God existed without anything else. He then created matter/universe from nothing. Sorry, you are wrong.

And god comes from nothing.

No one is claiming hat mythological creatures exist. I guess your belief that evolution doesnt exist isnt falsifiable. There is nothing that science can do for you. Sorry.

The expectation of transformation/transitional animals/fossils is based on a misunderstanding of evolution. In reality, basically every animal/fossil is a transition from one generation to the next with variation from the previous and which lives in a different environment.

As for fossils which demonstrate larger scale transitions: e.g. from invertebrate to vertebrate, fish to tetrapod, dinosaur to bird, amphibian to amniote, synapsid to mammal, etc., see this page for a few examples.

We all have tail bones, so...done.

There are people who do grow vestigial tails. What is your response to that?

Pretty sure your just a troll since you've only made 5 posts and you've already changed your argument from: science is holding back the evidence, to: there isn't any evidence, but I don't mind feeding trolls once or twice - and, who knows, maybe you're only 12 and/or have never actually seen the evidence used.

So, here are some introductions into the types of evidence for evolution:

ref

ref

ref

ref

ref

MOST fossils are not dated using carbon 14. Its half life is too short. For anything older than about 60,000-80,000 years (which is the vast majority of fossils used in evolutionary discussion, other methods (including but not limited to U-235, U-238, Th-232; all of these have half lives of millions of years). Since most of the fossils important are millions of years old, any flaws you might find in C-14 dating are irrelevant to the topic at hand. As far as any actual problems with the method, their effect can be checked using other absolute dating methods, none of which operate under identical principles (some, like tree rings, aren't even radiometric) can and ARE used to double-check each other. When done, the maximum variance is a bout 10-15%, usually far end of the measurements.

If one were to attempt to argue against radiometric dating for old-earth evidence, they would be much better suited to attempting to attack the methods ACTUALLY USED on a regular basis for this stuff.

Lots more evidence points to an old earth than carbon dating.

(Abstracted from here)

Distant starlight

When you look at an object a mile away, the light has been traveling for five microseconds. When you look at the Sun, you are seeing light that has been in transit for 8.3 minutes. When astronomers look at the closest star to Earth (Alpha Centauri), which is roughly four light years away, they are seeing the star as it was four years ago from our perspective. When astronomers look at objects in the region of space known as the "Hubble ultra deep field", they are seeing the stars there as they were over ten billion years ago. Light we are receiving from these fields has been traveling for ten billion years, and the universe must have, therefore, existed long enough for that transit time to take place.

Helioseismology

The composition of the Sun changes as it ages. The differing composition changes the way sound waves behave inside the Sun. Using helioseismic methods (models of pressure waves in the sun), the age of the Sun can be inferred. Using this method, an Italian team came up with an age of 4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years.

Lunar retreat

South African rocks studied by geologist Ken Eriksson contain ancient tidal deposits indicating that at some point in the past, the Moon orbited "25-percent closer to Earth than it does today." The distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384,403 kilometers, so for Ken Eriksson's work to fit with a YEC timescale the Earth would have to have been receding at a speed greater than 15 kilometers per year. However, the Moon is currently receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.

Radioactive decay

Radioactive decay is the constant predictable decay of unstable atoms into more stable isotopes or elements. Measurements of atomic decay are generally considered one of the most accurate ways of measuring the age of an object, and these measurements form the basis for the scientifically accepted age of the Earth. There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects far older than 10,000 years.

Because radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used methods of determining age, these techniques are under constant attack from young earth supporters. A few creationists, armed with only a cursory knowledge and a desire to think that they're better than scientific "experts", may misunderstand radiometric dating and just not believe it works. This is often accompanied by ignoring the high concordance of radiometric methods.

Length of the prehistoric day

Work by John W. Wells of Cornell University, New York has shown that certain pieces of extremely old coral show evidence of a growth rate which reflects a time when a year had 400 days of 22 hours each. Because the rate of change of the rotation of the Earth is relatively predictable—about 0.005 seconds per year—one can calculate the last time a year had 400 days, which was about 370 million years ago (which is also about the same as radiometric dating of the coral).

Naica megacrystals

The Naica Mine of Chihuahua, Mexico is the home of some of the largest gypsum crystals on earth. Specimens in the area have been found to exceed 11 meters in length and 1 meter in width. Based on classical crystal growth theory, these crystals are older than one million years.

Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds

Nitrogen is the most common impurity in natural diamonds, sometimes by as much as 1% by mass. Recently formed diamonds, however, have very little nitrogen content. A major way synthetic diamonds are distinguished from natural ones is on the basis of nitrogen permeation. It takes long periods and high pressures for the nitrogen atoms to be squeezed into the diamond lattice. Research on the kinetics of the nitrogen aggregation at the University of Reading have suggested that a certain type of diamond, Ia diamonds, spend 200-2000 million years in the upper mantle.

Petrified wood

The process in which wood is preserved by permineralization, commonly known as petrification, takes extensive amounts of time. Gerald E. Teachout from the South Dakota Department of Game has written that "the mineral replacement process is very slow, probably taking millions of years".

It is true that in the laboratory petrification can be achieved in a matter of months, but petrification is far slower in natural conditions.

Relativistic jets

A relativistic jet is a jet of plasma that is ejected from some quasars and galaxy centers that have powerful magnetic fields. It is conjectured that the jets are driven by the twisting of magnetic fields in an accretion disk (the plate-like cloud of matter) found encircling many celestial objects. In super-massive bodies, immensely strong magnetic fields force plasma from the accretion disk into a jet that shoots away perpendicular to the face of the disk. In some cases, these columns of plasma have been found to extend far enough to refute the idea of a young universe.

For example, the quasar PKS 1127-145 has a relativistic jet exceeding one million light years in length. Because the speed of light cannot be exceeded, this column must be over one million years old. Moreover, these jets are generally billions of light years from Earth, meaning they were at least a million years old several billion years ago due, again, to the speed of light.

Seabed plankton layering

Fossils of dead plankton that layer on the ocean floor is used to gauge temperatures from the past, based on the chemical changes of Crenarchaeota, a primitive phylum of microbe. Much like ice layering and dendrochronology, researchers drill through the ocean floor to extract samples which indicate annual temperature fluctuations in the plankton fossils, or "chemical rings" as it were. A 2004 pioneering expedition to the Arctic Ocean near the North Pole collected samples dating back to over 56 million years of temperature dating.

Sedimentary varves

Varves are laminated layers of sedimentary rock that are most commonly laid down in glacial lakes. In the summer, light colored coarse sediment is laid down, while in the winter, as the water freezes and calms, fine dark silt is laid down. This cycle produces alternating bands of dark and light which are clearly discernible and represent, as a pair, one full year. As is consistent with the old earth view, many millions of varves have been found in some places. The Green River formation in eastern Utah is home to an estimated twenty million years worth of sedimentary layers.

The creationist response is that, instead of once per year, these varves formed many hundreds of times per year. There is, however, much evidence against accelerated formation of varves.

Pollen in varves is much more concentrated in the upper part of the dark layer, which is thought to represent spring. This is what would be expected if varves formed only once per year because pollen is much more common at this time.

In Lake Suigetsu, Japan, there is a seasonal die-off of diatoms (calcareous algae) that will form layers in the bottom of the lake along with the sedimentary varves. If the 29 thousand varves in the lake formed more than once per year, there should be several sediment layers for every layer of deceased algae. However, for every one white layer of algae in Lake Suigetsu, there is only one varve.

The varve thickness in the Green River formation correlates with both the 11 year sunspot cycle and the 21 thousand year orbital cycle of the earth.

Amino acid racemization

[N]aturally occurring amino acid molecules usually possess a carbon centre with four different groups joining it; a hydrogen atom, the amino group, the acid group (hence the name of the class of molecule) and a side chain, which is what distinguishes amino acids. In three dimensional space, such a molecular topology can occupy one of two configurations. Convention labels these as D or L, which are referred to as stereoisomers and are essentially mirror images of each other. The ratio of these two isomers is initially unequal. With only one exception [glycine], naturally occurring amino acids used in polypeptide synthesis are in the L form. Over time this will decay to a more balanced state in a process called racemization, where the ratio between L and D stereoisomers will be equal (a racemic mixture).

Measuring the degree of racemization and other known quantities can show an estimated age of the sample. This is measured fairly unambiguously by the fact that different stereoisomers rotate plane polarised light in opposite directions (it is this interaction that determines the D and L labels) and so a ratio can be determined by contrasting an unknown sample with a pure D or L sample and a racemic mixture. By measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, objects can be dated up to several million years old.

