Is evolution based on empirical science?

[huaxiong90]

Cirio said:

Also, macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutions put together; they both explain the same concepts and observations only macroevolution is at a greater scale. In fact, the two terms are pointless because they explain the same thing, but for whatever reason many creationists choose to use macroevolution as a scapegoat or as the basis of their arguments because they don't have any other evidence to back their claims. If you're arguing against macroevolution but supporting microevolution, then you unfortunately don't know what you're talking about...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of microevolution and macroevolution. Enlighten me, then. And I don't mean simplistic explanations like the underlined. Actually explain what changes within the species, give examples of this that can be supported, instead of insulting me, saying "the nonsense I'm spewing is just embarrassing" (assuming you were referring to me when you said that).

Also, I'm a religious person. But some of the nonsense a few creationists spew is sometimes embarrassing.

Honestly, I should have just quit this thread after my first post, as I REALLY do not want to be entangled in a battle of semantics, but whatever...