Darwin's basic evolution idea -- descent with modifications and natural selection -- is not in any sense a "religion", but a scientific theory, since it meets the first rule of science: natural explanations for natural processes.
fish hawk: "they talk like there is fossil evidence when there isn’t,"
Of course, there are literal tons of fossils, which you can see yourself in most any large museum.
So why would you even attempt to deny what everyone can clearly see?
fish hawk: "...put down creationists because they have faith ( so that is religion and not science)"
If you feel insulted by evolutionists, you may be running with the wrong crowd... time to find some new friends?
In fact, science by definition cannot deal with religious questions.
Science has nothing, nothing to say about theology, spirituality or any metaphysical understandings.
Those are all outside the realms of science.
So, if some scientist does speak of those matters, then he/she is only speaking their own personal opinions.
Of course, such opinions do carry some weight, but only as much as you grant them.
fish hawk: "evos have absolutely no proof to lay out before us fossil or otherwise but they have faith that someday they will dig it up ( religion not science)."
"Proof" is not the proper word for a scientific hypothesis.
You never "prove" a hypothesis, you only confirm it by making valid predictions and running falsifiable tests.
Since the evolution hypothesis has been confirmed many times, it is classified as a theory -- until some new data turns up to potentially falsify it. And of course there are literal tons of fossils and mountains of other supporting evidence confirming evolution theory.
fish hawk: "The[y] play like the first and second laws of thermodynamics ( and entropy) does not exist. (which of course makes evolution impossible)..."
In no possible way does entropy make evolution impossible, since the earth is not now and never has been a closed system.
From Day One of Earth's existence it has been bathed in a steady source of new energy, from the son.
This steady new energy, in the sun's "Goldilocks zone" -- not to hot, not too cold -- makes it not just possible but inevitable that life will flourish and increase once established.
fish hawk: "...Mathematics which tells ;us that if life was by selection and time and chance, it would be a one with enough zeros behind it to fill enough book pages to reach to the moon if stacked up."
Such calculations are phony-to-the-max when you consider that Earth's oceans, land & air are chock full of just that many single-celled critters, all of them reproducing every few hours for the past four billion years, and each reproduction resulting in one or more mutations.
The more likely hypothesis is that when conditions are exactly right, there's no possible way that life could not arise.
But that idea is not yet confirmed, and so remains a scientific hypothesis.
fish hawk: "So how ‘bout YOU entering here your absolute proof of evolution, NOT Micro (changes in a species like dogs and bird beaks) but Macro, dogs to cats, lizards to birds chimps to man.)
Of course, nobody except anti-evolutionists make such claims.
What scientists talk about are common ancestors of various living species.
Fossil, DNA and radio-metric evidence suggests that the last common ancestors of humans and chimps may have lived circa 4 million years ago.
The last common ancestors of dogs and cats may have lived 70 million years ago, of lizards and birds maybe 200 million years ago, etc.
So evidence shows that one didn't evolve into the other, rather both evolved from something which lived long ago.
As for the alleged problem of "micro" versus "macro" evolution -- all evolution is "micro" evolution, a few small changes in every generation, accumulated over hundreds of thousands and millions of generations to produce new breeds, species, genera and families, etc.
It only appears to be "macro-evolution" when you compare species with last common ancestors many millions of years ago.
fish hawk: "If you can show us that, you have more proof than the leading Evo scientist alive today."
Again, science doesn't "prove" a theory, but confirms it by verified predictions and falsifiable tests -- both of which evolution theory has in redundant abundance.
fish hawk: "Question: what evidence proves that life evolved from nonliving molecules?
Evos answer: Don’t reject a scientific theory just because you have a religious prejudice.
This is because they can’t answer the question."
No, not "theory" -- there are now several scientific hypotheses dealing with the origin of life on Earth, ranging from various forms of abiogenesis to panspermia.
None of these hypotheses are strongly confirmed and therefore none qualify as "theory".
At this point, one scientific guess is as good as another, and the most likely answer is: contributions from each plausible hypothesis.
fish hawk: "Try reading... Read these and point out to us all the false info in them."
It's already been done, by people far more qualified than I am.
But, if you have summarized here some of their arguments, then I have summarized the responses.
And if you wish to discuss some points further, then feel free to raise your issues here.
Ha! Now there's a Freudian slip I'll happily own up to. ;-)