Those that are proponents of evolution to explain molecule to man evolution have changed the evolutionary tree of life continually to fit their understanding of the current science. In addition, if you take a look at a tree of life, much of it is conjecture based on what one would like it to look like if it were the nice neat package you would like it to be. Current textbooks all show a tree of life with dotted or shaded lines where there is no fossil record to prove the genetic lineage. In addition, the fossil record is not uniform around the globe and evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion in which the majority of phyla show up fully formed and haven't changed since then.

It sounds like you do a lot of reading of material that simply supports your own assumptions. Please think critically about what you believe. The idea that just a simple cell has been (somewhat recently) discovered to be a like a metropolis in its intricacies and interdependency. If any one of its processes did not evolve at the exact same time as all the others, the cell cannot function. That is simply a cell, not a complete organism.

Can you describe to me what part of evolution is observable? Have you witnessed the process (supposedly over millions, nay, billions of years)? The fossil record is woeful and proves nothing except that man will believe anything but God. Almost all of what science currently puts forth to be intermediary beings is based on either remains that are obviously human, primate, or are tiny fragments that have been surrounded by artist's renderings of what that creature "must" have looked like. Much of what science trumped up as those "missing links" have now been revealed to be hoaxes. See Nebraska man (Scopes trial), and Piltdown man. Even the famed "Lucy" is said to have walked upright by nothing more than similar leg bones to humans. Other apes living today have similar leg bone structures and don't walk upright. Again, where is the observation of Lucy's walking upright? In addition, Neandertal has been touted as some transitionary creature, but his brain capacity was actually larger than ours, and the skull features can be found in our current human population. As for ID, it is not a replacement for Creationism, but it a smarter and more supportable position than is evolution.

Exactly, these words (mutations, adaptions, evolution) are so used interchangeably that they confuse the lay person. Mutations always result in a loss of genetic information, or are neutral. Do we agree that a progression from a molecule to a human is upward and doesn't represent a loss of genetic information? Then evolution in that sense is completely irrational and disproven by science.

Your point regarding it as unobserved is also true. When did science become about arbitrary assumptions and not repeatable, observable, testable, theories? Evolution is not science, it is an argument built by people that will believe in anything, (including aliens seeding the Earth, see Dawkins) but a God that may hold them accountable. It's actually childish and petulant.

You, sir, do seem to understand a good portion of the science behind this debate. However, I think you need to state whether what you are describing as evolution is molecule to man evolution or the adaptive processes that are inherent in all living things. It may seem like semantics, but it is inherently different and the science to prove each is very different. We know from research in genetics, that information can never be gained (an upward evolution), but only stays stagnate or is lost with adaption. Can you scientifically (meaning observable, testable, repeatable science) prove when information has been added to DNA (outside of intelligent i.e. "human") intervention. As a Christian, I have no problem with changes within a species (adaption), but the notion of molecule to man is far-fetched and disproven by the discovery of DNA since Darwin's time. Evolution in that sense is outdated, just like the flat-earth theory.

Can you tell me how you know that the earth is billions of years old? All dating processes depend on a relative system based on assumptions utilizing circular reasoning(i.e., the rock layer surrounding this fossil is assumed to be 500 million yrs old, because the strata below it is assumed to be 600 million yrs old). Carbon-14 dating is based on the assumption that radioactive isotopes always degrade at exactly the same rate and always have. Please look up the research being done by the organization RATE.

I find it interesting that those that argue for evolution (that something came from nothing, or better stated that information came from nothing), claim that hybridization of animals and plants proves it. Ironic, since humans (source of information) actually are the impetus for that hybridization. A creative, intelligent being began and controlled the process.