Replies

"If there was such extraordinary evidence for macro evolution there would be no need to resort to the lies and distortions found in most text books on the subject."

I know nothing about the "lies and distortions" you claim, nor "extraordinary evidence for macro evolution."

What I do know is just what science says: small changes continued over long periods of time can add up to large changes. So according to science, the ONLY difference between micro and macro evolution is the time period we chose to study.

But you anti-evolutionists take that word "macro-evolution" and twist it, bend it all out of shape to use as a weapon against science. Why? What's so hard for you about making small changes over long periods of time?

I know nothing about the “lies and distortions” you claim, nor “extraordinary evidence for macro evolution.”

You should educate yourself about the lies and distortions. As for the ‘extraordinary evidence’ Darwinists claim that decent from a common ancestor is a fact that cannot be questioned because of the overwhelming evidence.

Micro evolution is what is observed and able to be studied. Macro evolution is an incorrect extrapolation of the data. Again, if if you studied my lawn at night under a spotlight and cannot see any surrounding landscape, you might extrapolate the observations to conclude that the earth is flat and covered in short grass. That conclusion would be wrong.

But you anti-evolutionists take that word “macro-evolution” and twist it, bend it all out of shape to use as a weapon against science. Why? What's so hard for you about making small changes over long periods of time?

There is nothing hard to accept about small changes over a long period of time. The only thing you get from these small changes is rearranging already existing information, corruption or loss of information and duplication of information. No new complex systems arise over long periods of time.