People witnessing events in history can falsify "original" records much easier scientific evidence can be falsified that can be reviewed with secondary opionions over and over. Therefore I believe scientific evidence represented by fossils over human "history" any day.
As far as a difference between so-called "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", the only real difference is time. There is no Creationist theory even attempts to explain how mutations stop at some arbitrary "species" boundary. There is no Creationist theory on what exactly differentiates one species from another.
I suppose that's to be expected, since Creationists do no real scientific work on their own. They merely research traditional science done by others and attempt to poke holes in it.
The Creationism gig reminds me of the french guy who claims that 9/11 was a CIA plot, and he "proves" it by poking holes in evidence collected about 9/11. Kennedy assasination plots are similar. Finding "missing links" to gripe about about gun firing speed, etc.
#####As far as a difference between so-called "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution", the only real difference is time. There is no Creationist theory even attempts to explain how mutations stop at some arbitrary "species" boundary. There is no Creationist theory on what exactly differentiates one species from another.#####
There areobservable species boundaries. That's why we can breed dogs down to the size of a Chihuahua but not down to the size of a flea. It's why we can breed dogs up to the size of a Great Dane but not the size of an elephant. It's why we can breed dogs with a variety of features, but wings aren't one of them.
Whoa, you are making a circular argument. Don't compare history to science then back out of it again. Re-read your posts dude.