What, exactly, is “macro gradualism?” Moreover, can you define explicitly what you think “macroevolution” is? As cosmology has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary biology, we can ignore your curious statement that this discipline has somehow falsified “macroevolution” (whatever that means here), and instead we can focus on some of the biological data you allude to. Would you mind explicitly enumerating the biological and other pertinent data which have refuted evolutionary biology?
Can you please explicitly define “theory” and “hypothesis” sensu stricto, i.e., in the way in which they are used by the scientific community. Moreover, to reject one paradigm you must advance evidence in defense of another. It is not sufficient to not propose an explicit alternative hypothesis to model the data in question.
As evolutionary biology can be considered a historical narrative explanation, and thus verified on the basis of induction, might you care to explain to us why and how one would go about a formal proof for that which does not employ them?
What to you constitutes a transitional fossil? Is BMNH 37001 a transitional? HMN 1880? JM 2257? What of IVPP V 10895? IVPP V 10919-10925? BVP 538A and 538B? IVPP V 11303? How about LH-22? The Catalan hatchling? Maybe USNM 336535? YPM 1459? USNM 244318? BQ-59? BQ-50? If none of these are transitional fossils, then tell us why they aren’t. Explicit enumeration of the morphological evidence indicating that they are not transitionals would be ideal.
Given that evolutionary biology has endured 150 years of testing via the Popperian falsification criterion, it is certainly warranted to state that it is a robust theory.
And on what explicit grounds does the fossil record not overwhelmingly corroborate evolutionary biology?
First and foremost the fossil record overwhelmingly corroborates evolutionary biology, which neither you nor anyone else on this thread has demonstrated otherwise. Moreover, there are multiple independent lines of evidence, from genetics to paleontology, which substantiate evolutionary biology. You propose as an alternative hypothesis, that of common design, presumably in this case equivalent to ID. Could you provide an explicit definition for the following:
I will let the Infidels take over this and all future evolution threads to get you creationists edumacated. 
That represents 43,000+ scientists since approx 1% of the population is a “Steve.” You aren’t reading this carefully, they mentioned your list. The Project Steve is a parody of such creationist lists supposedly questioning or denying evolution. What the Project Steve demonstrates is there is indeed enormous acceptance of macoevolution among modern science. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution (attributed to biologist Dobzhansky who was also Russian Orthodox).
First, I didn’t say it wasn’t robust. It certainly is, and my comments, moreover, alluded to this fact. The criticism however is that the evolutionist is usually in the bad business of overstatement, and the individual who had posted (to whom I was replying) was no exception to this unfortunate practice.
By not providing an obvious chain of links from one organism to another. That is, it seems to me, the only explicit grounds possible, no?
No, I’m sorry, you’ve switched the cart and horse here. It is on the shoulders of the one postively putting forth the theory (or supporting it) where the responsibility lies to provide evidence. Again, evolution is an historical argument regarding origins. Therefore, historical evidence must be supplied and be truly overwhelming before any support can be legitimately had from the fossil record. It is not on me to show the lack of real links, naturally, since if there are no links I’m aware of to show, there would be nothing for me to provide. It is on the evolutionist to provide the positive evidence for his position.
No, I’m not confident that I could supply an adequate definiton here, but undoubtedly it would incorporate aspects of Behe’s irreducible complexity arguments, along with Remine’s general thesis.
The scientist who first fantasizes this is Satan’s advocate, I hope you’re not one of them.
Everybody pay attention. This is called the “I don’t understand evolution, therefore it is not true” argument with a little of “If monkeys still exist, how can there be humans?” argument mixed in. These have already been dealt with by Vindex Urvogel. Please go back and read the entire thread.To all evolutionist from my simple observation, well I can see lots of monkeys and as well human still today, but if the evolution in true why I can’t see half human and half monkey or nearly human face monkeys roaming at the downtown buying their clothes or talking monkey at the counter, the link is missing, why?
Here is the answer from TalkOrigins Now I understand some of the Catholic converts from fundamentalism (I’m cradle myself) having a fondness for “creationism” as science, but please pick up a few good books first.
Though it is difficult to constructively examine this criticism without an explicit evidentiary standard advanced on your part on the matter of the fossil record vis-a-vis evolution, I think we can at least take one alleged specimen displaying intermediate morphologies between clades and examine it. There are a wealth of specimens from which to choose, but I think the point best illustrated by picking one of the more obscure but more excellent, to demonstrate that the evolutionist need not run to *Archaeopteryx lithographica *(though the urvogel serves admirably in this case) to demonstrate a transitional fossil. Thus, let us examine RTMP 86.36.457, a braincase of Troodon formosus (Currie & Zhao 1993). For the less inspired amongst us, who haven’t the fortunate predisposition to things archosaurian, Troodontidae (Gilmore 1924d=Saurornithoididae sensu Barsbold 1974) are small theropods known from Cretaceous sediments of the Northern Hemisphere. Though fairly rare and fragmentary in the fossil record, the past several years have witnessed a renaissance in our understanding of this clade following the recovery of the most basal known troodont, Sinovenator changii (Xu et al. 2002) and other similarly basal forms (e.g., Byronosaurus jaffei Makovicky et al. 2003). A close phylogenetic relationship between Troodontidae and Aves has been postulated several times (e.g., Currie 1985, 1987, Currie & Zhao 1993). Briefly, the phylogenetic relationships of troodonts vis-a-vis other maniraptorans are not clear, though there is general consensus that they constitute the sister clade of Dromaeosauridae within a monophyletic Deinonychosauria (defined phylogenetically as a node, Dromaeosauridae + Troodontidae), e.g., Xu et al. (2002), Clark et al. (2002). Prior analyses grouped Troodontidae and Ornithomimidae within Bullatosauria (e.g., Holtz 1994). The morphology of Sinovenator changii suggests that derived similarities between ornithomimosaurs and troodonts have been convergently acquired and for this I refer the reader to Xu et al.'s 2002 paper in Nature. If troodonts are close relatives of birds or neoflightless post-urvogels more closely related to the crown than is *Archaeopteryx *(e.g., Paul 1988, 2002), we should expect to see a blend of apomorphic (i.e., avian) and plesiomorphic (i.e., “typical” theropod) characters within the skeleton. This would fit admirably the standard definition of a transitional taxon as that which bridges via morphological intermediacy, two levels of organization or clades. The question thus is, what do we find when we examine the morphology of troodonts?
Or, if you don’t like troodonts, we can use, say, Confuciusornis sanctus and the cranial morphology thereof.
If you cannot explicitly define ID, which one presumes is the alternative hypothesis you have advanced over evolutionary biology, then you are not in fact making any argument at all against evolution.
and I actually pretend I know a bit about science.