Macro-evolution is a load of twaddle

The notion that one kind of animal becomes another kind of animal over time is a quaint antiquated notion like the flat earth theory or the notion that the Earth was the center of the universe. It either isn't true and cannot be observed, or is simply factually wrong. Take your choice. No wait. It isn't quaint. Its fatuous and stupid. 

The evolutionist is so obsessed with the fact that EVOLUTION is SCIENCE and not a RELIGION, and they will be overjoyed to bloviate endlessly about it, yet they are CONSTANTLY talking about religion as compared to science. Evolutionists are ANTI-religion. Are Christians anti-science? Nope. 

Why are scientists so angry about believers? I think I know the reason. It all boils down to accountability. Anti-religious zealots are virulently rebellious against any over-arching authority. They WANT to be considered merely high-order animals. Therefore there is no accountability for any actions that may be termed "immoral" or even "improper". All is fair in love and apehood. 

True Christians on the other hand are accountable, nay, subject to, God and his authority. A Christian believes that we must ultimately answer to God for our ctions, choices, and behaviors. Atheists are under no such authority. I love the smug and self-assured way that the left-leaning atheistic evolutionists demean people of faith when they have more faith than Billy Graham himself. 

They have complete and blind faith in science (even though scientific theories currently held as rock solid facts might be overturned tomorrow by new facts or data). They completely and totally reject any notion of God as an entity, much less a personal saving heavenly Father. 

These scientists are the "prodigal sons" of the new age. Turning their backs on God they are wandering in a strange new land, where they feel empowered by their separation from God. The only problem is... they are NOT empowered. Not really. Gravity is still gravity, entropy is still entropy, and God is still God. And rejecting God is foolish since we live in HIS created reality. 

In essence, we are guests in HIS house. He formed it all, so he sets the rules. Who are we to question anything God decides? 

Back to evolution. Science SHOULD revolve around viewable and/or reproducible evidence. Show me some of that with regards to macro-evolution. Thank you. There isn't ANY! 

So what is science doing basing life-changing decisions on faith, assumptions, and supposition? Sounds like blind-faith religion to me. 

Consider this: Religion is defined as "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" or "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" Boy this fits atheistic evolutionists to a tee! 

Lets compare Christianity to Atheistic evolution. 

We have Father God, they have mother nature. 

We have the Holy Spirit, they have science. 

We have Jesus Christ, they have Charles Darwin. 

We have churches, they have Universities. 

We have pastors, they have professors.

We have ministers, they have researchers. 

We have the Bible, they have "Origin of Species".

We have the clergy, they have scientists. 

We have Billy Graham, they have Richard Dawkins. 

We had Jerry Falwell, they had Christopher Hitchins. 

We have mission trips, they have archeological digs. 

We have answered prayer, they have assumptions. 

We have testimonies, they have fossils. 

We have theological writings, they have scientific journals.

We have evangelistic crusades, they have science seminars.

So as you can see, atheism is as much a religion as any other entity purporting to be thus. Although any good atheist would, out of hand, reject any notion that they are a religion, I believe that a good objective view of it would result in drawing the same conclusion. 

So evolution is their baby. That is their primary doctrinal concept. That things evolved randomly over scads of time. This is their dogma. Any deviation from this is heresy. As with any religion a stigma is attached to anyone devating from the commonly held beliefs. 

God help the poor professer who discovers on his own that macro-evolution is fatuous, and says so. He is endangering his livelihood, and his reputation by saying this. Because he has committed heresy he must be cast out and ridiculed. By the way, isn't this the aspect of religion that turns so many atheists off from organized religion? Hmmm. Turns out they do the exact same thing. 

Actually, I hold a few beliefs that might differ from my creationist colleagues. Since we CANNOT know for sure what happened in the distant past, anyones guess is sufficient to "answer" the mystery of origins. So here is mine. based on what I have read and my own deep thinking based on reason and known information.

I am not a "Young Earth Creationist". But I am also not an "Old Earth Creationist" either. My views float somewhere in between. I do believe that the earth has been around for millions of years. Perhaps even billions. However, I think that Human life as we know it, is relatively recent. 

I think that Adam and Eve were actual people, and were probably the first actual humans in the real current sense. I think they definitely were significant to the human race, because that is what it says in the Bible (which I hold as the ultimate truth about life on this planet). 

I'm not 100% convinced that they were literally the first people on earth. Although this is strongly iterated in the Bible. There MAY be some allegorical information in the story of Adam and Eve (as well as other parts of the Bible). What is factual and what is allegorical, if anything, we will never know for sure. 

Although speculating can be an enjoyable mental exercise. As far as what is revealed to us by God, we must basically take it on face value. I believe the story of the global flood catastrophe is true and real, although some of the information might also be somewhat allegorical in nature. I do believe the ark was an actual device used by God to preserve a remnant of non-aquatic life, and i am NOT convinced that the flood was local. I do believe that the flood was a global event and that the surface of the planet was significantly changed by it. 

I reject in the strongest possible terms the notion that humans and apes descended from a "common ancestor". I believe that those remains labeled as proto-human are either ancient human or ape remains. I reject the assumptive nature of scientists who extrapolate complete and detailed information from a single tooth, or a small skull fragment. I reject completely the artistic rendering of proto-humans based more on artistic imagination than science, and then displayed as scientific "reality". TO BE CONTINUED...