Definitions - Macroevolution

These definitions represent those used by the proponents of evolution in the first section and myself in the second. It is for the reader to determine which set is the logical, useful set, and which is not.
== Proponents of Evolution Defintions ==
* Macroevolution
* Microevolution
* Universal Common Descent - Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all known living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one ancient, original species (broadly defined as a communal population of organisms exchanging genetic material).
== Definitions I Use ==
* Science - A word from the Latin "scientia" which means "to know". Ideally, science is a system of knowledge based on objective truth and concerned with discovering laws by which the universe is governed.
* Scientific Method - Any method that is logically organized to discover objective realities of the universe through observation and experimentation. A typical example might be:
*# Observe an event or problem or ask a question.
*# Form a hypothesis.
*# Test and refine the hypothesis.
*# If a hypothesis is proved false, discard and start over at #2.
*# If a hypothesis has been tested a reasonable number of times and not been proved false, promote to theory.
*# Test and refine the theory.
*# If a theory is proved false, discard and start over at #2.
*# If a theory is proved true with no logical possibility of exception, promote to law.
* Hypothesis - a precisely stated premise that explains an event, solves a problem, or answers a question.
* Theory - a hypothesis (still a single, precisely stated premise) that has been tested and refined a reasonable number of times and has not yet been proven false. A theory generally has a body of supporting data called a theoretical model that is not the theory, but that backs up the theory to some degree
* Law - a theory (still a single, precisely stated premise) that has been tested and refined to a point where it has been proven true without logical possibility for exception. Usually this means the theory has been refined to a mathematical equation (E.g. F = m(dv)/t + v(dm)/t)
There are three methods for testing a hypothesis or theory:
* Logic test - compare the hypothesis to known laws of the universe to determine if it is logically possible. (E.g. Hypothesis - "there is such a thing as a triangle with four interior angles." This is not logical since, by definition, triangles only have three interior angles. I do not have to search the entire universe for a four interior angled triangle or perform laboratory experiments to try to create one to know that the hypothesis is false)
* Direct test - this is the method of direct measuring and observation. Typically this is perceived as the nerds in lab coats with test tubes and so on, but can be done anywhere in the universe where variables, controls, technology, and human observation are used to explore the universe as it exists now. (E.g. The Grand Canyon is 446km long.)
* Indirect test - this is a combination of the other two methods. It is the most powerful and most abused method of testing. The indirect method of testing takes what is observed or measured directly and draws conclusions about things which cannot be directly observed or measured. The indirect method can be used to test things that are happening now that we cannot directly observe (E.g. Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from our sun), or events that happened in the past that were not and cannot now be observed (E.g. The Grand Canyon formed over a specific period of time X by method Y).
Most people reject the validity of the Indirect Method when we are discussing religious things or God, but accept it just fine when talking about naturalism-only origins of the universe and macroevolution.  It cannot be both ways.  If one rejects the indirect method as a valid way to reason to the existence of God, then one must also reject it as a valid way to reason to the Big Bang, abiogenesis of the first life, or macroevolution.  
What their real hang up is, is not the method, but the premise that science can reason to the supernatural and immaterial.  However, they can give nothing more than an assertion that science can't do that.  When we use such things as the Law of Cause and Effect, we study generally material effects, but the cause does not have to be limited to that and can be reasoned to using the indirect method.