging.org members.  
 
I'm not going to ban it as long as it stays civilised, but it would be pleasant to log on, and for a change find a heated discussion about something other than religion    
 

Quote from curious_aardvark on Jun 14^th, 2012, 12:49pm:

 
Shall I assume this is a reference to Dan and I?
 
 I'm not trying to "prove" evolution or atheism right now, since I dislike that word for reasons I feel I've already stated. I'm trying to outline why evolution is, in all probability beyond serious doubt, an accurate theory of how life has changed on earth, and atheism as the most accurate view to regard religions with. And I doubt it can be "proved" only at death. Just let God smack down his power and convert my house to cheese, show me that no other natural cause could have done it, and I'll convert. Abiding of course, if God wants to show his power to prove himself in this way.
 
Quote from curious_aardvark on Jun 14^th, 2012, 12:49pm:

 
It goes somewhere. As Dan said, he finds it to be strengthening his beliefs. I understand the mindset of a person such as Dan better, refine my arguments and reasoning, and wonder if I am wrong. Someone browsing the internet may find this, and read it, and glean new insight they hadn't before on the issue. Even we can bring up new points at time, not previously thought of.
 
 
Quote from curious_aardvark on Jun 14^th, 2012, 12:49pm:
 
Of course a person's entitled to believe whatever they want. And I'm entitled to say they're probably wrong.
 
 
I have issues with ignorance and false information being spread. I want medicine based on science, not faith healing. I want accurate history, not some stories about man who walked on water taken to be true by a few billion. I want the truth, facts, knowledge, logic, rationality. I don't want a bunch of people killing each other over this land that they think is theirs due to divine power, and raising kids to believe it as well, to continue the violence. That's why it matters. I want to know if there actually is a heaven, that I need to be saved to get there. If my life has meaning without religion. Freedom, prosperity, how can we have these if those in power distort facts and lie to us, or spread false information they truly believe? It alters our lives, not always for the better. I want to live in the real world, not the cave, to reference Plato. That's why I argue.

The same folks who insist on biblical literacy and deny history (that's what Dawkins calls 'em..History Deniers) in regards to Genesis also seem to freely disregard portions of the bible they don't like or that society would find at best quaint or at worst barbaric.
 
In the debates about homosexuality and same-sex marriage, it's fairly common to quote the "old law" regarding homosexual acts and to use those biblical injunctions as a basis for the denial of marriage.
However, at the very same time they will simply wave away the various aspects of the "old law" that would be unacceptable in today's society.
Demanding death for adulterers, or misbehaving children, or for violations of clothing or dietary requirements... Or dozens of other things.
Of course, there are more radical elements of society that think we should do these very things.... As witness the preacher who wanted to round up homosexuals and put them in concentration camps...
 
As well, contemporary fundamentalists generally have no problem with using the benefits that science and scientific research has conferred upon us.   The device I'm using to type and post this is one such.  As well, advances in modern medicine, the virtual elimination of various diseases, the ability to view the cosmos in unprecedented detail... We could go on and on in that vein.
All the research that went on through hundreds of years to result in these advances adhered to exactly the same principals used by biologists and geologists and paleoanthropologists and paleontologists and microbiologists and... Again, I could go on and on.
Yet, again for the sake of a 3000-year-old creation myth, they feel free to disregard what they think of as one aspect of science.
Not realizing that if this one aspect was wrong... Essentially the entire foundations of science would be called into question.
 
All because a few sects out of literally thousands of Christian sects are structured to require biblical literacy.

Quote from Dan on Jun 15^th, 2012, 9:36am:

Do you think evolution means that a fish could give birth to a dog? Or that a fly can become an elephant after millions of years?
 
Quote from Dan on Jun 15^th, 2012, 9:36am:

Did I say that at some point? I don't recall that.  
 
Quote from Dan on Jun 15^th, 2012, 9:36am:

Doesn't matter where the knowledge comes from as long as it's accurate. And I'd prefer a good scientist over pastor almost any day of the week.
 
Quote from Dan on Jun 15^th, 2012, 9:36am:

Only if the religion you follow is the only true religion. It could just as easily be Islam, and so both you and I will have fun in whatever place those who don't believe in Allah and Mohammed go.
 
Quote from Dan on Jun 15^th, 2012, 9:36am:

As stated, that gives a general view of how some christians view evolution, not all. Calling it a Christian view and encompassing all Christians in that definition is just silly. Heck, I agree with you that if evolution is true and genesis is literal, then they simply aren't compatible, and that's one of the reasons I am an atheist, not believer of any religion. But regardless, not all people agree with us.
 
Quote from Dan on Jun 15^th, 2012, 9:36am:

Yep. Where they offer a philosophy class as well as a class on the Bible and Mythology.
 
Quote from Dan on Jun 15^th, 2012, 9:36am:

Freshman year, spent maybe two months total on evolution. Where do they teache 700 days of evolution?
 
Quote from Dan on Jun 15^th, 2012, 9:36am:

I've considered visiting some of the churches around my area, just to see what it's like, as I haven't been for a while. But then I decide I have better things to do, like sleep, on a Sunday morning.
 
Quote from Dan on Jun 15^th, 2012, 9:36am:

Try not skimming links. Personally, I do spend a good deal of time contemplating religion and aspects related to it.

I am not a very religious person, though I do consider myself spiritual. I am very content to believe that God made everything and She did a pretty damn good job, and leave it at that. What's to prove? enjoy every aspect of every day. Each flower, each sunrise/sunset, thunder storm all signs of something bigger than us whether you call it Nature or God.......all the same thing in my book.

It's a mystery to me as to why anyone would assign sexual characteristcs to what would of necessity be a singular being....
But many throughout history have liked the idea of either a diune (male and female) godhood, or a "mother god" sort of thing.
More patriarchichal societies have generally preferred male godheads, or at least a male "head god" like the Romans and Greeks.
Scholars tell us that the very ancient Hebraic peoples were, just like everybody else back then, worshippers of a variety of Gods.   However, they decided to throw in with Jehovah, who was evidently a war god in the pantheon.   They lived in a tough neighborhood....  So they renounced all the other gods in favor of a strong, masculine fellow who they saw as a protector.
The line from the commandments about "having no other gods before me" seems to bear this out; the line does not deny the existence of other gods, only that the "chosen people" should have allegiance to Jehovah above all those.
 
(sorry to be pedantic, but....}
 
This carries over to the rise of Christianity as well.   Though by that time, the "monotheistic" idea was firmly established in Jewish culture, there must have been lore regarding the other gods running around, since that was the idea of the Gnostics.
The Gnostics felt that they could not reconcile what they saw as the message of Jesus with the rather cantankerous Jehovah.    
Jehovah was rather a nasty sort, you will recall.      
So, the Gnostics decided that he was a rogue.  A god who had broken away from the "real" gods and created the World in an act of cosmic spite.   To the Gnostics, the message of Jesus (and a very well-hidden message at that...) was that one could find one's way back to those real gods.
 
No wonder the Gnostics were condemned as heretics...
 
But it does illustrate that the notion of many gods must have been fairly common even in Jewish society 1000 years after they adopted Jehovah as their only deity.