[rez]

Quote by: LOGAN Again, please present the Facts that declare evolution as a Physical Law of Nature.

Cell Reproduction
Chromosome pairing
genes.

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.

Changing the topic is not going to help your case. Trying to discredit geology is not helping your case for debunking Biology. It doesn't work like that sir.

Its circular reasoning.

Don't worry about circular reasoning. You need to first work on your own reasoning.

Again ideas are not facts, any way someone wishes to present them they are still speculated ideas.

Ideas are not facts. Zharvic never said they were. Restating the obvious does not help your case in discrediting Biology.

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.

And yet in reality it is a valid scientific explanation and is indeed the most current and best explanation. It is used in all of Biology and Medicine. The Theory of Evolution has shown great success and people are still learning from it.

I think you need to get a reality check and come back with an actually response.

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.

Are you an english major? When was the last time you even took a basic english course anyway?

A theory is composed of individual facts. Sorry if it conflicts with your supernatural religion, but thats the way it turned out...