Science vs religion: how is it even an issue?

Ever since ever there's been the ongoing debate of science vs religion. Atheists and such like to bring up the point that religion is based solely on faith and religious texts such as the Bible, which they claim could just be pure baloney, while science has facts to back it up.

I've always thought, and it stands to reason, that it could very easily, and rather obviously, be both science AND religion. If God (or A god) created us and the Earth and everything, he obviously also invented science, and therefore, science would be a part of our and everything's creation.

Science would be the HOW, religion would be the WHY.

So why is it even an issue? People who disregard religion are just as stupid as people who disregard science. Religious nuts say there's no such thing as evolution when that's obviously wrong. Whether or not WE evolved from apes is a different story (and still has yet to be proven), but to simply disregard the plethora of religious crap that's been passed on and discovered over the years just because no one's ever quick to point out the actual facts that DO exist that back up the (at least partial) authenticity of recorded religious events in something such as the Bible is stupid.

Extremists suck. I seriously don't get how science vs religion is an issue. Is it just because people want something fight about? And are too stupid/lazy to do a little research on the topic and instead just decide to pick one or the other?

it's been an issue because not everyone has the same thought as you, and it seems like some of those people who are very religious don''t like to except the fact that everyone else has their own opinion and like to dispute that qoute 'God or A god' created it and evolution the simple process of life had anything to do with it

No heartburn here - all the answers can be found in the Bible.

you see what I mean yo

Yes. Amblessed is a rather annoying individual. But even still, our existence riding on the impossible odds that the 'all science, no god' concept proposes is ridiculous.

I agree with your view of a bilateral coexistence between science and religion...I especially like your 'science is the how, religion is the why' argument. The problem with this issue is that extremists refuse to see both sides of an argument; their view is obviously the only possible view. Scientists refuse to believe that there is a higher power that could have created science, and that science is fact. Well...many years ago, it was fact that the earth was flat. Science is always finding itself wrong, and just claims that 'now we understand it better.' Religious folk refuse to believe in evolution...who's to say that God (or a god) didn't choose for evolution to take place?

I being an Atheist myself am not sure I can answer your question without being biased. But here it goes...

Now, I need to correct you on one thing. We did NOT evolve from apes, we just share a common ancestor. I get where you are coming from though. Science does explain the how of things, but being the curious being we are, we want to know a why as well. The problem is, there is no proof of a why. Now I'm not saying that the bible is BS, but I'm not saying it's true either. For all I know, there could be a a God out there. But common knowledge tells me there is not. If a higher being did create us and the universe, it sure isn't the Christian God that did it.
I think the problem here is that people are too close-minded. The hardcore religous people won't open their mind to new ideas.

Everybody is confusing evolution with science- I am a Christian, and I happen to love physics and chemistry and biology and all that stuff. But one thing I cannot accept is evolution- yeah, God created science. but not evolution. science and evolution are two different things. evolution is not science, it is a (flawed) religion that sort of places us as God for lack or a real one. there are tons of examples of stuff happening that evolution can't explain but that creationism can. (I wont list them here because I hate it when people clutter posts up with heaps of stuff that is just more WORDS, and I never read it myself, so whats the point of posting something no-one will read?) therefore, how can it be science if the best 'theory' is not accepted as the right 'theory'?

horrormusic: yes, some religious people do, but not all. The Bible says we as Christians should love everyone- I dont know about you, but to me, love means letting other people be who they want to be, even if you think what they do or believe is wrong (agape love), and those people who DONT want to accept that others have their own opinions arent obeying the very God in which we believe. So I'm sorry about that.

I, personally, cannot see why people dont believe in God, but that is no reason for me to be intolerant. If I come across that way im sorry. I just get a little fervent sometimes, which, you know, can be a good thing to be, as long as I dont step on anyone's toes

unchosenlove:
the Bible is to say that evolution didnt take place. You can't really go to a higher authority than God's word, can you? it says in Genesis chapter 1 that God created the world in 6 days. Its got 'so God CREATED' (not evolved) EVERYwhere! the Hebrew word that was used for 'day' is the word 'yom'. in other parts of the Bible, this same word is also used for 'day', and every single time it means a 24 hour period- I can't see how the writer of Genesis would make that word mean millions of years.

therefore, the reason I simply can't believe in evolution because it is in direct contrast to my beliefs. and when I say beliefs, I mean the things I truly believe, not just ideas I have not thought through but simply accepted as mine because of my religion.

hated envy:
why not the Christian God?
and new ideas? Darwin's theory has been around for ages!

