Quote:
Quote by: Zhavric  Thank you for boldly declaring that you're woefully unaware of the facts surrounding science and evolution. Please take the time to educate yourself. You can begin here. The University of Berkley has put together an excellent walkthrough of the common misconceptions of evolution. Amongst them... Misconception: “Evolution is ‘just’ a theory.”
Response: Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory—a “guess” or “hunch.” These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution.
Misconception: “Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it.”
Response: Scientists do not debate whether evolution (descent with modification) took place, but they do argue about how it took place. Details of the processes and mechanisms are vigorously debated. Antievolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates about whether evolution occurs. Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide.
|
Again, please present the Facts that declare evolution as a Physical Law of Nature. As I said, paint it any color you wish its still just an idea gestated within the mind of man, and unprovable. Simply by you or anyone declaring that science somehow validates this theory as factual does not present physical proof, only speculation. In fact, radio carbon dating is based upon a theory that assumes facts not in evidence, and those facts not evidenced are the constant decay rates of radio active materials that are assumed not to have existed at any time in the past before this "decay" morphed some element into another element by the process of decay. As far as any such test can "actually" be validated with any certainty would be that which is presented in recorded history, any statements claiming factual dates past such are only "assumptions" which are unprovable, unless one accepts the theory as valid proof, which it is not. Its the same principle as declaring the date of a fossil because it was found contained with a certain strata of rock...which was dated by the fossils found within it. Its circular reasoning. Again ideas are not facts, any way someone wishes to present them they are still speculated ideas. Thus evolution is not valid as scientific proof of anything, because the theory itself is unprovable. If it were provable it would be proven and not presented as theory. The semantical presentation of Hypothesis and Theory, presented as somehow presenting some theory as resting in empirical evidence is just that, semantics of language to convenience someone of facts which are NOT EVIDENCED. Logan.