ALTERED -to- EVERYONE: According to the Macroevolution Theory, the first living organism developed from nonliving matter and became the "common ancestor" of all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. All of this is believed to have happened without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention by God. It just happened by itself (abiogenesis). The favorite theory is that abiogenesis occurred in the ocean where amino acids formed by a long string of accidents that all happened at the right time, one after the other, defying all odds and resulting in an "organic soup" which eventually produced the "common ancestor." The Genesis Creation Account, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the different kinds of life on earth exactly as they are. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018) As you can see, these two positions are exact opposites. Those who accept evolution theory argue that creation is not scientific. But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is macroevolution theory scientific? Which of these positions are in harmony with modern scientific discoveries? Keep in mind that more than 150 years have passed since Charles Darwin wrote his book Origin of Species. Charles Darwin predicted that future generations would find bones showing a whale on its way to becoming a bear and bones showing a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat. As of this date, not one single fossil (bone of long-dead animals) has been found that connects one species of animals to a completely different species. This is what paleontologists (scientists who study ancient bones) have repeatedly admitted while they continue to insist all living creatures came from a "common ancestor." In other words, the scientific evidence does not support macroevolution theory.