Sorry to butt in, but I must say, from a purely scientific view you have to include a creator in the recipe.
Not in any science I've ever studied. You are mixing accepted fact with accepted faith. They are different things.
Evolution is not a science, it's a religion.
This is actually a very interesting point...science as a religion. If people like philosophic arguments, I would strongly suggest people research this issue in refereed articles. In fact, anyone considering a career in science should look into this debate. That being said, I must ask what definition of science you are using to make this claim.
The only time science makes the most sence is when you believe there is a creator, God, who created the earth
Really? I've always thought (and practiced) science makes the most sence when pride is removed from the lab and research project, procedures are documented in exacting detail, and results questioned several times by peers trained in the same field your research is being conducted in.
Even after billions of years, and there is no proof that the earth has even been around over 20,000 years anyway, it still couldn't happen!
Really? So all forms of radiometric dating are falsehoods, perpetuated by scientists and governments throughout most of the world? Same with chronostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy, biostratigraphy, etc? And just how do you know it couldn't happen? There are more things in this world that I don't know about than I am knowledgeable of...does this mean therefore they can't possibly happen? I don't know much of the Judeo-Christian religion...does this mean it must be false? I know nothing of the religious beliefs of the Kwakwakwa'wakw. Do they therefore not exist?
Please think critically about what you say and belive in.