[Jaysun]

It would be useful to me, and the others here, if you would deign to clearly define what you would consider sufficient proof of evolutionary theory's utility/viability/scientific accuracy. After years of battling leftists in political debate, I have no love to spare for anyone's propensity to use mobile goalposts in a debate of science, so answer the question definitively and finally. After all, you know where WE stand - where do you?

You have my definition of what I would consider sufficient proof. Subject it to the scientific theory and tell us what you come up with. If you still insist on calling it a "scientific fact" then we'll know you're a crackpot.

As to the scientific proof that shows creation to be a fact, there isn't any. It's not science. It's not objective or unemotional. It's subject to different opinions, and nobody can really claim that his beliefs are the only ones that are correct. It can't be tested and confirmed. Please tell me that you recognize religious faith and scientific fact as two different things.

[King Prout]

survey sez: XXX

try again.

I have already explained that evolutionary theory has been confirmed as a predictor of data not available when the theory was coined. THAT IS A STANDARD TEST OF A THEORY IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

Clearly, this is not enough FOR YOU.

So, cough it up, ducky: EXACTLY WHAT DATA SET DO YOU REQUIRE TO SATISFY YOUR DEFINITION OF "PROOF"???

[WildTurkey]

It's subject to different opinions, and nobody can really claim that his beliefs are the only ones that are correct. It can't be tested and confirmed. Please tell me that you recognize religious faith and scientific fact as two different things.

But you call mine perverted. Please tell me that you recognize religious faith and scientific fact as two different things.