What you are trying to say is not coming across right. You obviously do not read up on the theory/belief of Creation by a higher being, so your statement is chuck full of inaccuracies. Most devout atheists are good at ignoring facts and turning away from anything that poses a challenge to their fractured way of learning. Lets piece apart your arguments, shall we? "macroevoloution" and "microevoloution" are 2 different things, first off. Second, who is it that you are refering to? To blindly assume that human kind evolved from some unknown, unreported creature with no scientific proof is not very scientific. Hog-wash would be a better description. "they _start_ with claiming that man are not directly related to bacteria", again, who is refering to this? Please do not quote Jerry Fallwell. There are "quacks" in every camp. If you are refering to the idea that some Creationists use the "primordial soup" with God adding in the dumplings and cabbage to make it all work, this is hypocricy at its worst. I neither condone nor advocate such hog-wash. And those skelatal remains you are refering to are not complete. Matter of fact, no complete skeleton of man earlier than 30,000 years is "complete" from head to toe. "Lucy" was a hoax/mistake and folks fell for it. Hook, line, and sinker. (And no, I am not talking about the hit 50's series TV show) Carbon dating is as much a method of interpretation as it is a tool. Why is it that no method of carbon dating has been established that reproduces the same results within 1500 years? the farther and farther back that "scientists" try and use carbon dating, the less and less accurate their findings are. to the point where dating an actual object just 3,000 years old (catacombs in egyptian salt mines) shows that human remains are nearly 50,000 years old? C'mon. Science are art are more alike than what humanists care to believe. You MUST put forth creationism if you are going to teach evolution. Notice, I said "teach". NOT PREACH!!! There is a difference. God Bless.