While it is true that there can be great variability on the rate at which amino acids undergo racemization, the changes in humidity, temperature, and acidity required to make the oldest known samples conform to a young earth (under 6000 years) view are completely unreasonable. Such conditions would destroy all traces of the amino acids rather than just leave a racemic mixture of the molecules behind.

Continental drift

Based on the continuity of fossil deposits and other geological formations between the South American and African tectonic plates, there is much evidence that at some point in history the two continents were part of the same landmass. Because tectonic drift is an incredibly slow process, the separation of the two landmasses would have taken millions of years. With modern technology, this can be accurately quantified. Satellite data has shown that the two continents are moving at a rate of roughly 2 cm per year (roughly the speed of fingernail growth), which means that for these diverging continents to have been together at some point in history, as all the evidence shows, the drift must have been going on for at least 200 million years.

Cosmogenic nuclide dating

The influx of cosmic rays onto the earth continually produces a stream of cosmogenic nuclides in the atmosphere that will fall to the ground. By measuring the build-up of these nuclides on terrestrial surfaces, the length of time for which the surface has been exposed can be inferred. This technique can be used to date objects over millions of years old.

Erosion

Many places on Earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods. The Grand Canyon, for instance, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water. Nevertheless, Young Earthers insist it was cut in a few years following the Great Flood - but in order for this to happen the rocks of the Kaibab Plateau would have needed to have the solubility of granulated sugar, rather than the more solid stone that it's made of.

In the case of the Yakima River in Washington State between Ellensburg and Yakima, the river meanders with many oxbows typical of a slow-moving river on a plain, yet it is set within a deep canyon with visible layers of erosion. The only possible explanation is that the pre-existing river maintained its original bed as slow tectonic forces caused the surrounding land to rise underneath and around it.

Geomagnetic reversals

A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field. The frequency at which these reversals occur varies greatly, but they usually happen once every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and generally take thousands of years. This fact is obviously inconsistent with the notion of a young Earth; around 171 reversals are geologically documented, which would make the Earth at least 8.5 million years old.

(If the earth was only 10,000 years old, that would mean a magnetic reversal would have occurred every 58.5 years on average.)

Iron-manganese nodule growth

Beryllium-10 (10Be) produced by cosmic rays shows that iron-manganese nodule growth is one of the slowest geological phenomena. It takes several million years to form one centimeter (and some are the size of potatoes). Cosmic ray produced 10Be is produced by the interactions of protons and neutrons with nitrogen and oxygen. It then reaches the earth via snow or rain. Since it is reactive, it gets absorbed by detritus material, within a timespan of about 300 years- very short compared to its half-life. Thusly, 10Be is excellent for use in dating marine sediment.

Coral

Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years.

Fission track dating

Fission track dating is a radiometric dating technique that can be used to determine the age of crystalline materials that contain uranium. As uranium decays, it sends out atomic fragments, which leave scars or "fission tracks" in crystalline structures. Because decaying uranium emits fragments at a constant rate, the number of fission tracks correlates to the age of the object. This method is generally held to be accurate, as it shows a high degree of concordance with other methods such as potassium-argon dating.

Ice layering

Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.

Annual differences in temperature and irradiation cause ice to form differently from year to year, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice, much like tree rings. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing upon close inspection.

Currently, the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an Earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an absurdly high average of ten layers per year, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young Earth creationists.

Lack of DNA in fossils

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the universal carrier of genetic information, is present in all organisms while they are alive. When they die, their DNA begins to decay under the influence of hydrolysis and oxidation. The speed of this decay varies on a number of factors. Sometimes, the DNA will be gone within one century, and in other conditions, it will persist for as many as one million years. The average amount of time detectable DNA will persist though is somewhere in the middle; given physiological salt concentrations, neutral pH, and a temperature of 15 °C, it would take around 100,000 years for all the DNA in a sample to decay to undetectable levels.

Permafrost

The formation of permafrost (frozen ground) is a slow process. To be consistent with the young earth creationist model, which states that all sediment was deposited by the global flood, there would have to be absolutely no permafrost present at the end of the flood, because any permafrost that was present at the moment of creation would have been melted during the flood.

