Attempting to promulgate macroevolution as anything but hypothetical is not only disingenuous, but a flagrant violation of forum rules as well.
Consider this a warning…
My first question is is it actually a rule of the forum that I have to present my opinion as a hypothetical, using phrases such as "what if" and "if this were the case then..."? This seems like an unreasonable rule to me that severely hinders communication and I see no reason for it. I do not consider macroevolution to be hypothetical, that is not my position, am I not allowed to argue my position?
My second question is whether or not this rule (if it is indeed a rule) applies equally to the other side of the debate. Are creationists required to speak of creationism as if it were only a hypothetical? I have seen many instances where this does not occur. If this is not the case then can someone explain the blatant double standard that exists here?
I'm hoping someone can clear this up and I am hoping I am misunderstanding the statement I quoted, or that the mod who made it was in error, otherwise I see little value in posting here and I see the stated intent of the forum (civil discourse on the question of orgin) to be a farce.