there is no Science that backs this up. There is no proof that one species turns into another. That's just it. It's just a theory which we believe is nothing more than teaching secular humanism.
KFC, I have said this before.
Darwinian evolution does NOT claim that "one species turns into another". In fact, finding proof that that they do would disprove Darwin's theory. But as you say, no such proof has been found yet.
What has been shown to be correct is that animals change.
And yes, animals can change into different species by branching into them. There is no reason why they wouldn't. That's already enough for it to be scientific.
I gave the example with languages.
German and English have a common ancestor.
German and English are different species of language.
But at no point did the ancestor of German and English "turn into" English (or German). There was no such moment in time and there couldn't have been any such moment in time.
Evolution works the same for lifeforms.
As long as you keep believing that evolution is about species "turning into" other species, I'm afraid what you say about evolution and its validity as a scientific theory is entirely without value. You don't even know what evolution is (and refuse to learn), so how could you possible judge it?
and I can't see why people can't see that the Evoultionary Theory is just as much as a religion.
That's because you don't understand what the theory of evolution says.
There is no faith evolved. And a scientist can reject it if he likes. And maybe one day somebody will find proof that Darwin's theory is wrong. But that hasn't happened yet.
The point is that Darwin's theory can be proven wrong and that's why it's science.
Creationism cannot be proven wrong and hence it is faith. That's the difference. That's the entire difference.
You think it's about how certain one can be and compare Creationism (which you believe) and evolution (which you don't understand) and arrive at the conclusion that both are essentially the same type of thing. But in reality it's the other way around. Science is not what it is more certain than religion, science is what we know how to disprove.
Present a theory of "creationism" that includes instructions for what must happen for it to be proven wrong, and you have a scientific theory. But Creationism doesn't have such instructions. It's impossible for Creationism to be wrong. It's religion.
Darwin's theory is quite clear and can be disproven very easily, for example by showing how "one species turns into another". If that ever happens (and cannot be dismissed as a total freak occurence, so maybe we observe it twice to be sure), Darwin's theory will be disproven. And scientists, in contrast to religious authorities, will accept it, just like they accepted that the alternative theories (like Lamarck's) were eventually proven wrong.
I can't imagine how anyone who has learned about evolution from actual biology books (and not Creationist Web sites) could possibly believe that Darwin argues that one species turns into another. He didn't.
Again, and I think this is really the best example, it's like how languages evolve. German and English are two different languages and they have a common ancestor (call it "Germanic" if you want). But German never turned into English or vice versa and Germanic never turned into either. Yet the result is two different languages, quite without "turning into". And this is also how Darwin's theory explains different species.
Actually, I haven't studied this at length but do know that there is a strong belief that the creation story was handed down from one generation to another and that Adam did write it down. If you study the geneologies you can see a huge overlap.
Yes, but we have no evidence apart from the Bible that any of these people really grew that old and a story handed down is still not a primary source (it's as n-ty as it has been handed down, i.e. if it has handed down three times, it's a tertiary source).
So we don't even have a primary source that those people really grew that old.
But even if they did, we still have no primary source (because of the handing down) of what really happened in Genesis.
The creation story was obviously handed down, not only to Moses but also to other peoples. And it was finally (again) written down in the Bible. But it is never a primary source by its own admission.
This is different from Exodus and later where the Bible clearly claims to be a primary source, written by the people who were there. (Of course the oldest actual example of the text we have is a mere 2300 years old).