God is Real, Evolution isn't

I am saying that, once we die, we will discover whether atheism or Christianity is correct, so worrying about it before we find out is completely pointless. 100 years really isn't that long to wait, in the cosmic scheme of things. Perhaps all religions are true. Perhaps none are. People should be able to go wherever they want when they die. Hindu people won't go to Christian Heaven. That wouldn't make any sense. People can believe whatever they want and non tolerance of other religions is the ultimate sin that mankind can commit. Again, this doesn't have anything to do with the argument, I just thought I'd clear it up. If God kills people for not believing in him, then he's the evil one. It's evil to kill people based on their religion. Religion should not define a person. They should have a personality besides their faith. You claim that there's no evidence for evolution. Why do you say this? There's evidence all over. Go to your local natural science museum. Your mind will be blown. There are displays of mollusks at different stages of evolution, mammoth teeth, anything you can think of. Denial of this evidence is futile. It exists. We have uncovered archaeological proof of evolution. You claim that evolution should still be occurring. It is still occurring. what we see are, indeed, "transitional" forms. Saying that evolution has ended does not make it end. Denying the existence of evolution is like denying the existence of DNA. We know DNA exists, and if the DNA is jumbled enough, then a new life form emerges. Before attempting to disprove evolution, you should at least know how it operates. You wrongly claim that the animals as we know them now have always been the same. That's absurd. Our planet's ecosystem is constantly changing. We've driven many animals to extinction. The dodo bird, the mammoth. The list goes on and on. I'm not trying to be an environmental nut, but saying that the types of animals on the Earth never change is the same as denying the existence of woolly mammoths. We know they exist, we've found their carcasses. They are not here today. We have changed the amount of animals on Earth quite a bit. Even your "flawless" bible acknowledges, to some degree, the existence of change among animals: In the Adam and Eve story, snakes have legs, then God takes away their legs. Cats and dogs are incapable of breeding a hybrid because their genetic material is too different. Not just anything can breed. That's like saying a ladybug can breed with a giraffe. Both dogs and cats have evolved separately. They might have a common ancestor somewhere, but you cannot deny that dogs began as savage Arctic wolves, and cavemen started domesticating them. Soon, from the different, slight variants of wolves, there emerged huskies, and then Labradors, and dalmatians, and all the others. Dogs have evolved quite a bit, but only within their own species. Same for cats. This is a good example of solid evolution. The slow, gradual mutation of a species until it becomes a slightly different species. Man can't cause something to evolve without highly advanced technology, and the biological material of fruit flies is far different than that of a human, so the results would probably come out different. However, we do know about giant dragonflies from the prehistoric age, so insects aren't immune to evolution either. https://en.wikipedia.org... Evolution does go on much too slow for the naked eye to observe. You can't assume something will go fast. Evolution is a process which requires hundreds of thousands of generations to produce even somewhat of a change. However, due to the longevity of fossils, we are able to notice many anatomical changes in the structure of a certain species. Mollusks grew bigger over time, as did dinosaurs, and eventually, us. These fossils, of course, don't contain DNA. If they did, we would be able to construct a real life Jurassic Park. They are simply unavoidable proof of skeletons which don't apply to any currently living creature. There are no longer any dinosaurs, but we have an ample amount of their skeletons, thus, they must have existed. And, yes, many of these skeletons do show clear transitions. Of course, if somebody finds two skeletons in the same spot, chances are that they won't be too different, but we can see that the Earth's crust is broken into several layers, and as we get deeper, the things get older, and the higher we dig, the newer the things are. A denial of evolution implies that men have existed forever. We haven't. This view has been developed from hundreds of years of man feeling a sense of superiority. We are animals. We can't deny this, we're only sacks of blood and mucus, and there is something much bigger than us, but it might not be God. It might be millions of years in which we did not exist. It's hard to accept, but we must accept it. Religion was invented in a time when man had no science, and felt compelled to provide reasons for his own existence before he was prepared to. Simply the existence of more than one religion seems to prove that religion is false. If it was true, it would be a solid universal belief. Evolution is not a religion. It does not have a holy book, it does not have a messiah, it does not contain the concept of an overpowering deity. No matter how much we try to connect science and religion in our minds, it simply cannot be done. The two subjects are so contradictory that they will never agree. What I suggest is that religion is not accepted as an absolute truth, but rather, something to believe in and worship. Science, then, should be accepted as a rational system that governs our lives. Science does not have to replace religion. Contradictory systems can often work in harmony if kept separate. In Ancient China, Confucianism was accepted as the basis for society, while Taoism was accepted as a way to relax. People often practiced both, but did not consider the two to be in conflict with each other. Evolution does not try to destroy God, it provides an alternative answer, one which makes much more sense and has much more going for it. Do we really need a God? Do we need a giant man in the sky? Can't somebody believe in anything they want to? Religion is such a controversial topic that perhaps it should be abolished. No, it shouldn't, it provides comfort to the human race, and provides the possibility of life after death, but I think some people refuse to accept religion simply because of how forceful it is. People should be able to build their own religions, and religion should not require conversion. If it was true, it would not require conversion. Religion is very corrupt. For years in Medieval Europe, the pope sold indulgences. The basis of religion, like all things, is money. I should be able to believe in a giant galactic bunny named GROX 464 who lives in a pillow if I want to. I should not have to believe what other people believe. The corruption and ignorance of many religions makes people reluctant to join. You have created atheism from your refusal to accept atheism even a tiny bit. Atheism is a religion. So is Christianity. So is Zoroastrianism. Our definition of "religion" has been warped over the years. It's not true, it's just something you believe in, something that helps you feel better. If atheists want to deny the existence of God, they should be able to, because they are more accustomed to reality. And, if God sends them to Hell forever, just because of a lack of faith, then God is evil. I don't care if they believe or not, they're people. Atheists don't worship the devil. If they don't murder anyone, or rape anyone, they don't deserve Hell. If someone is forced to worship or burn up, of course they'll be reluctant. Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God. We can't prove there is one. There's lots of proof of science, and none of religion, besides a book. I think that says it all.