Very poor comparison, for one thing there is imperical proof the moon landing happened, it is not a THEORY as you would presume for this argument and there fore negates the rest of your argument altogether.
That being said, physics, atomics etc are not in contention and therefore do not need to be argued or disclaimered, and there are for more proven facets of the above fields.
Try again
Very poor comparison, for one thing there is imperical proof the moon landing happened, it is not a THEORY as you would presume for this argument and there fore negates the rest of your argument altogether.
There is
empirical proof that evolution is happening right now. Several times,
evidences for speciation (pops) have been posted, and there is more than sufficient evidence that "microevolution" that most creationists even bother trying deny it anymore.
That being said, physics, atomics etc are not in contention
I didn't say "physics". I said
gravitation. We do not know for sure what exactly causes two bodies of mass to be attracted to each other. There is a reason it is called the Theory of Gravitation, because it cannot be proven, only evidence can be gathered for it. There is a reason it is called Atomic Theory, because we cannot prove exactly what goes on in individual atoms, we can only gather evidence for it.
and there are for more proven facets of the above fields.
You cannot prove a theory. You cannot prove a theory. You cannot prove a theory. How many times must this be said before it gets through?