[PatrickHenry]

Macroevolution does not meet Scientific Method:

This is addressed in point three of the lead article for this thread:

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

I suggest you read the article's rebuttal.

[F16Fighter]

"Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable."

It doesn't stop the SCIENCE "community" from insisting and advocating it be taught in SCIENCE classes as a viable theory of life's genesis, or referred to as a SCIENTIFIC theory despite it's fairy-tale odds of it being true, or in the context of "SCIENTISTS BELIEVE"...

You're right -- "Evolution IS unscientific"....

[CyberCowboy777]

I suggest you re-read the rebuttal. I have not come against Microevolution. Macroevolution does not meet the scientific method. That is a Fact. They can use whatever testing method they want, it still has yet to meet the Scientific method.

It is a theory, an ever changing quagmire of a theory.

Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt