Correction, micro and macro ARE fundamentally different processes. So-called "micro-evolution" is merely adaption through a loss or modification of existing genetic material, e.g. anoles modifying their limb size to more effectively escape a newly introduced predator on a secluded island (that's a recorded study, BTW). "Macro-evolution" requires the addition of new genetic material to an already existing format, e.g. for something like a fish to evolve into something like an amphibian into something like a reptile, as the process of geological evolution suggests. Our ancestors evolved scales, lost scales, and evolved scales again? Why couldn't they have just been created alongside each other rather than regain lost genetic material as is contrary to known biological principles?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but is life not imaginative to you? Are you saying loons, giant siphonophores, sperm whales and black-tipped reef sharks aren't amazing creatures because they don't have wheels, ray guns or laser beams? Mind you, God's creation is quite imaginative. He created the first submarines (whales), the first trumpets (hadrosaurs), the first projectile weaponry (archer fish and bombardier beetles), the first light shows (anything from lightning bugs to the giant siphonophore), the first jet-propulsion (cephalopods), as well as technological feats we have yet to accomplish such as active camouflage (chameleons and also cephalopods). And you're telling me life is unimaginative? The case may be that God could have created animals with wheels, but He simply didn't because He created other perfectly functional forms of terrestrial locomotion. What's sobering to me is your limited perception of Earth's astounding complexity and diversity. Here you are providing your own opinion of "imaginative" as evidence for evolution? Boohoo, animals don't have wheels (on a side-note I'd like to suggest that limbs are more effective than wheels anyway, as they allow for easier traverse over rough terrain... Imagine if a JEEP could simply walk over a deep river or jagged rocks... Maybe God preferred limbs more than wheels).

Forgive me sir, but I'd rather you not dodge the bullet with with your personal opinions. That's not scientific. I was expecting a legitimate response. I was expecting you to convince me that the methods supporting geological evolution are solid. Can you convince me that dating methods are accurate, or even legitimate? Have you ever dated rock for yourself? Or did you grow up believing geological evolution was true because it's the mainstream belief? And how can you be sure that the fossil record is as organized as is claimed? That fossil layers providing Jurassic dinosaurs are legitimately younger than fossil layers providing Permian pelycosaurs? You evolutionists say that if two fossils of the same kind are found in separate layers, those layers are definitely mutual in age; and you use erosion as an excuse for any discrepancies. Tell me how you can be sure everything died in their respective geological formations and were distorted by erosion as opposed to everything having been dispersed by their respective ecosystems during a world-wide flood? Did Allosaurus live during the Jurassic and T. rex during the Cretaceous, or did they belong to separate ecosystesms which were layered in the same geographical location when global flood waters advanced and receded? Personal opinion doesn't convince me, legitimate proof does. So convince me that geological evolution is irrefutably true.

Yeah. I have quite a few issues with him.