Replies

If you think macroevolution is any different than the process of microevolution, you are a creationist.

There is no evidence for macroevolution, so to get people to believe it the scientists say it is the same process as microevolution. It is the classic bait and switch, and really not becoming of the scientific community, since they should deal in facts. But the evolutionary sciences have been taken over by rabid atheists who push this on us.

If macroevolution is so based in fact, why did Gould have to come up with punctuated equilibrium in the 70s to try to save it?

I believe we werer created but I do not believe in studying it as a science. Science is a tool, good for some things, bad for others. It is bad at explaining the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Those theories may be useful for scientists but really involve much more speculation than theories that can be scientifically tested.

For example, the concept that since we have similar bone structures to earlier living things that we have a common ancestor is an inference. It is either true or false as an inference independent of the evidence. Since there are many possible explanations for these similarities besides the concept of common descent, I find the inference highly speculative; it certainly cannot be logically proven.