If there was a higher power that was responsible for everything that has and will happen on Earth, then Earth would be perfect. The theory of evolution, produced by Darwin, states that there isn't a 'God' at all. There is no authenticated evidence to suggest that 'God' does exist. Whereas, there is more than enough evidence to support Darwin's theory. For example: human embryos, very early on in development, are almost identical to that of a fish. Embryos are clear signs of evolution as there are many similarities between human embryos and fish embryos, these are also almost identical to embryos of birds and reptiles, not just fish. The human eye is imperfect, if there was a 'God', surely he would design us so that we were perfect beings, there wouldn't be a blind spot for example. There are small things like this which also help back up the theory of NO 'God'. Overall, there is a vast, overwhelming amount of evidence supporting evolution and that there is NOT a God. While some forms of atheism are arrogant I do believe that agnosticism is the correct stance on this issue and until further evidence is displayed on the side that is arguing to prove something exists instead of taking the default position which is to deny something that lacks demonstrable evidence. I do very wish this poll had a "No, but there is a chance" option I could pick so as to not sound so arrogant, but unfortunately, this is not the case. I do object to the idea of organized religion in the sense that they are almost based entirely on myths which are often disproved using modern scientific research, conductive thinking, and logic. They also serve to promote violence, discrimination, and serve to make others think better of themselves than others. Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, this is correct. However, as Robert Flint said : "If a man have failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist, although he assume no superhuman knowledge, but merely the ordinary human power of judging of evidence. If he go farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist, an agnostic-atheist—an atheist because an agnostic." Furthermore, evolution is a fact. To argue against it is silly and if you honestly wish to deny it I would hope you research more and climb out of the bubble you seem to residing in and join us in the 21st century where modern scientific theory reigns over the superstitious myths of old. (If you honestly wish to say that it's just a theory I would laugh in your face.) Evolution can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; and this is where the word theory comes into play. Some people on the yes side seem to be either Steven Colbert knock-offs or just fundamentally misunderstand the