"Where's the proof of this supposed macro-drift that happened over millions of years?"
Duh. There's not any. That's my point.
"Discerning patterns and making inferences? "
As long as they admit that's they are inferences we have no problem. It's when they go beyond that and refuse to admit it that there is a problem.
You: "Duh. There's not any. That's my point."
So you don't accept continental drift as a legitimate theory? No one actually witnessed it, so its just a ruse foisted on an unsuspecting public by chuckling, devious scientists? (BTW, eyewitness testimony is universally regarded as the least reliable evidence in both criminal and civil litigation.)
"As long as they admit that's they are inferences we have no problem. It's when they go beyond that and refuse to admit it that there is a problem.
Fess up, you fraudulating scientists! You are only drawing inferences from (overwhelming) circumstantial evidence! Admit it, and we'll let you off with a warning. But don't you dare try it again!