Because earth is a good insulator and permafrost forms downward from the surface, it would have taken much more than the few thousand years allotted by creation theory to produce some of the deepest permafrost. In the Prudhoe Bay oil fields of Alaska, the permafrost which extends over 600 meters into the ground is believed to have taken over 225,000 years to reach present depth.

Weathering rinds

Weathering rinds are layers of weathered material that develop on glacial rocks. The weathering is caused by the oxidation of magnesium and iron rich minerals, and the thickness of this layer correlates with the age of a sample. Certain weathering rinds on basalt and andesite rocks in the eastern United States are believed to have taken over 300,000 years to form.

Dendrochronology

Dendrochronology is a method of scientific dating which is based on annual tree growth patterns called tree rings. The rings are the result of changes in the tree's growth speed over the year (since trees grow faster in the summer and slower in the winter). The age of a tree can be found by counting the rings and is the only method on this list that can date events precisely to a single year.

Now, any date derived from one individual tree is not in itself contradictory to the recent creation doctrine, since even the longest lived types of tree do not live longer than 5,000 years or so. However, it is possible to extend the chronology back over many different trees. This is done by taking the matching up living tree rings with dead tree rings, which go on longer than the living rings. Because the thickness of tree rings varies with the climate, a sequence of thick ring, thin ring, thin ring, thick ring, thick ring, thick ring, thin ring, thick ring is strong evidence that the corresponding rings formed at the same time. By observing and analyzing the rings of many different trees from the same area, including fossil trees, the tree ring chronology has been pushed back in some areas as far as 11,000 years.

Human Y-chromosomal ancestry

The Y-chromosome, unlike most DNA, is inherited only from the father, which means that all DNA on the human Y chromosome comes from a single person. This does not mean that there was only one person alive at that time, but that a single man's Y-chromosomal DNA has out-competed the other strains and is now - not taking into account smaller and less drastic mutations - the only one left. Because the only factor affecting the makeup of the DNA on the chromosome is mutation, measuring mutation rates and extrapolating them backwards can tell you when this man lived. The most recent calculations put this common ancestor as having lived 340,000 years ago.

Oxidizable carbon ratio dating

Oxidizable carbon ratio dating is a method for determining the absolute age of charcoal samples with relative accuracy. This dating method works by measuring the ratio of oxidizable carbon to organic carbon. When the sample is freshly burned, there will be no oxidizable carbon because it has been removed by the combustion process. Over time this will change and the amount of organic carbon will decrease to be replaced by oxidizable carbon at a linear rate. By measuring the ratio of these two allotropes, one can determine ages of over 20,000 years ago with a standard error under 3%.

Rock varnish

Rock varnish is a coating that will form on exposed surface rocks. The varnish is formed as airborne dust accumulates on rock surfaces. This process is extremely slow; between 4 µm and 40 µm of material forms on the rock every thousand years, and instances of 40 µm of accumulation are very rare. Because the rate of accumulation is generally constant, measuring the depth of the varnish can provide dates for objects up to 250,000 years old.

Thermoluminescence dating

Thermoluminescence dating is a method for determining the age of objects containing crystalline minerals, such as ceramics or lava. These materials contain electrons that have been released from their atoms by ambient radiation, but have become trapped by imperfections in the mineral's structure. When one of these minerals is heated, the trapped electrons are discharged and produce light, and that light can be measured and compared with the level of surrounding radiation to establish the amount of time that has passed since the material was last heated (and its trapped electrons were last released).

Science that contradicts the flood by Greg Moore, a creationist that believes in an old earth.

(from here)

"[T]he global-Flood model contradicts a vast body of geological and geophysical data. Scientists find no evidence of recent tectonics, volcanism or erosion on a scale nearly as great as the global Flood model requires. There are also too many organisms in the fossil record to assert they came from a single generation of living creatures that were killed by the Flood-the earth simply could not support that many organisms."

"In fact, if the Flood was as catastrophic as young-earth creationists maintain, it is doubtful anything would have survived. The young-earth model would require vertical land erosion of more than 700 feet per day and tectonic uplift of more than 200 vertical feet per day. Anything more than just one foot of erosion or tectonic uplift is sufficient to destroy most modern cities."

"The opossum, for example, shows little change over millions of years. The Cretaceous opossum of 70 million years ago-which most young-earth creationists would classify as pre-Flood because the fossils are found in strata they classify as Flood deposits-is very much like the opossum of today. Such continuous series of similar fossils tells us no divergence has occurred. This indicates the opossum and other species experienced fairly uniform conditions before and after the Flood."

