From chimp to man: it's as easy as 1, 2, 3!

There is no way to prove evolution without a shadow of a doubt. No theory in science is proven. Ideas are accepted when they seem to be supported by physical evidence. However, nobody can claim that evolution was the certain cause of life on Earth. The scientific method does not allow for someone to say that evolution is 100% the cause of life. Contrary to evolutionist, who are doing nothing more but making up guesses and conjectures, the creationists have a tradition going back a few thousand years. Is it not funny that the Evolution Hypothesis has only been around for about 150 years and that the creationist have been around for thousands. The evidence of creation is the oral tradition leading back to creation. Nobody ever told their children that their grandfather was a wild animal and he had to get along with him anyway.

First of all, if evolution does not deal with the cause of life, then what field of science does? Why is it that creationist argue with evolution if evolution does not at least conjecture the causes and the origins of life. Second of all, I just used the word conjecture again and I did not intend to use the word lie. Just because someone may make conjectures does not make him a liar. Finally, what makes you think that I am a Christian any more than a Hindu.

First of all, hypothesis statements are "Made Up", not discovered.
Secondly, why do you think that scientist are any more credible than the people who start religions. The people who start religions claim that they were actually spoken to by superior beings. Why would they lie? Maybe the scientist would lie for the exact same reason. On a side note, the name of this web site is
Creation versus Evolution. Why? obviously you believe that the people who named this web site did not even know what evolution is.

On the contrary, the TOE (Theory of Everything) has yet to be discovered. There are contradictions in the fundamentals of physics that even Steven Hawkings can not answer. I dont think scientist are able to explain the world. Contrary wise, religions deal with the reason for the world while scientist are completely baffled.

First of all, a hypothesis may be based on something, but the hypothesis itself is made up with the scientist imagination. Only then does the scientist find supporting evidence in nature. Albert Einstein did not see E=MC^2. He made it up at first before bringing the supporting evidence. I dont see why you consider ancient people any more primitive than yourself. There is no evidence of the human beings becoming smarter. Who is smarter you or your children? The only reason why you think they are primitive is because you believe in scientific thought which is relatively modern.

Can a scientist say anything about gravity other than its name. Why does gravity exist? All a scientist can say is based on previous observation, gravity is there. When one asks a scientist why it is they who have no answers. Have you ever wondered why this world exists? Why does positive and negative forces attract? What does it mean to have a positive or negative charge? All science does is link vocabulary words with observations and formulate hypothesis statements to try to link all the "forces" together. As for humans being smarter now than they were years ago, I dont there is any "scientific" proof of that.