If I find a rock at the bottom of the hill, with crushed grass in a trail behind it, I might conclude that it rolled down the hill. But that would just be my opinion, of course, because no one saw it roll and I can't "prove" it. Maybe it was ejected from a volcano in Italy, orbited twice around the Earth, and fell in the spot I now see it. By your standard, there would be no difference between the two conjectures.
The problem with evolutionist hypotheses is that an evolutionist tries to come up with said hypotheses in order to explain how we got here.
Yeah. That's what scientists do. They observe something (we are here; there's a rock at the bottom of this hill) and try to come up with hypotheses to explain it. If you don't like science, just say so.
Hypotheses like the one above are, in my opinion, silly and specious at best.
Fortunately, the advancement of science does not depend on your opinion of it.
Well there is a big difference between a rock (an inanimate object) rolling down a hill a few days ago and the assertion that sexual reproduction began 1200 billion years ago, isn’t there?
I have two degrees: a BSEE and an AAS in chemical technology. I make my living based on science. Evolution is not science, because it cannot be verified in a laboratory. I have not problem with physics, calculus, chemistry, mathematics, and so forth. That is true science, and only someone with mental problems would argue that 1+1 does not equal two. So there is science and there is lack of science. Evolution falls into the latter.
>> “Fortunately, the advancement of science does not depend on your opinion of it.” <<
.
Unfortunately, the advancement of science does not match your opinion of it.