Get over evolution already - it’s as real as the earth orbiting the sun or the expansion of the universe. None of that means anyone’s faith in God or religion should be abandoned - I know plenty of 13 year olds who are mature and secure enough in their faith to grasp that concept.
==Get over evolution already - it’s as real as the earth orbiting the sun or the expansion of the universe
Wrong. Darwin’s ToE is a materialist fairytale, based on zero evidence (other than a few minor variations between finches), and was invented steal credit from, and ultimately take the place of, God’s creation account in Genesis. And guess what, it’s not working...the HMS Beagle is going down, despite being subsidized by the government, and despite our courts banning the teaching of the other side in our public schools and universities. Even the Evos are abandoning the HMS Beagle in search of a new God-denying evolutionary ship!
Oops.
I know some scientists who were/are a bit older than 13 years old who acknowledge the equivalence of the geokinetic and geocentric models.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
Here is another scientist who is a bit older than 13 years old who may not be convinced that the expansion of the universe is as 'real' as you think either.
You are exactly correct that evolution is not any more 'real' than geokinetics and the expansion of the universe, but not in the way that you first thought.