1. "Trusting' science in what way?
2. "Science" isn't actually some sort of amorphous entity the way you seem to refer to it. The term applies to systematic processes by which theories are formulated, explored, developed into hypotheses, and then studied through properly rigorous practices.

Rofl_Mao wrote: IDon't get me wrong its a great thing, but it is not the most accurate thing in the world, in fact scientists are wrong most of the time.

Rofl_Mao wrote: IEverything is based on theories and educated guesses, except for the few laws like gravity and stuff.

Rofl_Mao wrote: II'm just saying, I'm not going to base my whole life on something that is just made up of guesses.

Rofl_Mao wrote: IThe big bang theory doesn't explain how life came to be, scientists still cannot figure that out.

1. Wrong. Firstly, 'evolution' is not a theory in and of itself. 
2. I'm proceeding here form an assumption that you believe that DNA exists and functions in a way described by the relevant scientific literature in the subject. If you don't believe in DNA, you're too dumb to argue with.
3. Evolution is a description of the results of a process of either natural or artificial selection. In short, out of a population of creatures, some, most or all will reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. 
4. Genese have been proven to mutate as a result of any number of causes. These mutations are generally random, most have no discernable effect on an organism. Most are completely neutral from a reproductive sense, in that they neither lessen nor increase the chances of an organism successfully breeding and passing on its genes to a new generation.
5. Some mutations, however, are significant to a creature's reproduction. A dominant gene that prevents an individual from reproducing completely will not pass itself on. A dominant gene that lessens the chance of reproduction may either die off, or never form a significant portion of the population- the organism carrying this dominant gene will be out-bred by its fellows. Some mutations, however, result in an organism that is more likely to survive to reproductive age, or more able to attract mates, or more able to protect and provide for its offspring. A creature that, by way or mutation, is able to do any one of these things is more likely to pass on this gene if it's not killed prior to reproducing. These are known as adaptive mutations.
6. An adaptive mutation, because it results in greater reproductive success, will fairly quickly gain dominance over the variants of the same species that do not possess it. I don't mean quickly in the time sense, but over a relatively short number of generations. This has been demonstrated many, many times in both laboratory experiments and natural observations of species that are reactive to new pressures in their environment, such as a new disease or predator, or a sudden shortage of food.
7. Collectively, this is termed 'selection', and is also known as 'survival of the fittest'. Survival of the fittest, then, is almost wholly dependent, ultimately, on genes that allow an organism to respond to challenges in its environment and to pass on its genes more successfully.

cool0 wrote: the main reason for this theorytrying to disprove god is because people don't want a god to tell them what to do.they want to do whatever they want whenever they want.

1. Natural selection and atheism are wholly irrelevant to each other. God and natural selection are simply two alternative explanations for where humans come from. One argues that over roughly five to seven billion years, hominid species gradually adapted to selective pressures, as described above, and exist now in a multitude of forms, such as humans, chimanzees, apes, and other similar species. Each has adapted in its own way to be biologically successful. The other argues that approximately six years ago we were created by a deity through some metaphysical means.
2. The theory of natural selection is substantiated by a fossil record showing progressive changes in species over the course of, as mentioned, seven million years. Unfortunately it's extremely hard to find more evidence for this, because, as Tallen explained, fossils generally are extraordinarily rare. Every fossil that is unearthed, however, is a 'missing link' in the infinitesimally slow evolution of the form of an organism.
3. The theory of God (The monotheistic Judeo-Christian-Muslim God, that it; there exist theories of many of hundreds of different gods, all of which possess an equal amount of substantiation and evidence, and none of which are testable, observable or disprovable) is not substantiated in any way except by the collective belief of a few billion people. We do not and cannot know if there is a God or Gods unless it or they choose to reveal themselves. Right now we're going on the word of some individual or group who, roughly six thousand years ago, wrote a book that has been passed down, interpreted, reinterpreted and translated since that time. Unfortunately, all the people mentioned in that book are dead, so we cannot gain any further insight on this. The basic claim, that we were created metaphysically six thousand years ago is already disproven by archaeological and anthropoligical research that have tracked human populations through fossil records and through physical sites such as ancient settlements.

cool0 wrote: 1st: I said that evolution is a theory.

