Cerrida said:
Macro evolution is a theory, which means nothing can conclusively prove it. ("a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. ")So far, all of the missing links and early humans, like Lucy, have been fake. (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html) Carbon dating showing ages is unreliable.(http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/radiocarbondating.html ) The embryos shown in every textbook have been proven to be inaccurate and misleading (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html) So, no, I don't believe in macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, which concerns changes in a single population, is a proven fact.
SOME OF Haeckel's embryo PICTURES were faked. Subsequent evidence, including direct photography of embryos, has supported the idea that evolution acts on embryos just like it acts on anything else. So your claims about embryology are a lie.
There are no "missing links". It's a flawed concept, stemming from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution--namely, expecting to see one organism give rise to a contemporaraneous organism. What we DO see, frequently, in the fossil record is a clear line of descendants from a common ancestor. Take birds--we've pretty firmly established that birds arose from therapod dinosaurs (the details are a bit hazy, but we're working on that). Or, check out gastropod evolution.
If you're going to call Lucy a fake, please cite the evidence for it--and it had better stand up to peer review. As far as I know, no knowledgeable anthropologist or paleontologist has determined Lucy to be a fake. In fact, there have only been a handful of faked homnonid fossils, all of which were discovered to be fake by scientists (usually well before Creationists say they were discovered to be fake). So this is a lie.
As far as carbon dating goes, it's funny that you utterly fail to discuss...well, anything about it. I mean, if you want to talk about the Mount St. Helens data, you have to also mention that 1) the lab the Creationists sent the samples to told them that it wouldn't work and why, in their official report (which, if I recall correctly, is publicly available, and 2) the Creationists in question used methods that they knew would yield false answers, because the minerals they used and the isotopes they used had closing temperatures far different from the temperatures the eruption reached--meaning that they were never testing the Mount St. Helens eruption, but rather when those minerals cooled deep within the Earth. Also, there has been a LOT of research on radiometric dating techniques--IN MEDICINE. Where we can actually watch how the isotopes act over many half-lives. More or less everything we predicted based on nuclear chemistry holds true, and being as there is no reason to assume that long-lived isotopes behave differently from short-lived ones, we can assume that, properly applied, radiometric dating is valid. In short, this is nothing but a nest of lies and lies, intentionally misleading and often openly fraudulent.
As for your definition of theory, nice equivocation. Unfortunately, the scientific definition is not the common one. There are actually a few definitions of "theory" in science, but there are two common themes: tremendous, consistent support, and an explanation for a wide range of observations. Evolution has both. It's as firmly established as the theory of gravity (well, more so truth be told--we at least all agree on what causes evolution!), or cell theory, or the germ theory of diseases.
