Evolutionists have never established any proof that any species has been trnasformed into another. They can only offer 'possibilities'.
Nice non sequitur. Care to actually address what I wrote?
Now as for what *you* wrote:
Evolutionists have never established any proof
Of course not, since science does not deal in 'proofs'. Before you attempt to critique science, please learn the most basic things about it first. Thanks, we'd appreciate it.
There's no "proof" of Relativity, gravity, or that atoms exist, either. There's just overwhelming evidence which supports those theories, just as there is for evolution. But any one of them could conceivably be discovered to be mistaken in some large or small manner via subsequent discoveries, just as Newtonian physics was found to be incomplete (albeit not entirely "wrong") with the discoveries of Relativity and Quantum Physics. If it's "proof" you're demanding, then you're being naive and unrealistic, because there are no proofs in the real world. Epistemology doesn't work that way.
Reality doesn't provide any certainties. For those people who insist upon certainties because they're frightened of the sliver of uncertainty which is present in every real-world conclusion, well, there's always the false "certainty" which can be achieved by firmly believing whatever they want to believe, then utterly refusing to admit the possibility that they might be mistaken, and refusing to examine any evidence that might indicate their beliefs could be incorrect.
Evolutionists have never established any proof that any species has been trnasformed into another.
"Proof"? No. Overwhelming evidence for which there is no other workable explanation, and observations of the process in action? Yes.
They can only offer 'possibilities'.
Wrong again. There is a vast range of support between the extremes of "mere possibility" and "proof". But I suppose such simplistic black-and-white categories, which blot out the existence of levels of demonstration and evidence which are far beyond "mere possibility" and the next best thing to "proof", helps you to get by in a world that is more complex than you'd like to acknowledge.
If that brings you comfort, then I'm glad for you, but don't try to teach such crippled worldviews to schoolchildren as "science". And don't presume that they'd be better off fitted with a pair of your own blinders.
It occurs to me that one of the reasons that creationism and ID gain a lot of public support is that they do not require close examination of much of anything.
Not everyone is willing to learn enough about science to have an understanding of it. We see that in all of these threads when people are unwilling to even discuss the TOE in terms of its own ideas.
It's very comforting, I suppose, to accept a simple account, such as the Biblical account, of creation. One needn't think a great deal about it. It can all be told in a few hundred words, and that's it.
It can be very uncomfortable for some folks to have a far more complex theory to deal with. It's confusing. So, when a religious leader states boldly that the Genesis account is how it happened and that's an end to it, he'll naturally get followers who will accept those statements because they are easily digestible and easy to wrap one's mind around.
All else, then, is foolishness, if you accept that account as the whole truth. For many folks, that's the end of it. For others, though, it becomes a contentious issue, since it's so apparent that the simple Genesis account is not accepted by most folks. So, in the spirit of converting one's fellow humans to one's own religious beliefs, it becomes a campaign to discredit the more complex theory.
That's what I see here, and part of my evidence is the paucity of the creationism argument. I see little original thought being expressed by the creationist side, and much outright plagiarism from one website or another. No real thought goes into the arguments, just a repetition of the same statements over and over again...all lifted from Answers in Genesis or one of the other creationism sites.
It's depressing. It's also humorous. But it's mostly depressing.