1. It is almost impossible to empirically prove anything when taken to a small enough level of research. See my previous post to rofl_mao on this subject. Consequently, just about everything is a theory. All religions are also theories, as they cannot be proven, however they lack the strength of most scientific theories in that they cannot be observed, tested, or disproved experimentally.

cool0 wrote: none of it has been proved.

1. False. It has been proven many times that species adapt to selective pressures. We also have evidence (not proof, but strong evidence) that for millions of years several species have existed that gradually have assumed a more and more human form. None of these species remain in existence today, and few of them existed alongside each other. Coupled with what we know about natural selection it is a very reasonable hypothesis to suppose that the species evolved progressively into each other, but because of the paucity of fosils it is not yet possible to create a complete record showing every incremental change detectable in fossil remnants.

cool0 wrote: if you think that is has been proved then state one true fact about evolution that has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

1. I will refer you to the Wikipedia entry on experimental evolution.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution  
2. We know that species change as a result of selective pressures; this can be shown as simply as in the breeding of dogs, where only dogs that most closely resemble a desired breed are allowed to reproduce. Poodles, greyhounds and Chihuahuas did not occur in nature, they were selectively bred by humans.

cool0 wrote: 2nd: if you have properly studied real science then you know that nothing ever comes about by random chance.

1. Few things are truly 'random', but radiation hitting a gene and causing a mutation is as close to 'random' in a practical sense as anything we can think of. It is random that a particular mutation is caused, but given enough mutations, one will eventually prove reproductively advantageous.

cool0 wrote: have you ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics? a.k.a. entropy.have you ever seen a car build it self?

1. Entropy describes isolated systems which a single biological organism or an entire species is not. Both are affected greatly by their environments, and it is the affect  that causes the selective pressures I've referenced extensively. The isolated system is not applicable to any precept of evolution. The only real isolated system is the entire universe, which is, so far as we can discern, still perfectly subject to entropy. Entropy is a net process, and not applicable to every single individual thing. It's a whole-system process, and you must identify and isolate your system for it to work.
2. Cars are made of inanimate objects, and consequently are not biological organisms or subject to selective pressures. It's a wholly irrelevant analogy.

cool0 wrote: 3rd:I find it extremely amusing that you are now attacking the way I type.really, would a capital letter make any diference on if you beleive the words I am typeing.

1. I do so because you type poorly, and consequently it's difficult to read you coherently. Punctuation and capitalization help to make you more legible. It also appears extremely lazy on your part.

cool0 wrote: all it would do is slow me down from disproving evolution.

1. No it wouldn't, because you aren't.

You seem to labour under an assumption that God and evolution are mutually exclusive. Who's to say God did not 'spark the fire' so to speak, and poke the first couple of complex chemical compounds into a state where they could reproduce in a biological sense, and then sit back for a few billion years to see what happens?It's a far more reasonable explanation than that offered by the bible, and it actually fits the evidence of fossil records and the archaeological proof that we're more than six thousand years old. It also explains all the dead species that aren't mentioned in the bible, like Velociraptors.

