Creationists, myself included, do not argue about micro-evolution and adaptation. To say there is no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is simply not the truth.
First of all, there is no scientific difference between microevolution, and macroevolution other than that macroevolution
What I want, Jeff, is for you, Darwin, or any evolutionist to point to one case whereby macro-evolution, that is where one species or substance has evolved to a higher atomically different species or substance, has occured.
There is no proof...only blind speculation. Most of the leading evolutionists admit that fact. That is why there is so much effort in trying to discover the missing link. However, there is no missing link because evolution is a farse and sadly a majority have bought into the lie.
I know you guys love Darwin so I will depart with this (I have to go do water work...my labs are simply not evolving in to trained dogs...I must actually train them:cool:) :
“You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.” | Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species. As quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.
“For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible.” | Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2. Also quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984
“Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to my reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered...” | Charles Darwin, (ed. J. W. Burrow), The Origin of Species (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1974.), p. 205.
“When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change.” | Charles Darwin, 1863.
“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” | Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1st Ed., p. 186.
“A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence of a personal God, or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.” | Charles Darwin, The Morality of Evolution, Autobiography, Norton, p. 94, 1958
and this link:
Here is what the prophet Jeremiah said:
Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. (Jeremiah 2:27 KJV)
and the writer of Hebrews:
3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Hebrews 11:3 KJV)