We see common ancestry in DNA sequencing.<quoted text>
really? Argue your point, not someone else's knowledge of the subject. This is childish and everyone has Google if you want to know what a scientific theory is.
I'll agree with you there, creationism is not science, it is either a factual or fictitious event, untestable and incomprehensible by science. I don't think the business of trying to prove creation scientifically is one with an end. What IS science is scrutinizing the currently accepted theory, scientifically, based on observable evidence.
Since we cannot see the completion of a single instance of macroevolution (don't act like you don't know what this means) from one species to another - i.e. it takes millions of years -- it makes the theory of evolution very difficult to approach by observable, reproducible expirimentation. That's my main problem with proponents of the theory who hold it so tightly as truth. The best friend of these proponents is to describe small incremental changes WITHIN a species and try to prove the unprovable by this evidence. Would it hurt to admit there may be problems with the current theory? Or has science finally achieved it's first ever completely correct, immutable theory, which will now be considered infalible...like the Pope?
Please reply without insults, try to keep to the topic being discussed.
Thanks for adding the Pope to your rant. We now know everything about you worth knowing.