02 Apr '05 03:30>
A common claim of creationists is that the theory of macroevolution cannot be proved, and experiments cannot be done that would give strong evidence for it. This may or may not be true. Let's assume it is.
Macroevolution is an extrapolation of something that can be studied via experimentation and has been basically (as much as anything can be) proved: microevolution.
Creationism is not. Therefore macroevolution is superior to creationism.
Would anyone like to argue the opposite?
Macroevolution is an extrapolation of something that can be studied via experimentation and has been basically (as much as anything can be) proved: microevolution.
Creationism is not. Therefore macroevolution is superior to creationism.
Would anyone like to argue the opposite?