Here's why Creatards might be right

[Thumpalumpacus]

yes the "evidence" is the discovery of a mysterious noise that scientists assume must me the remnant of the " big bang " event . christianity has evidence too

The difference is this: that noise, which is actually microwave radiation, was predicted as a result of the BB hypothesis in 1948. Scientists took what we know about light's behavior and predicted that there ought to be an immensely red-shifted remnant, which Penzias and Wilson discovered in 1964. That is not an "assumption" -- that is the logical implication of a hypothesis that has been observed. This is how hypotheses are investigated and supported -- implications are deduced, predictions are made, evidence is gathered and analyzed, and the hypothesis is either discarded, modified, refined, or confirmed.

Equating that process with the bullshit in the Bible reveals an ignorance of the scientific method on your part. You'd do well to repair that ignorance before you resume pronouncements on matters scientific.

yes but why there are genetic variations is what is debatable

It's only debateable to the uneducated. We know why genes mutate. We understand how their phenotypic expression allows outside influences to interact with the genotype.

If you think you're able to debate evolution, you'd better bring facts. I personally don't think you know much about it.

[...] you just dont want to question your religion.

Equating scientific knowledge with blind faith doesn't reflect well upon you. You seem like a nice-enough person, but one desperately in need of higher education.

You let me know when religion tests its claims about gods or afterlives, and modifies them to accommodate reality.

Until then, this is just you flaunting your lack of insight.

nobody can prove anything either way[...]

Firstly, science doesn't deal in proof -- that is the realm of logic and mathematics. Science deals in evidence.

The overwhelming mountain of evidence favors evolution by natural selection. And there is contrary evidence for "intelligent design". What is so intelligent about an eyeball that buries its light-receptors behind a sheath of blood vessels, thereby reducing effective vision? What is so intelligent about genetic predispositions to cancer? What is so intelligent about having an appendix prone to inflicting peritonitis upon bursting, as happens often?

there is no proof that there is an intelligent design although there are indications that there could be .

ID has been pretty thoroughly discredited as an explanation for human physiology. It has also been demonstrated to have been created not to explain human physiology, but rather to afford the introduction of creationism into American schools.

and there also is no proof in the unlikely possibility that everything that exists is just the result of random accidental perfect coordination between very different organisms that all live on the same earth .

There is, however, a veritable mountain of evidence, easily available to anyone who is actually interested in learning.

other than the big bang leftover noise that the scientist religious leaders have assumed must be from the big bang event.

As shown above, this is an incorrect reading of events.

You really should read more and post less.