Science IS the how, religion IS the why.
its just that a lot of people's perceptions of science arent the perception that I and others hold. God science, not evolutionary 'science'.

hope this is clear.

God bless you all (whether you believe in Him or not )
Steph

Good question - where I was brought up there was no conflict between faith and science. There never has been in my mind. My husband and I are both evangelical Christians, and he's a biological scientist. No conflict. The more you know about how God has made things, the more impressive you realise He is, in our experience.

I think the problem occurs when you've got religious people believing their holy books literally (like the world was made in 6 days... it is 6 right? because the seventh was a day of rest?)
And then you've got scientists saying they won't believe anything without proof...

For those who believe that proof is unnecessary:

Do you believe in leprechauns? If not, why not? Would you be willing to accept instructions from a book written by a divinely inspired person about the Most Holy Leprechaun God? Why not? You can't prove He doesn't exist. What if you are wrong and the Leprechaun God sends you to the Fiery Green Depths for all eternity?

See how silly things get when there's no proof and people just make stuff up? The difference is that we atheists see theism as basically the same thing - made up stories about made up gods that are no more or less silly than a Leprechaun God.

This was not meant to offend but rather to help illustrate how some of us think.

Here are some interesting links concerning this topic:

Science & God

http://www.godandscience.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9feXeL-3XA (astrophysicist Bernard Haisch)
http://www.thegodtheory.com/ (astrophysicist Bernard Haisch)
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho24.htm (Professor Richard Swinburne)
http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/mathprfcosmos.html
http://www.evolution-facts.org/

a lot of athiest don't do there research. a lot of things in the bible have been proven with science! Why would God create an earth and have no proof that he created it?

Eventually anyone who has believed in evolution of have found 'missing links' have proven to be wrong or faulty.

stopandsmelltheroses: Evolution is a sound, well tested scientific theory. Just because you decide to ignore the evidence and to not accept it doesn't make it invalid. Nor does quoting the bible constitute evidence.

And just to balance silverwings' rather biased 'interesting links', here are a few more:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/index.html
http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.talkreason.org/

katydid747: Really? If you're going to complain about research, please, provide links. What things from the bible have been 'proven'? And how would proof that small parts of a book are right prove the correctness of the whole, anyway?

I wasn't complaining about research... I will give you some things to look at tomorrow, but as for right now I don't have the time because I'm at work!

what has been proven about evolution?

'what has been proven about evolution?'

Check out this site

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Pay special attention to the part about the fossil remains of hominids and the other transitional species.

'there are tons of examples of stuff happening that evolution can't explain but that creationism can. '

When you say 'stuff happening' it sounds like you're talking about things going on right now. You should know that microevolution is not a matter of debate because it happens quickly enough to be observed during our lifespan (examples are bacteria evolving to resist vaccine, insects evolving to resist pesticide, etc.)

As for macroevolution, which talks about the evolution of one species from another over thousands or millions of years, fossil evidence continues to support, rather than disprove, the theory. I posted one link above which talks about this, and arachnid has many more.

There is nothing about creation that can be proven. It continues to rely on one main arguement, that being that the universe is so detailed and ordered that it's simply too intricate to have happened by random chance (even though there's nothing random about evolution) so the Christian God must have made it all.

Let me ask you something...don't get grossed out by the example, but it's a commonly used example of a flaw in the creation theory. If God's design was so perfect, why is the body of his 'best work' (humans) so vulnerable? The human male has a urthethra which passes waste in the form of urine right through the prostate. The prostate is very vulnerable to infection and when it gets infected, it swells and blocks the urethra, causing serious health problems. If I were to design a human male, I wouldn't put a tube that must pass liquid for survival right through a gland that is likely to swell and block it.

There are more examples. That panda's thumb he posted is a good one.

Then where would you put it?

Fossils don't prove anything at all.

But kingofpop, with that logic, you might as well ask why God, or a god, would create beings that can die at all.

One good reason I can come up with off the top of my head as to 'why He would make his 'best work' so vulnerable' is that if we all knew we would die of old age we'd take even MORE for granted. Our mortality gives us a reason to take care of ourselves, and not to take everything for granted (even though there are many many many people in this world that do none of the former, and all of the latter).

