Where do human being came from god or science?

I chose my words rather carefully, Jupitercrashing. Giving God credence is not the same as 'being religious' and nor do science and religion contradict each other, though there are many 'religious' people who seek to contradict scientific discovery. Faith, stictly speaking, is belief in something before there is sufficient evidence. Many scientific discoveries would never have been made if the people who made them had not had faith in the truth of them before they were able to produce the evidence to convince others. It is the pursuit of 'science' and the insistence on measurable and repeatable facts which has addled the minds of many people when it comes to spiritual matters. Evidence for this can be seen both in the rise of atheism, where people do not see any physical evidence for a spiritual being, and in the insistence by some that the Bible (and other spiritual writings) should be read as if they were a newspaper account (notwithstanding that newspaper accounts themselves can be very far from the truth). It seems to me that this common preoccupation with 'facts' and the consequent lack of understanding of poetry, myth, metaphor and symbolism, especially amongst those who have no scientific training at all, is one of the sicknesses of the modern world.

I should have added, on the subject of evidence, that I have sufficient evidence in my personal life for the existence of what people call 'God'. I would never for a moment, suppose, however that I could convince anyone else because the evidence is not at all the same kind of evidence as that which a scientist requires. It is something of the same situation that a parent faces when he tells a child to wear a coat because it's cold or not to play with matches because he will burn himself (or set the house on fire). The parent has the evidence from experience, the child does not and must rely on faith in order to be seen as obedient. Nobody would deny the existence of sufficient evidence in those cases but that evidence may not be communicable to the child as a valid reason.

Er, no, the vast majority of scientists categorize themselves as not being religious and do not believe in god. This is because science and religion entirely contradict one another. Science is based upon evidence, observation, and testable hypotheses. Religion is based on faith, which is believing in something because it DOES NOT have evidence, cannot be observed, and is not testable. If a scientist believes in religion, they are simply not a very good scientist.

lendmhe, do not talk about things you do not understand. Instead, try educating yourself - you sure seem to need it. There is an abundance of proof for evolution, so much so that doubting evolution would be as absurd as doubting that the moon is smaller than the sun. You have simply not bothered to educate yourself about it. You do realize that there are even many bishops and priests out there who recognize that evolution is, by all accounts that don't relate to pedantic philosophy, a fact? These highly religious individuals simply think that god was involved in evolution. But they are not so stupid as to doubt that evolution is real. You are also, not surprisingly, confused by the definition of a scientific theory. Let me clarify: A scientific theory is a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed. Understand?

i think peole might argue that

Yes, people do argue that - but they are idiots and they are wrong.