Is evolution based on empirical science?

[huaxiong90]

Lafiel said:

huaxiong90 said:

_mevildan said:

huaxiong90 said:

This is all I'm going to say:

Microevolution = Fact, and not up for debate.

Macroevolution = (Unsubstantiated) Theory.

This one often comes out in evolution debates. I'm guessing either you have read a lot about the subject and formed this conclusion independently, or... you've been watching videos by Ken Ham, Kent Hovind or Carl Baugh.

If you want some substantiation for Macroevolution, then check this out.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

WTF?! Dude, I couldn't care less about young earth creationists, never mind the fact that I'm not even a Christian. I actually look up this info on my own.

And I've already read that link. But there's a lot of logical fallacies in there, particularly the apes and humans part. It doesn't matter how much we spin circumstantial evidence to support our claims...macroevolution will remain a theory until concrete, undeniable proof is brought forward, with all parameters checked.

Until then, like I said: Microevolution is what's established as an undeniable fact (and I don't deny any bit of its scope)...macroevolution is not even close to that point.

and so will gravitation until we find the cause I guess

until then non-believers are free to fly away

Difference: Gravitation is substantiated. Strongly. VERY strongly.