'Then where would you put it?' If you knew about the male anatomy, you would know that there is one tube that both urine and seamen pass through. Making a seperate passage for each would be convienant.
'Fossils don't prove anything at all.' Fossils prove that dinosaures and other extinct species existed.
What's so hard to understand about evolution? It's a blind mechanism that works with what is here and now, it's a simple process of life, it's purpose is to insure the survival of it's species.
Religion is intended to promote moral behavior and give purpose and hope of an afterlife, unfortunatly evolution doesn't fullfill our disires. God does not exist in the Christian since.
We die of old age, again, to insure the survival of the species kamex. If we continued on living eventually the population would get out of hand along with the food supply and we'd all starve to death.

I know, that's what I was saying, but our mortality has nothing to do with whether or not we were created by a god.

But I'm not religious (though I am of no religion) because I'm 'weak minded' or 'need to create a reason for my existence' or any of he other lame reasons why atheists claim people are religious, I think there had to of been some kind of creator because everything happened so perfectly, and everything is in such perfect balance, and that the odds of us making it this far WITHOUT a creator leads me to believe there HAS to be (or have been) a creator that designed everything to go the way it went, and be the way it is. It would seem the odds of us coming this far WITHOUT a creator should be crazy enough to make anyone think something had to of been behind it all.

Sorry about not being specific enough. I mean fossils don't prove evolution.

It's an issue, because once you accept the concepts underlying skeptical inquiry (aka science), if you apply them consistently, you realize that religious claims are universally baseless. Almost everyone dismisses other people's religions out of hand. If they applied the same rigor to their own religion, they would realize it's just as silly.

'But kingofpop, with that logic, you might as well ask why God, or a god, would create beings that can die at all.'

That's exactly what I am asking.

'It would seem the odds of us coming this far WITHOUT a creator should be crazy enough to make anyone think something had to of been behind it all.'

Something is behind it all. It's called natural selection. It's not random, it's a very meticulous process.

And no, not everything is perfectly balanced. Many organisms are flawed, not just the human male's prostate.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

'I mean fossils don't prove evolution.'

Yes they do. Take the time, do the research.

Walt Brown wrote this book. He used to support and teach Evolution and realized that science supports creation more than it does evolution.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

However I do believe in microevolution.
Macroevolution is a different story.

It's obvious why he'd make us to die, it'd be for the same reason why we die because of science, so we don't over-populate, eat all the food, etc.

And what I'm saying is there had to of been something or someone who came up with the idea of natural selection.

I don't think what or whoever created us plays an active role in our existence to this day, however. I picture him as more of like a clock maker. He made everything and wound it up and just let it tick. Which would be why he would create evolution and natural selection and so on, to ensure that existence would keep ticking without need of his intervention, for whatever reason.

All these concepts and things that happen in the world of science, to think that somehow it all just happened by itself seems ridiculous.

And an example for the people who somehow don't believe in evolution, and don't think fossils can prove anything, look at crocodiles. And even sharks. Early versions of each existed way back in the dinosaur days.

However, look at the rattle snake. They say rattlesnakes evolved to have that rattle on their tail to warn other animals. The thing is, rattle snakes have just as much reason to warn other animals as any other similar sized snake, so wouldn't evolution have made it so ALL snakes have rattles? Why just rattle snakes?

a snake is still a snake.

katydid747you believe in the theories, this person made up with no evidence, over the majority of the scientific community? yes we were created from the universe, evidence supports that and evolution. Fossils are concrete evidence that evolution is real, in a scientific setting, they can analyz DNA. We were'nt made in the image of some creator, we're made from trillions of cells, from the DNA of our mother and father that contain the genes. Why don't all humans have good eyesite? Because we don't need to. with glasses and contacts people with a stigmatism, pass on their gene of poor eyesite. In the wild animals with a genetic handicap like this would have less of a chance of survival, and the ones with the dominate or recessive gene would survive. If an intelligent creator created us jumping to conclusions, why couldn't another intricate process? That can actually be proved instead of made.

Why cant we just all get along? Everybody has their own opinion and that is the reason why the world is the way it is! Its the reason why we have a war! People kept telling bush 'NO', but he thought it would be a good idea to get back at them!
My point is that nobody knows how the world started, even if they have books on it! Sometimes books never tell the truth! All I can tell you is that if the world does end, then GET READY! Live life for what it is now! Not for what it was or what its going to be! Your a live right now, and may not be tomorrow!
Just because the light bulb is bigger, doesnt mean it shines brighter.

show me the evidence of fossils and evolution. if you knew anything about science you would know that what he is teaching is real.

evolution is just things evolving to suit there enviroment just like the darwin ffenches there was just one speacies but with food shortage they spread all over one island and suddenly theres 13 diff species of the same bird because they evolved to there surrondings and to savage for food.

well have you ever thought God did create everything and whats in it but over time climates and our enviroment changed and so did we to survive.

again back to the darwin fenches the ones that evolved to there surrondings survived the ones that didnt basically starved to death.

so evoultion is just away of survival and just maybe at the time of creation we and things was able to survive in that time period but things changed and so did we and things

I agree science and religion are just maybe the same thing.

maybe god was a great scientist filled with faith

who knows.

but no matter we all have our personal beliefs.

I just want to say to the people talking about reaserch and cheack out this site...

did you know 98% of all websites are a hoax didnt think so if your looking at a website check for updates authors when created was by an educated person with some degree in that field

just like the site with the pregnant man research that page which its all about science hun. was proven to be faulty.

funny huh I learned that in my science class

It should not be an issue! I am a Christian. I believe God created the world in the ways science indicates He did. Kamex is right - the Bible is Who and Why (which are the big questions) and science is How. Christians who have been taught to think differently are just a small but very vocal minority. I think we Christians should be spending more of our time on what God wants us to do now, not on what God did millennia before any of us existed...

your so right flossheal

thank you for having intellgents

then flossheal with that logic, God is not an intelligent being. It's a natruel force. People make up these distinctions and believe them to be true.

I agree with flossheal.. check your resources and make sure the websites you go to are updated. the one I gave is updated and the guy has a degree!

'so wouldn't evolution have made it so ALL snakes have rattles? Why just rattle snakes?'

That's a very good question. The rattle started out as a mutation, the result of a change in genetic structure. Mutations happen in all species, all the time. The mutation can be passed from one generation to the next, and it may vary from snake to snake. The mutation started out as something much simpler, some skin remained at the tip of the tail after shedding and it resulted in a sound when the snake moved its tail. Those snakes that inherited the trait, the rattle, reproduced more successfully than those that did not because they were not killed as often by big herding animals or predators.

So why doesn't it show up in all snakes with predators? Several reasons. In other species of snake, the trait may not have arisen in the gene pool, I.e. the mutation never took place. Maybe the trait did arise and was widely varied, but different environmental pressures meant that it wasn't favored (in other words, in some environments, the rattle didn't scare predators), and in some cases, the trait just wasn't heritable.

'And what I'm saying is there had to of been something or someone who came up with the idea of natural selection.'

Natural selection is just that: natural. Every organism has mutations in its genes which may or may not be favored by the environment.

Of course it's natural, but if a god created everything, he obviously invented nature, and therefore, created everything that's natural. Contrary to what your average atheist would like you to think, science does NOT rule out the possibility of a god. And contrary to what a lot of religious nuts would like you to think, God and the Bible do NOT rule out the existence of something such as evolution, or other scientific crap.

What religious people hate is the idea of Darwinism, which is the idea that man evolved from apes, but the more ignorant religious peoples somehow confuse that with evolution altogether.

And no, I don't believe that humans evolved from apes.

Just reading over some of these answers... and I find it interesting to find 'I think' and 'I believe' in some of the answers.

Just pointing that out.

*goes back into the woodwork.*

xox
Sika

Humans did not directly evolve from apes, sounds like some misunderstanding. We're just decended from an ape-like ancestor that's extinct, divergence of human from the ape line, or split is thought to be now as long as 20 million years ago. The human from chimp line split later.

You can't prove any two fossils are related to each other in any way. For all you know it could be just some extinct species.

But peacemakin, none of that means some god DIDN'T do it. In all probability, no god us humans have ever fathomed actually created the earth and everything, but the fact that we could have possibly made all wrong assumptions of what this god is like doesn't mean there is no god.

Everything you said about science is right, but like I said before, science doesn't exclude the concept of a god. If a god created everything, he created science, and therefor scientists' discoveries don't disprove that a god could have created everything, but could easily simply prove HOW he went about doing it.

But I'm not necessarily talking about a god that we like to think of. Like I said, just because any assumption we've ever made about any existing god is in all probability wrong doesn't mean there can't of been one. To widen the possibilities of the concept of a creator we could even drop the use of the word 'god', it's just a simple way to describe such an idea. I'm talking about a creator that's nothing like anything we humans have ever imagined, and will/can never even know of.