"They assume the aquatic creatures, being aquatic, would not be endangered by global floodwaters. They reason some organisms were able to adjust to the change in salinity caused by the mixing of fresh and salt water, while others survived in pockets or layers of fresh and saltwater. However, if the Flood was a global event, the floodwaters would have been brackish, which would have killed most of the amphibians, freshwater fish and many of the ocean species because each type is adapted to live within a particular salinity range. Organisms on the ocean floor would not have been able to survive the tremendous increase in water pressure. It is also doubtful pockets of fresh and saltwater would have persisted for eleven months given the violent geological processes they say accompanied the Flood."

"Most plants would have been buried by hundreds of feet of sediment. Few of the plants and seeds that floated on the surface would have survived submergence in water, particularly salt water, for many months. Those that did survive would be unlikely to grow since most plants require very particular soil conditions-conditions unlikely to exist based on the catastrophic global-Flood model."

"[W]e would expect to find evidence of a major radiation from Ararat. However, there is no fossil evidence to support such a mass migration. In fact, many animals, such as the Australian endemic families, have no fossil record outside of their current realm."

"Another problem for the young-earth model is explaining what animals ate on this long journey. Some herbivores have specialized diets. Were these plants flourishing all along their migratory routes? And, with only a breeding pair of each species available, how would there have been enough new deaths to meet the food requirements of the carnivores?"

"If God endowed the ark animals with special qualities so they would survive, why did so many species go extinct? And, if only certain animals were endow these special qualities, why did God have Noah take the other animals aboard the ark?"

"[T]he Bible does not state the Flood changed the earth. Nowhere does the Bible speak of the volcanism, mountain uplift and continent formation embedded in the young-earth model. Nor is there any indication the post-Flood world was unstable. If that were the case, surely Noah would have expressed concern about the post-Flood conditions and God would have given Noah special instructions on how he was to survive. Instead, the Bible tells us Noah and his family immediately began farming and planted a vineyard-impossible if the conditions were as harsh as young-earth creationists suggest."

"[N]owhere does Bible state the animals on the ark were different or endowed with special qualities. Nor is there a single example from field research that supports this claim."

"Flood geology bears all the signs of an idea that has not been carefully thought through."

(further references within article)

Creationists attack on carbon dating is unfounded and innaccurate. No professional science organization backs a creationist view of carbon dating.

Radiometric dating is much more accurate than creationists claim. The method is calibrated using other known ages from known artifacts and or dendrochronology and geology. We have overlapping times with other isotopes as well alowing for the dating of earlier time periods and or further calibration.

Further claims by creationists are just innacurate. The earths magnetic was said to continously get weaker (number 2 from above). It has long been shown by geology that the earths magnetism fluctuates and not steadily decay as creationists claim. Baked clay samples have shown historically the condition of the earths magnetic feild (strenght and poles) as well as volcanic rock formations.

Creationists use known samples like fresh water muscles that do not yeild a correct time to try to establish the woes of carbon dating. It is known that that sample gives false readings due to their environment. This is not a sign radiometric dating doesn't work, it is a sign that it has limits. Creationists claims here are akin to trying to eat soup with a fork then coming to the conclusion no one can eat soup.

Here is a link to the creationist site being used by ironman making this erroneous claim.

http://www.icr.org/article/myths-regarding-radiocarbon-dating/

Creationists hold conclusions by omitting or misrepresenting evidence, there was no global flood. The fossil record supports an old earth, the creationist veiw of organisms swiming and dying in layers leaving no stragglers in other layers is laughable. Plate tectonics explains how certain fossils get to other places.

Creationism starts with a conclusion that the bible is accurate then tries to build the evidence around that conclusion. Creationism lacks testable hypotheses and valid methodology. That certaintly isn't good science.

Links

on the magnetic feild fluctuating

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29decmagneticfield/

On carbon dating

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/ foundation dating3.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE1aAtomicclocks.shtml

See also my debate here which provides evidence for the usefulness of the geologic column and radiometric dating in making a successful discovery of a transition fossil - which would not be expected on the biblical view.

If you are looking for science to "prove" one or the other you are wasting your time. Science does not prove things. It is simply a method of taking the available evidence, interpreting it in a way that minimizes bias and pre-existing notions, and then using this to form your conclusion whether or not you want to hear what they have to say.

the flood perfectly explains the same phenomenon.

