Well really it is that the same actions have so far yeilded the same results every time. A law could potentially be disproved. The first law of thermodynamics which basically states that energy can neither be created or destroyed could be shown false one day for example. A scientific law is not absolute truth. It hasn't been proven.
If a law is disproved, then it can no longer be considered a law. Until then, scientific laws are still laws.
His evidence comes from the fossil records, but I can state that the fossil record does NOT show evolution, but a series of individual creatures who have similar attributes and my theory is just as valid as his. After all, I observe that the creatures exist in the fossil record, I observe that there is a similarity, but my conclusion is different. If my theory is not as valid as his, explain why.
Because your theory does not explain why fossils are found in that particular order.
In truth, neither does his. It is taken as fact that they follow a particular order, but since none of us was there when the fossil was being formed, all we have is an educated guess as to the ages of the fossils. Even carbon dating has proved to have inaccuracies.
A theory is taught as one of many interpretations. If there are no alternatives supplied within a source material, then one must conclude that the only material supplied is factual, not theoretical.
Does this apply to a textbook on Atomic theory too?
Yes, if there is a possibility that Atomic theory will yield inconsistent results, then alternative theories need to be discussed.
His explains why we should find the same sorts of animals in the same strata, why we shouldn't find mammals in the cambrian, why early mammals should be more reptile like than later mammals, why creatures with both reptile and bird features should be found in a certain area of the fossil record, etc. It explains a lot about the order of fossils that is found.
It is taken as fact that they follow a particular order, but since none of us was there when the fossil was being formed, all we have is an educated guess as to the ages of the fossils. Even carbon dating has proved to have inaccuracies.
The order of fossils is seperate from their ages (and carbon dating is not really used to date fossils)
Yes, if there is a possibility that Atomic theory will yield inconsistent results, then alternative theories need to be discussed.
and if there isn't?
Actually it is very easy to see that strata reflect the relative ages of deposition. We do not need to know the absolute age of a group of fossils taken from the same dig to know which one is older than another.
As for the use of carbon dating fossils to determine absolute age, I hope you are aware that carbon dating is only used on organics less than 50,000 years old and other radiometric dating methods are performed on the rock not the fossils. You might also be interested in knowing that radiometric dating methods are calibrated through the use of many other dating methods such as tree rings, varves, ice flows, supernovae.
The dating errors so prevalent on Creationist sites are cherry picked from old science data, misinterpreted, or performed, without the calibration and correct methodology intended to reduce errors, by the Creationists themselves. You will not get an accurate impression of the validity of radiometric dating from Creationist sites.