[steve-b]

With evolution, microevolutionary theories can be empirically tested, but macroevolutionary theories cannot.

Don't waste our time with this pathetic intellectual cheat. You are stuck right back where you started, unable to refute the notion that the Moon is maintained in its orbit by an invisible strand of spaghetti -- sure, "microgravitational" therory has been tested with lead balls in a lab, but nobody has done any "macrograviational" tests with entire celestial objects.

[microgood]

Don't waste our time with this pathetic intellectual cheat. You are stuck right back where you started, unable to refute the notion that the Moon is maintained in its orbit by an invisible strand of spaghetti -- sure, "microgravitational" therory has been tested with lead balls in a lab, but nobody has done any "macrograviational" tests with entire celestial objects.

Really, I have not seen speciation tested in a laboratory. Nor have I seen the big bang theory tested in a lab. They are both theories about how we got here from the distant past based on the present but are not testable.

[Havoc]

Again, I would note that the effect of gravity is observeable and that a label "gravity" was applied to the observed effect. A theory then is propounded in investigation of the causal nature. In Evolution, the opposite is true, a thoeory was concocted and people have since been out looking of an observation to hang it upon. So, no, you don't get to ride the coattails of proper science in trying to excuse what you otherwise want to call science. Gravity and evolution do not follow the same rules for their approach. Gravity is observeable in it's effect - only it's detailed cause is not understood. Evolution has a cause looking for an observation to prove it. Macroevolution is that theoretical cause - and it is not observed. Gravity is observed - macroevolution is not. This is how you sell poison. It is also how you sell lies.