No it doesn't. Why are fossils globally consitant in terms of strata? If there was one global flood, there would be no strata, all of the life forms would be mixed all around...bunnies and dinosaurs and everything in between would be all the column.

But that isn't close to what we observe. We never, for instance find bunnies in the pre-cambrian strata, or dinosaurs embedded in Pleistocene strata.

#1 there are far too many assumptions that have to be determined,

Are you familiar with how the scientific method works? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I'm legitimately asking.

The scientific method does occasionally rely on assumptions, but those assumptions are verified and tested as soon as possible. If there EVER comes a point where a scientist can replace the assumption with observed fact, they will. This part of the reason science changes over time. As time goes on, we learn more and assume less.

Religion, meanwhile, does not even admit that their claims are assumptions that in mos cases have never been challenged.

Do both side rely on assumptions? Yeah. But only religion baths in them day in and day out, while science tries to distance itself having to assume anything.

#2 there are too many invariables they can only be explained by assumption leaving us with human opinion and bias to take it as concrete fact.

Religion is the one based around human bias. Science is the one that tries to eliminate human bias from its conclusions.

most of us believe that evolution is true, because that is what we were told in school and on television programs

And most people who believe in creation believe in it because that was what they were told in church. The thing is, evolution is a SCIENTIFIC topic. IT IS NOT RELIGIOUS at all. And I'd sooner trust a scientist to speak of such things than a pastor. As far as the scientists who support creationism, it is so far impossible to support creationism by using the scientific method. Those who claim otherwise have stepped out of the lab and into the world of speculation.

The funny thing to me is that scientist say it takes millions of years for this process to happen,

Nobody has walked up to the sun with a thermometer either. Are you going to second guess someone who says the sun is extremely hot? We figure these things out by collecting, sorting through and drawing conclusions based on the evidence.

Geological stratification and the fossil record contained within, as well as genetic sequencing provide us with the FACT and the WHY behind this time span.

whereas many atheists want evolution to be true.

Why? Evolution does not disprove God. It is still possible God created life and used evolution to mold the different species we have today. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion and vice versa.

When each side comes out with something that the other does not understand

Feel free to give me an example of a creationist claim that an evolutionist does not understand.

My guess is they will be arguing this issue for some time to come.

Sad but true. Religious people have more use for their comfortable fantasy world than for the one they actually live in.

Christians obviously want creation to be true, whereas many atheists want evolution to be true.

Ask yourself this question about both evolution and creationism - which came first, the belief or the evidence?

scientist say it takes millions of years for this process to happen, but humanity (obviously) has not been around long enough to know this as fact.

Not being able to observe the millions of years directly is different than not being able to directly observe evidence of millions of years.

Christians obviously want creation to be true

Not necessarily. The Catholic Church has no problem with an old Earth or with evolution.

"new knowledge has led to think that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis."

and "Convergence, in no way sought or induced, of results of work done independently of each other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

(Pope John Paul II - translated from "Message to the participants in the Plenary of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)")

My guess is they will be arguing this issue for some time to come.

Indeed - in part it is a good thing. Creationists try to find gaps in the current science in order to provide space for God; science looks to fill those gaps in understanding with more understanding, so our knowledge will continue to grow as they argue back and forth.

One side believes in God, the other does not

Why do you keep making this assumption?

What does the Theory of Natural Selection as it applies to living organism, a scientific topic if ever there was one, have to do with religion?

Also, globally, more Christians believe in evolution than don't.

AND not all atheists believe in evolution.

There really are only two sides, God or No god, anything else would be impossible.

So insertion mutations suddenly don't exist?

On the contrair I am addressing things that have everything to do with evolution. It is every bodies presuppositions that we have the ability to acquire knowledge (you wouldn't be reding this if you didn't) So if there is no way that evolution could have provided laws of logic or knowledge in general, the theory fails.

That is complete nonsense. Evolution addresses physical changes in species. Trying to claim that because evolution doesn't provide psychological and sociological explanations it fails just does not make any sense.

The biblical worldview does not require hindu gods.

Isn't one of the ten commandments that you should not worship any other gods before the real God? The biblical worldview does rely on other gods.

The evolutionary view does require logic.

It requires logic to exist since everything requires logic to exist. Why would it require logic to be explained?