Soldier for Salvation I would love for you to email me the proof of creation.
EDIT: In response to Burney who I have quoted in my source:
Cosmology is science and it traverses the realm of metaphysics. Actually what science doesn't? Also what science is not a philosophy as well? Since science is a philosophy I don't see the problem here.
"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy investigating principles of reality transcending those of any particular science."
Evolution does transcend the principles of just one scientific discipline so it does qualify, as does cosmology, as a metaphysical scientific theory. Chemistry, biology, genetics are just three of the scientific disciplines that deal with evolution and that evolution explains and acquires data from. I don't see how you can take that fact and use it to try to assert that evolution is not scientific unless you don't understand what metaphysics is actually about. A metaphycical science like evolution and cosmology are just those sciences that transcend a single scientific discipline.
Actually evolution was not based on the fossil record, the fossil record only serves as one form of confirmation of a single prediction of evolution. And as a convenient way to identify some of the species that lived in the past that are now extinct, unless you know of another way to gain knowledge about long extinct species? The theory of evolution, in reality, is not based on the fossil record and the fossil record is not used to hold the entire theory up. Try phylogenetics and knowledge of inheritance which we definitely understand very well. If we share a common ancestor with another organism we can expect to share sets of traits with that organism via inheritance. For instance we share a common ancestor with our siblings and we share a lot of traits in common with them. We share a common ancestor with our cousins and we share a lot of traits in common with them as well, though fewer than we do with our siblings. If we shared a common ancestor with apes we should expect to share some traits in common. Well as it happens we do. We're both eucaryotes, we're bilaterally symmetrical, similar skeletal structures, we're both primates, we're both mammals, we're both chordates, we're both vertebrates, we even share 98.77% of our genome with apes. That's just to name a very few of the similarities we share. If we had a more distant common ancestor with monkeys we would expect to share fewer traits in common than we do with apes much the same way we share fewer traits in common with cousins than we do with siblings. And it turns out this is what we observe in nature, and we can keep going back to the very simplest organism. We can even show that we share a very distant common ancestor with bananas because humans and bananas are both eucaryotes and both share similar molecular structures and homologous protein structures. So common ancestry can explain these observations through the theory of evolution.
I would love to first see a rational explanation for why common descent cannot explain the phylogenetic trees and how evolution is actually impossible before I would accept a supernatural explanation as a viable alternative to be taught in schools. Otherwise invoking supernatural causation is hardly scientific since it cannot be falsified or proven true.
Just to be clear a rational explanation would exclude all explanations that are appeals to ignorance. By the way the fossil record serves as support for the theory of evolution because evolution is a gradual process and so predicts that between forms there will have to be transitions. The fossil record confirms that there are indeed transitions between forms. Yes the fossil record is incomplete, but this fact is what we expected from it in the first place. The fact that there are even as many transitional fossils as there are, though serves a strong confirmation of a prediction of the theory of evolution that new forms would evolve gradually with transitions from one to the other.
Pointing to gaps in the fossil record is the argument from ignorance fallacy AND it completely misunderstands why the fossil record is evidence for evolution.
It is also worth noting, I think, that while proving evolution false makes intelligent design a more viable alternative by comparison it still won't make intelligent design true. So you would still be expected to do the hard work of actually proving that anything was actually designed.
I should probably also address the whole "intelligent design is not supernatural causation" argument before someone tries to make it. If it's not supernatural causation then where did the natural intelligence that supposedly designed everything come from?