My only belief is that someone or something designed it all, as I don't see it all happening on it's own and turning out working anywhere near as well as everything works.

I just think its hard for some people to give into the fact that the world was made based on 'intelligent design' because that means they would have to give up the whole evolution thing. Not saying that evolution is wrong... I believe in microevolution and species evolving to adapt to an enviroment... but as far as macroevolution, that's where I draw the line.

katydid747: It's hard for 'some people' to 'give into the fact' because there's absolutely no evidence to support intelligent design.

The big bang theory was quite a large and fatal flaw, it doesn't explain how the bang started ot where the matter and energy that was in it came from. I would be more inclined to believe you if you could explain these things.

Most intelligent design people believe a creator made all the laws of physics and all other principles of science so that everything would function properly and so we could live on Earth in proper conditions.

Microevolution is just small adaptations and no one can debate that this happens because it has been ovserved. Macroevolution is the belief that evolution new species will arise because of this. They are different things.

The biggest flaw to evolution is much like the biggest flaw of the big bang theory. How did the original decscendent of everything else come into being?

Sikkashimmer, you didn't say if you feel 'I think' and 'I believe' to be a good thing or not. From my point of view they are essential to respectful debate. I could tell you that my beliefs are true and that someone else's are wrong (obviously I believe that's true because that's why I hold those beliefs). But it wouldn't be respectful to the other person, who has a right to their own thoughts/beliefs. That's why I try to use 'I think' or 'I believe', so that I'm being honest that these are my strongly held opinions, rather than empirical fact.

I personally don't believe in the big bang theory, simply because has anyone ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics? look it up.

Oh wow, you're right! All those thousands of physicists who accept the Big Bang theory as accurate never thought of that! You're a genius.

Seriously, though, this has been debunked over and over and over. The second law of thermodynamics relates to entropy in a system as a whole - it doesn't preclude certain parts of it increasing in organization. Also, 'entropy' is used in a very specific context, which doesn't mean what you probably think it means.

thanks for your sarcasm arachnid.

You seriously think the big bang theory could create an earth like this? I don't think so. it's like me telling you to put a broken watch in a box and keep shaking it until it puts itself back together, not possible.

Repeating debunked criticisms of evolution doesn't make them any more true. Evolution has a random component, yes, but the real power of evolution is in Natural Selection. Your 'analogy' lacks that.

'Big bang theory' says nothing about biodiversity on earth, which I presume is what you're referring to with the 'watch' analogy. Evolution does, and yes, I don't doubt that evolution can and did cause the variety of life forms we see today, and I don't doubt that the universe we're in started with the big bang. I've yet to see a coherent criticism of either except misguided appeals to 'common sense' - as if common sense alone trumps actual evidence to the contrary!

what about the law of conservation of energy?

to me this makes more sense than what you are trying to say, but thanks for your info.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html#wp1011757

There's no reason the expansion of the universe violates the conservation of energy. Two stars that are far apart and travelling slightly slower have the same energy as two stars that are closer but travelling faster - no net energy gain or loss.

Note that all this 'evidence' comes from the 'center for scientific creation'. They're hardly going to publish any hypothesis which doesn't support their cause, which means they're liable to dismiss perfectly valid theories and ignore contradictory evidence in favor of seeing their own interpretation survive. That's completely contrary to the principle of scientific enquiry - you should always be open to having your theories invalidated.

I don't see you showing me any references that you are getting your 'ideas' from. But it's okay. I will stick to what I think is right and you can stick to what you think is right =) Have a good day arachnid.

but just before I leave this question for good... read all of this. I think its easier to understand than to try to find the 'missing links' trying to prove the earth is billions of years old, the big bang theory, etc. Evolution is outdated and a lot of it hasn't really been followed up on and has often been proved to be faulty and inaccurate.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/

The theory of evolution is not 'outdated' or 'incomplete' any more than any other theory. There's a few misconceptions about science that make things a lot clearer:
- One great way for a scientist to make their name in science is to prove an accepted theory spectacularly wrong. If, as you claim, evolution is so 'outdated' and incomplete, or proven wrong, why is there not a single article in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal saying so? Answers that don't require a massive conspiracy encompassing the entirety of the scientific community are preferred.
- There's no 'scientific hegemony' or similar. Individual scientists, particularly those that have a particular attachment to the currently accepted theory are often intransigent and even irrational, true, but the scientific community as a whole embraces new and startling results - that's what science is all about, and why it makes progress. See above.
- Disproving evolution would not prove creationism or 'intelligent design'. This is a really, really important point that nearly everyone attacking evolution seems to miss. It's not an either or situation, and 'intelligent design' provides no substantive evidence, while evolution has reams of it.
- 'God did it' is not a scientific theory, and has no predictive power.

