DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[NoMoreFaith]

That bit from Wikipedia about the evolution of "eohippus into the modern horse" is pure fallacy that was discredited more than 40 years ago. It never happened.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html

Ooh free webpage, solid source finding there. Are you serious?

Can you please link to a reputable source providing evidence of why it is a fallacy. These fossils are dated (and by the way, up to 50 million, dating is fairly accurate to within a few million years) and show clear progression from one form to another over tens of millions of years.

If it was discredited, you should be able to point to the peer reviewed texts which do so.
Last time I checked, free angelfire webpages are not currently accepted for peer review.

According to one source, eohippus resembled a dog or a fox and the creature supposedly lived 50 million years ago. Where they got the 50 million years is anybody's guess.

Radio-carbon and uranium series dating. Sometimes biostratigraphy in cases where a fossil type has been consistently dated in many prior cases.
There is a vast difference between guessing, and estimates.

In any event, explain to me how a dog/fox-looking animal could end up looking like a modern horse! Some of these people calling themselves scientists will write anything to get their names mentioned in scientific journals.

Over 55 million years, the minute changes are evident through the fossil skeletons already provided to you.
I think the most interesting thing about this paragraph is clearly the unwillingness to even look at the evidence based on private assertion that it can't be true.

Now, if you believe that crap you will have to explain to me how they figured out the diet of an animal that died about 50 million years ago. Are we to believe the animal's stomach contents survived 50 million years when they could barely find enough bones to reconstruct the creature?

Often, Teeth.

Tell me, if you had never seen a lion before, and examined its teeth.. would you conclude it ate grass?
If you saw a cow for the first time, would you conclude from its teeth that it hunted down and ripped flesh from bone?

To put it more succinctly for you, if you dug up a fossil cow, would you conclude it sprinted around biting the heads off things? I think even you could make some logical conclusions on its diet based upon its structure.

And how did they know the creature had padded feet when no soft tissue could possibly have survived 50 million years in the ground?

Bone structure again, animals with padded feet have different foot bones.

I will agree however, that occasionally scientists get it wrong, that their assumptions are mistaken, but the process is constantly "evolving" and correcting errors. Mistakes will happen, no doubt.

This is preferable to asserting absolutes with no method of error correction.

Keep in mind that atheists consistently accuse theists of being dumb enough to believe in fairy tales from the Judeo-Christian Bible. Well, guess what: evolution theory should be confined to the pages of Grimms Fairy Tales.

Talking animals, murder, incest, infanticide, mutilation, plucking out eyes, .. Grimm's fairy tales sounds like another book I know...