my current wonderment - evolution

I have been taught half my life that the earth is millions of years old. They tried to sell me on the evolution thing too, but even to a philisophical wanderer on the road to offbeat ideas this sounded ridiculous. It still does. I see no evidence in all of this world that anything ever evolved from anything else. Microevolution I can see, it's apparent. I would maybe even attribute the taxanomical level of family to microevolution. I can see how the idea of macroevolution could form off of this premise and observation. BUT. Here it is: the idea that the earth and everything in it is millions and millions of years old is a neccessary assumption in this line of thinking. This idea is a bold one.

The main idea is that if we can observe microevolution, and also assuming that the earth is millions and millions of years old, we can assume that maybe microevolution can be expanded to macroevolution over that long timeframe. General evolution is a theory based off of the ideas of utility and simplicity.

The changes that occur between generations must be simple and useful for that species. This means that if a brown bear decided or was compelled for some unknown reason to move to the arctic regions, that over many generations the progeny of said brown bear with lighter colored fur would be more likely to survive, and therefore more likely to reproduce, making each successive generation more likely to have light colored fur. The bears who are born with darker fur are assumed to not survive as well as the ones with lighter fur. Now thinking about the climate of the arctic circle, mostly ice, mostly white, this would make sense. A white bear would be camouflaged by the white snow and therefore be more able to kill prey in order to survive. It's common prey, the arctic seal, would see a brown bear coming a mile away and be more able to escape. The situation has caused the brown bear's fur to turn increasingly lighter in color, and other internal changes to as well to cope with the severely cold temperatures. This is called adaptation, and is an example of microevolution. The changes are useful, and rather simple in nature.

The above example could fully take place (speculatively, of course) within probably 20 to 30 generations, or about a thousand years. Now, evolutionists would say, imagine this dramatic process spread out over 2 million years (1000 x 2000) and let's dream up what could happen, and then use that speculation to try to explain the fossil record.

Let's stop for a second and take a step back. Microevolution is fairly observable. Geneticists can tell you that. Macroevolution (the process of, say, a reptile turning into a bird) just at face value seems silly. It is purely speculative and evidence exists that strongly opposes its plausibility. But I'm not here to argue macroevolution. That is for people who are more interested in it than I. I fully reject it as a theory or fact or whatever you want to call it. It's an atheist's wet dream. I do want to look at the root issue of macroevolution, however, namely the concept of millions of years.

This to be continued...