Quote Originally Posted by Checkmate
Also, evolution has a lot less proof backing it. There is constantly the flaw of missing links. I know a few fossils have been found, but they alone can be merely dismissed as freaks of nature.
And this is true because...? A freak of nature, IMO, is classfied as a creature that is different from all other creatures of the same type. Example: A two-headed snake, a porcupine who cannot produce quills, white tigers (yes they are, this is created because of a genetic disorder in the colouring). These are freaks of nature, not several accounts of the same animal being found in different places or in the same place.

Based upon the theory that God created everything in the world in six days, how did it come to the part where dinos and humans lived together? No evidence is found that more complex mammals were around during that time or place.

Quote Originally Posted by Checkmate
Evolution and the Big Bang are both titled as theories. Yes, I'm aware that many commonly accepted scientific concepts are labeled as theories, (such as the atomic theory which says that everything is made of atoms) but that still goes to show that scientists do not have enough information to call it fact.
Yes they are. But they are hard theories as there is evidence of this. Darwin found that their were several different types of Finches, each one different in its own way. Look at dogs and domestic cats, there is at least over three hundred breeds for each sepcies. Horses as well and cows. Quite a few breeds have only popped up within the last hundred years.

And yes, they don't have a complete amount of proof but we don't have a complete amount of proof that God created the universe, no? We have a very large and heavy book that tells us this, how is this different from Darwin's book on evolution? They are both books on why the animals are as they are but each is not complete for we don't know it all.