[Jedi Master Pikachu]

And?

Macroevolution is not synonymous with science--something a lot of Macroevolutionists still don't seem to get. (An apple is a fruit, but it isn't synonymous with fruit).

In this case, Macroevolution is pseudoscience. (A rock isn't fruit).

[tricky_k_1972]

And?

Macroevolution is not synonymous with science--something a lot of Macroevolutionists still don't seem to get. (An apple is a fruit, but it isn't synonymous with fruit).

In this case, Macroevolution is pseudoscience. (A rock isn't fruit).

Oh you are so right, Macroevolution is pseudoscience, all religion is faith, not science.

Belief in God by its very definition is not and can never be science, because it can not be tested.

God, if you will, is by his very nature, from now until the end, a great hypothesis.

Belief in the Almighty can not be tested scientifically, that is what faith is, the very definition of faith.

Does that mean we can not use the scientific method on his Creation, does that mean that man can not study and try to define his Creation in the best way that we can?

I think the ultimate sacrilege would be to ignore the evidence that he has provided us in his living work, to not study his living biography that we and our universe represent.

[ndt]

"An apple is a fruit, but it isn't synonymous with fruit"

But an apple is a fruit (a pome technically) and the TOE is science.

"In this case, Macroevolution is pseudoscience."

Your pronouncements do not make it so. An example of pseudoscience would be to ascribe an event to an unmeasurable agent.