Science is the key/ Not Religion

For a simple start, allow me to clear some massive misconceptions you have. First, you seem to think the Big Bang was the combustion of life in early-Earth conditions. No, this is not so. The Big Bang is the common name for the beginning of the known Universe, not life. Also, focusing on the experiment you sited, I am a bit confused as to why you would cite this for support; this experiment was successful in displaying the natural origin of the environments needed for simple-celled organisms to prosper. Furthermore, you present this experiment as if they attempted to hide findings and evidence. Contrary to your statements, further research allowed me to discover that the evidence you said was manipulated was in fact not observed. When it was observed, the findings were reported and studied. To argue your point about the inconsistency of fossils, I must say you, again, warp the evidence a bit. Fossils are, after all, quite difficult to unearth and study. The harsh environments most fossils are submitted to is too much for them to bear, which causes the fossils in question to perish. Again, this is not arguing your direct point: but explaining simple facts about the difficulty of using fossils as evidence for/against evolution. To continue, I admit that you do not cite and provide enough details within your support to gather a vivid rebuttal to. You state that some fossils are observed to be 'un-evolved', while others appear to be evolved differently than what they were expected to be. To argue this, I have provided a number of links to websites to help educate you on why that would be, for the story is too long for this text box. To summarize (very much so), environments and times of death play a large roll has dependent factors on one enough. These mathematics are often used as a system in various sub-units of complex geometry. I encourage further research. Regarding fossils: 1) http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 2) http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com... 3) http://paleobiology.si.edu... To continue to argue your final main-point, I will summarize what you said: Science always changes and is not reliable to learn because things we learn now are replaced with new facts several years later. Rather, Christianity should be the teachings to study because it offers historical insight into our past. To debate this, I would like to say that I would prefer not to learn how Noah saved all of the animals on the Earth, and how Moses parted the Red Sea and about the magical snake in the garden in my history classes. I would much rather (and every other intelligent person would agree) venture into the proven stories of Napoleon, the Founding Fathers, and ancient civilizations. As for the Bible being able to give historical accounts of events, I will be kind enough to dismiss this. Personal accounts do not belong on this website, as I stated in the opening of this debate. Also, whatever history the Bible does tell of, is severely limited. What of the historical events that happened before and after the writing and conscription of the Christian Holy Book? When I am able to learn vivid and accurate history about the fascinating Mayan culture in the Bible, I invite you to private message me. Until then, I choose to stick with scientific findings and accurate reports made by modern-day anthropologists and historians. Since I am finished with rebuttals, I will continue to state my own points to challenge you further. - What of other religions? What of Greek, Norse, Arab, Asian, Native American, South American, African, and many more, beliefs? There are thousands of religions in the history of the world, each with their different story to tell. Why is Christianity the "most right"? For the future, do not say because it is the most populated religion. This can be explained by the militant domination of European-Christian countries through the globe over hundreds of years. The fact that Christianity has over two billion followers does NOT make it correct! - What of the genetic evidence? Christians often state that God made this huge diversity of life at will. With genetic science, we can pier into the vastness of genes in different species and how they seem to differentiate more and more between species who evolve in different directions. If God was so powerful and mighty to create an entire Universe, why would there be genes? Are genes a way for God to show math for his ultimate design? Either way, genetics offer a great understanding of evolution and how specie-variation works. - Why would God care about humans? If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, and humans emerged about three million years ago, why do you and other Christians seem to say that God cares so much about us? If the Universe was created to be prosperous for human life, why did it take so long for us to come to be? Also, why weren't we given a larger planet that is more plentiful in natural resources? Perhaps God isn't behind the grand story of our being, but rather accidental events and evolution. Also, as a quick point, the Universe is so large that life is bound to be somewhere. The coming of life should not be blamed on God, but of simple statistics. Perhaps a purple, four-armed alien in a galaxy far away is currently praying to his divine and all powerful God, for how lucky could he be to be alive?! - Please research further about the Big Bang. I had to wince when I realized you had somehow mistaken the Big Bang with the origin of life on early-Earth.