Its my responsibility to also teach them critical thinking in regards to what the Bible says in regards to the creation of the universe. I am not going to remove parts of the Bible because science says otherwise. Additionally, I never said creationism was a theory. Actually, in the study, I only referred to evolution as a theory, and left no such adjective for creationist ideas.

Thats the conclusion I came to. If God created the universe through the Big Bang, then according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, the amount of time to us as a day then would be vastly different than it is today. The Bible itself even says that a thousand years is as a day to God - thus denoting the special temporal relationship of God to the universe.

You said Christian's, I'm Christian and I can accept evolution .

Theory (the scientific word) bears very little relvance to the word theory, as it is used colloquially. The difference between a theory and a law, in scientific terms, has nothing to do with how confident we are that it is true. The site below can explain it better than me, but the tl;dr version is that every time someone says the theory of evolution is just a theory, and tries to use that to imply there is doubt, a sicentist turns in his grave.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

My question is why are you so quick to point your finger at Christians? You are aware that the most popular religions all believe in Adam and Eve.....arent you? Lets be clear, the story of God creating the Earth and everything with it is from the JEWISH bible! Later some Jews followed Christ and became Christians, but that doesnt change the fact that it is the Jews who believe in creation. As well the Muslims also believe in Adam and Eve being the first people and starting humanity. So before you start your thread in order to get hits, please study what you are writing about. You would see that lots of Christians believe in evolution, Jews cannot believe that because it isn't in their bible (old testament). Can you even explain why you would choose to call out a religon that has less belief in creation than another religon?

I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in evolution.

Everyone gets this point.

But sir, if science is so advanced then why won't a pumpkin ever go past a certain size (both ways) ? Why does artificial selection always hit a breaking point (fruit fly experiments etc.)? And don't tell me that in the future someone will come and breed a functional advantage... I want to see a new biological device built from the ground up through random changes - I really do.

Oh ok, is just came across like that in the place I bolded.

No, not everyone gets this point actually.

The fact that you're on a computer shows you how incredibly advanced science is, but that's besides the point. "Always hit a breaking point", and you base this on the fruit fly experiments? Even with the rapidly evolving fruit flys macro-evolution would still take thousands of years instead of millions, and that's only if those severe and rapid adaptions are needed. So what is this breaking point? And it's also your job to now explain all the other evidence for macro-evolution, like the high shared similarity of DNA in all animals, the clear pattern shown in the fossil record (If your gonna give me "gaps in the fossil record" reply then I hope you know it's been rtt) of common decent between different species. Why do we share DNA with a banana? 

"I want to see a new biological device built form the ground up through randon changes" Urgh, another misconception about evolution is that it comes down to "random changes", while chance places a large role in it, this ignores the fundemental role of natural selection. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, and this is what natural selection works with; it sorts out certain variations... "Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go)."

Yes, a lot of science is flawed and a lot of it is still assumed but unproven theories (ie the Big Bang: what went bang?). The difference is science doesn't shy away from these questions but attempts to find the answers. Religion doesn't just shy away from the question, it tries to quash them completely.