the REST of the same article wrote: Some  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_Creationist - Young Earth Creationists  propose that the Behemoth is a  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur - dinosaur . Some sort of  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropod - sauropod  is usually proposed since large sauropods had tails "like a cedar". Adherents of the sauropod-behemoth viewpoint hold that the further descriptions given in Job (i.e., bone strength equaling bronze and iron; the use of Hebrew plural to describe a singular specimen), along with the attributive "chief of the ways of God," and the description "like a cedar" (זְנָבוֹ כְמוֹ-אָרֶז z'navo kamo arez) to describe the tail itself point to an animal of immense proportions; hence a sauropod or equivalent. Some however argue that the references to a cedar-like tail refer to bristles resembling the cedar's needle-like leaves which are present on the tails of elephants and hippopotamus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth#cite_note-BOTF-2 - [3] Critics argue that according to the  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_record - fossil record , and the spoon or pencil-shaped teeth of the sauropods themselves, sauropods were tree-browsers that lived 225 million years ago, and went extinct some 65 million years ago. Furthermore, they cite that the earliest grass fossils date to the late  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous - Cretaceous , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth#cite_note-3 - [4]  at which time the sauropods were already in decline; as such, critics insist that Sauropods would pre-date the appearance and rise of both people and grasses. Critics also note that, according to the Biblical text, the Behemoth is said to eat grass in the manner of an ox, meaning it would chew  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cud - cud ; a requirement of such behaviour is the possession of  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_%28tooth%29 - molar teeth , an attribute sauropods lacked. The spoon or pencil-shaped teeth of sauropods allowed them to pull vegetation into their mouths, then to be swallowed. It may also be noted that the hippopotamus does not chew cud as it is not a  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminantia - ruminant   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artiodactyl - artiodactyl . Critics also argue that the description of the creature possessing a navel (Job 40:16) in the  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KJV - King James Version  also contradicts the sauropod hypothesis, because sauropods were  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oviparous - oviparous .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behemoth

There's the article so you can go back and read the rest of it, in case you lost the link.

You have now spent several days ignoring every single thing I said except for the smallest aspects of detail which the young earth creationists have offered some contrived explanation for.

In a universe of literally millions of galaxies, each with hundreds of thousands of stars, planetary masses must, according to probability, form in pretty much all possible configurations at all distances from and in all possible orbits around all possible types and varieties of stars. Already in our own galactic neighbourhood we've discovered dozens, possibly by this point hundreds of planets around other stars. 

We've found H2O ice on the moon and mars, we have evidence of hydrological activity on mars. Further, here's an article on the history of Earth's atmosphere.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earths_atmosphere#Evolution_of_Earth.27s_atmosphere - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere#Evolution_of_Earth.27s_atmosphere  Earlier you tried to throw mud at me, accusing me of not properly studying science when you threw that ridiculous interpretation of Entropy at me (that I picked apart, and which you in turn ignored), so please, go, read some science and then get back to me.

Your attempt at excusing the lack of modern dinosaur fossils is hilarious. Why are none preserved below the slopes of Vesuvius? Why are none present in ice the way we occasionally find mastodons? Why are there none in the various tar ponds that occasionally cough up other extinct creatures? Why are there no records of dinosaurs being present in the Roman games, where surely they must have been a potentially amazing attraction? What about all the smaller dinosaurs that would not have required the higher oxygen content you assert the sauropods would have needed? Why of all the exhumed bodies of large cats have we never found the remains of the smallest dinosaurs in their stomachs? What about carbon dating? What about the entire science of geology and paleontology? Why are there no remaining dinosaurs on deserted islands with no human presence? How did humans survive the asteroid strike that dug out the Gulf of Mexico, yet dinosaurs went extinct? Why do we have archaologically verified human remains from tens of thousands of years ago? How is it that we have been able to anthropologically trace the slow expansion of the human race over the earth starting with sites concretely dated to 60,000 years ago? Oh, hey, here's a good one- Why does the site that YOU LINKED TO identify the origin of some of thsoe cave paintings as caverns "renowned for Neanderthal artifacts", when Homo Neanderthalensis has been extinct for at least 24,000 years? Do you reject the validity of every single archaeological or paleontological artifact that has ever been dated as more than 6,000 years old? Do you reject every single astronomical observation that suggests the universe has been in existence for over 6,000 years? Why have you ignored at least 9 out of every 10 points or questions I've brought up so far in this discussion?