</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) But, for something to actually be scientifically proven, doesn't it have to be observed? That it cannot be observed in a lab is the entire point. Also, they are not making the claim that evolution happens radically, as you state they are.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Where did you go to school? Science doesn't work on 'proofs', math does. And no, in order to be a valid theory, something doesn't have to be observed directly. It can be indirectly observed. In any event, we've directly observed evolution (immunities, mutations, etc). I suppose though, by your logic, atoms aren't real, and nor is gravity because neither can be 'observed'.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />
Originally Posted by (jpapadpapa,) Is this or is this not a true statement? They have not said anything about the time factor--simply that this is what the whole idea of evolution boils down to. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
An old earth was discovered before Darwin was born...So unless you are going to postulate that psychics came along and tried to convince the Christian geologists that the earth was old to appease a man who hadn't even been born yet, then you have no legs to stand on.