[ZX12R]

Every contradiction simply results in the rewriting of the theory to accept the new ‘fact’.

As far as I know, scientific theories have always needed to be changed to accommodate new facts or information that comes along through experimentation or discovery. Whether by the testing of new ideas derived from guess work, mathematics, intellectual insight, or serendipity. Is that not how modern science progresses?

By the way, I don't support the idea that evolution theory was born complete. I think there has to be things missing, which if discovered, would explain the diversity of life and speciation to a greater, more sensible level, i.e., giving evolution more tools than just time and random mutation.

But the notions that there is nothing at all to evolution theory, and the earth is only thousands of years old, are seen as preposterous to anyone that looks at the evidence and is truthful with themselves.

[1010RD]

But the notions that there is nothing at all to evolution theory, and the earth is only thousands of years old, are seen as preposterous to anyone that looks at the evidence and is truthful with themselves.

Agreed, but how would you falsify the theory if every new discovery simply reinforces the theory of evolution? That's not science.

The theory of evolution really states that a rock, under specific, though unknown, circumstances, can come to life. What many people, perhaps you as well, are confused with is natural selection. Natural selection is a real and observable process.

Natural selection isn't evolution, though evolution wholly depends on natural selection. Promulgators of the theory of evolution have muddied the waters by discussing micro-evolution (natural selection, not evolution at all) with macro-evolution (the theory of evolution). Creation must have some cause and atheists use the theory of evolution to remove God from creation. It is not a scientific theory, but a religious one - the religion of atheism.