Creationism is a Rational Belief System

Here is a video that sums up Evolution for me. The video is very long but within only a few minutes of watching, one can get the idea of the typical Atheist's actual knowledge of the Theory of Evolution, which is a central piece of the Atheist faith/lack of faith. http://youtu.be... For starters, the Theory of Evolution doesn't disprove God if true. Why should a Creationist fear any discovery of how God created life? They shouldn't. No fact should worry a Creationist. No future facts should worry a Creationist. Can Atheists in general say the same if the God's existence were proven somewhere in the future? Would they then bow down on their knees and greet Him with happiness? Good question. Nevertheless, from a purely scientific viewpoint, I challenge the Theory of Evolution as a student and studied person in the fields within biological sciences with no hesitation because if that is the direction of the debate, I welcome it, and not as a "Creationist", but as a lover of the truth no matter what that means or where it leads. If the Theory of Evolution is one day proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I will gladly accept that a god or God as I percieve God may have created life as we know it. Why is it that only with the existence of a god, is the scientific "process" so prone to using poor science? Every other thesis a PHD student offers must be examined heavily by many panels before it is even put into print, much less called a theory or even more so, a fact? Why is it that Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity is called by that very name in school, but Evolution and Speciation are proclaimed as though they are a 100% fact? Why is the word 'theory' never used in relation with the word evolution? In every physics class I have taken, the professor told us that Einstein had a theory. And humanity sees evidence of Einstein's theory all around the observable universe. So why does the Theory of Evolution get higher billing than the Theory of Relativity? This is a question, but is a rhetorical one from my perspective. What corrupted group would want God/gods or judgement/accountability to be true or validated? I believe the answer is probably none, and not even the "church" itself in some instances of malicious corruption. History combined with Arcaeology have writings that date back to approximately 3000 BC. The first known written language is called Cuneiform, and it was invented in Sumer. So here is what we have in theory: the agonizingly super slow development of the human mind getting smarter and improved over millions of years with no good or reliable proof of written language. Magically, humanity one day learns to write, and then over a stretch of a tiny seven thousand years people begin to build metrolike societies, and humanity works together in the field od agriculture. Then cities are built, vast and complex buildings are constructed, and advancements in the knowledge of alloys and metals burst into reality all around planet Earth, weapons go from archaeic to amazingly complex, and humanity goes from throwing spears to building nuclear warheads, atom bombs, and gps guided weapontry of highly capable devastion and destruction. Transportation suddenly can carry mankind across continents in years, months, weeks, and down to hours, even to the place where humans have journeyed into outerspace. Communication goes from primitive, to letters, books, and then twitter and e-mail to most anyone on Earth. The mind boggling growth of our human mind over the last seven thousand years kills the theory of grueling multi million year development of human thought. There is one possible explanation for all of this. By some unexplainable phenomenon, a tiny piece of the human mind suddenly spurted out an extra five inches of nerve endings that miraculously enlightened most everyone all around the world. Then, perhaps for no reason at all, out human "forfathers" were all able to sit down with a rock and chisel and start writing poetry and concepts of gods or a god. The concept of a young Earth is meaningless in thought to me. I have no way of knowing how long "Adam", which is simply the Hebrew word for man, was around before the "fall" and given an age at that point. Most Creationists don't read the Adam and Eve story as literal for many reasons such as Adam being a word as opposed to a name in Hebrew, serpent being a title given to any evil entity in other Biblical references, nakedness being athe revealing of many times cold, dark truth of someone's being, track es being entities in other Biblical reference, and fruit being something that examplifies who someone really is and what their motives and desires are in reality, and all according to otherBiblical references yet again. Simply put, Biblical Adam and his/their age in reference to how long they were on Earth is unprovable as far as trying to come up with Adm's exact day of birth in references to his age given from the point of the fall onward. In theory, Adam was a million years old before the fall. It's semantics to argue how long "Adam" was actually here on Earth. We also cannot prove beyond doubt that Adam and Eve didn't have 50,000 kids before the "fall". It's all guesswork at best. Here is a National Geographic documentary on DNA and how it relates to Biblical Adam. https://youtu.be...