Inherent behind your post is the logic fallacy of equivocation.
“we see ‘evolution’ today, so ‘evolution’ is true”
We’re not conflating evolutionary theory with creation.
You’re conflating adaptation with “molecules to man” “evolution”.
“And they also think scientific theories are “proven,” “
This would be a strawman - assigning a belief to your opponent and then beating the stuffing out of it.
Ah yes, now I remember you MrB. You’re the guy who loves to throw up logical fallacies and pretend that impresses the rest of us; all the while failing to address any actual evolutionary issues.
Which idea from this thread do you accept? That snakes once had legs and lost them through evolutionary processes, that this one fossil is of a snake which ate something with a leg to make it look like it had a leg(!), that it’s not really a snake but a salamander(!), that God made snakes’ legs disappear “just because” and he even told Moses about this apparent design flaw, or that snakes are talking serpents and they are evil and god punished them by making them crawl on their bellies and eat dirt?
You know my answer... What’s yours?
I have but one more question that I’ve been asking creationists on here for years and years and years: You state that you accept “adaptation.” Fair enough. Can you describe to me what it is within the biology of every organism that stops those adaptations, which you accept do happen, from continuing to the point of becoming speciation.
This is a very real question. My answer is, there is none. In the simplest of terms, Adaptations over many generations are selected for and against which, again over many generations, leads to speciation, which is really all evolution is.
So you, I think, accept half of that. What stops the second part from happening?