There's a great new book out: How to Know God Exists by Ray Comfort - which addresses Science / Evolution / God - highly recommend it !!

I doubt you are reading the stuff I am sending you.
amblessed, those are good books. as well as 'the fossils still say no' by dr. duane gish and 'what is creation science' by henry madison.
and arachnid... I don't see you showing me anything to prove your theory.

It's not 'my theory', it's _the_ theory of Evolution (and whatever else you're attempting to debunk right now - the big bang)? Tell me what you think needs proving, and I'll point you to the research that proves it.

You haven't addressed my points, either: Attempting to disprove evolution doesn't prove intelligent design or any other alternate proposition, and Intelligent design is _not_ a theory, since it makes no testable claims.

evolution has not testable claims.
so show me that.

katydid747, I did check out that website you posted. It's lacking substance in several ways. Allow me to quote:

'Until Evolutionists find the evidence they've sought since the beginning of the modern Evolutionary movement about 150 years ago, there is actually no debate at all. Creation is the default. Evolutionists insist that complexity developed from simplicity despite the contradiction to known physical laws. Moreover, Evolutionists maintain that this simplicity just sprang into existence without any cause at all. Let's collect the evidence, and then we can start a debate. '

First of all, here's a summary of some of that evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Second, arachnid already mentioned that disproving evolution does not prove creation, so the arguement that 'creation is the default' is absolutely ridiculous. Creationism hinges solely on faith and interpretation of the Bible. There is no evidence that a deity created anything. Believing that the universe is well ordered and structured is a fallacy. The universe is chaotic, and as I pointed out many posts ago (to which you never adequately responded) many life forms today show 'flaws' which an intelligent designer should have noticed.

Third, evolutionists do not maintain that the earliest life forms sprang into existence from nothing at all. All life is made up of the same building blocks that are found throughout the galaxy. Several experiments have been done which demonstrate that organic molecules, under certain conditions, can develop from non-organic material. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Origin_of_organic_molecules
See some of the references, especially Hazen's book Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins

Also, one of the books you posted is very outdated. It was published over 20 years ago and should have no bearing because it doesn't take into account more recent fossil discoveries. I've read the other book 'What is Creation Science' and there is nothing scientific about it. For example, he says that no evidence of intermediate species exists, which is false. For the modern horse, see eohippus and mesohippus, as just one of many examples. Also, the evolutionary record for plant species now has an abundance of evidence. For that, see The Morphology of Gymnosperms, by K.R. Sporn. Also, how do you explain the modern cetaceans, which are born with legs rather than fins? If this is not an evolutionary holdover from when this order returned from land to sea, I don't know what it is and I'd like to see creationists explain it. The book also brings up many commentaries on evolution from the 1960's again outdated.

Some food for thought.

I believe that Charles Darwin said if evolution were true we would find evidence in the fossil record by finding millions of transformational forms or missing link. If it were true, we would be able to find millions of fossils from each species to the next... right?

What we do find is everything appearing fully formed after its own kind in the fossil record with no evidence of transitions. Darwin was a naturalist and famous for his theories of evolution. (but I'm sure you knew that) Here are some quotes from him.

'For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.'

Then can we say that the facts prove evolution? No, we can't.

What about the fossils, do the fossils prove evolution?
Darwin said 'Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory/ The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.'

He is admitting to no intermediate links. hmmm.

What about natural selection, survival of the fittest?

'To suppose that the eye with all it's inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distance, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree'

Makes you think, the most influential guy and most reponsible for the theory of evolution doesn't agree with what he says? A little food for thought.

Darwin also said before he published his book 'you will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of species. But alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas'

I would answer more of your questions you have, but I would have to quote the bible, which I already know you will disagree with, so I won't waste my time.

No. Charles Darwin never said that. The fossil record is extremely sparse: The circumstances required to preserve the fossil of an animal are so very, very rare that it's a wonder we have any useful fossils at all, let alone as many transitional forms as we see.

The problem with attacking the l