eDM wrote: ‘What, exactly, is the supposed evidence that would definitively prove evolution but doesn’t actually exist? If you have that evidence, it is scientifically sound, and your experiments/observations are repeatable by any knowledgeable life scientist, why haven’t you published it yet?’
Truthfully neither evolution nor creation can be considered science because you can not go back and repeat history. On a micro/natural adaptation level - yes - proven, confirmed and agreed on by both groups [see last link below].
eDM wrote: ‘The burden of proof is really on you [WHO? Which group claims the science is settled as fact?] to produce it. On the science side, we have countless thousands of pieces of evidence that support the ToE as the mechanism responsible for the diversity of life that we see today.’
Well what evidence do you [or evolution] have exDemMom to prove macro-evolution? Change from one kind into another has never been proven and zero missing links found.
If you have a love of truth no matter where it leads, integrity, and are open minded then maybe you could examine the creation interpretation of the same evidence and see how completely the puzzle pieces fit together in defense of the Bible.
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
No, you can't go back in time to observe history, but there is enough evidence in the fossil record to piece together how evolution has proceeded throughout the last few billions of year.
Well what evidence do you [or evolution] have exDemMom to prove macro-evolution? Change from one kind into another has never been proven and zero missing links found.
Seriously, I find ridiculous the creationist claims that a lightning-fast process of microevolution is in effect, but the gradual process of macroevolution cannot possibly occur. If, in fact, rapid microevolution occurred, humans should have seen massive speciation occurring after the biblical floods that presumably wiped out all life (plant and animal) on earth, except for the few organisms that Noah could cram aboard his boat (along with enough food and bedding to last several months). That kind of speciation within the last 4-5 thousand years would have been recorded in written history. It's not. The literal creationist concept of rapid microevolution is supported neither by science nor by the Bible.
I should also point out that the idea of "missing links" is a red herring. Since we cannot produce from the fossil record an example of every generation of any species to show its evolution over time, literal creationists will always bring up that claim of "missing links".