agreed Nitro, but the problem also stands with alot of the "religious" (not christian, religious) leaders that claim christianity, but babble on at how many people are horrible sinners and offend, the issue is that this is wrong as well, and has lead science to completely disassociate science from christianity, and the same on the end of "religious people".

There is one problem though, the first rule of science is to seek evidence until any theory can be made law, or simply stay theory. Take the law of gravity for example, we don't know how gravity is "completely" controlled or why some things have gravity or not, however, the fact that gravity does exist makes it law, further testing can prove so, making it a law. Evolution on the other hand has not had "solid" proof that supports the theory, mainly because most of the bones that have been found are in different rock layers, and alot of the supposedly older ones are found above supposedly newer ones, meaning that the newer ones disprove that the creature evolved. For example, horse bones were found in rock, and other bones as well. The bones "seemed" to evolve from a three toed animal to a single toed horse, however, the bones were not found in the correct order, suggesting that the evolution could not have happened to that animal, because the one-toed version (hence the one we know today) was found in older rock forms that most of the ones in the supposed chain of bones. To me that sounds as evidence being twisted.

The problem is, when it comes to evolution, alot of the "facts" that are used to prove it, disprove the idea altogether, however, discarding the real facts, the evidence is put on display as if it were true evidence. The problem is, small bones cannot be used in the case unless the whole skeletal structure has been found, simply because the bone could have easily belonged to another creature, and with years of decay which still happens to old bones in rock, you cannot properly date the evidence, we can only use rock layers as a time frame, and I doubt that rock layers will switch around when the times change, so if it's found near the bottom, it existed at that time.

I do agree that the fact is that PEOPLE do not wish to believe what facts are placed in the way, simply put, there is plenty of evidence to support that God does exist. For instance, there are real medical reports of tumors and cancers being removed, without scarred tissue or any sign of surgery. When such cases are reported, the people were either: A) Christian, and praying B) Not a christian, but christians were praying for them C) Christian, praying, and other christians praying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's enough to base a theory on, and enough for scientific tests.

I do agree, however, with adaptation. Adaptation was the original theory, and does have evidence to support what has happened over the years, there is proof that depending on where something lives, it "adapts" to it's surroundings. This however, is different than an entire species turning into another species, or moving to another genus.

The problem is what Jesus summed up in a story; If people do not believe now, there is nothing that will make them believe. The fact is if God just opened up the heavens and said "What's up? I'm God." You would still not have everyone believing, there would be those that would try to sum it up in scientific terms as just an "unnatural phenomenon" while those that did believe in it, their generations below them would begin to throw it away and say "I didn't see it myself, I don't believe it.". The problem is, this already happened, this generation is still saying "I didn't see it myself, I don't believe it." despite the evidence shown to them. Simply put, they Won't believe until it is proven soon.

On-Topic: I still think that creationism should be taught in school with evolution and the big bang, simply because if a theorem such as these can be taught, why not our beliefs taught as a scientific theory as well.