And under whose authority do you redefine the word "science" to mean: OneVike's religious convictions?
Current scientific ideas about evolution grew out of Darwin's 1859 proposals, but as with evolution of species, the evolution of scientific ideas, small step by small step, has lead us to something notably different than Darwin understood.
For just one example, consider that Darwin himself knew nothing about the workings of genetics.
All Darwin could see was that children are often different from their parents, he didn't know the hows or whys.
Point is: it's not at all clear if today's evolution science is even the same scientific "species" as Darwin's original proposals.
OneVike: "The “young earth” theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old has more evidence than evolution has, yet the flat earth evolutionists refuse to even consider the facts."
Sorry, but "young earth" theory has no scientifically valid evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- to support its ridiculous claims.
All the evidence we have, from virtually every branch of science, supports a universe and earth billions of years old.
Indeed, "young earth" uses no scientific method at all to establish the earth's age, but rather picks an age out of thin air, and then searches desperately for some evidence -- any evidence -- which can be misinterpreted to support that.
OneVike: "The backlash from the flat young earthers becomes a bit silly after awhile."
There, fixed it. Sure, you're welcome. ;-)
OneVike: "The evidence proves of the presence of soft tissue in a dinosaur was found in the fossil.
Which proves that dinosaurs are not as old as the flat earth evolution society suggests. "
It "proves" nothing of the sort.
First of all, it's likely, but not "proved", that such minute amounts of soft tissue belonged to dinosaurs.
"Proof" would require DNA, which did not normally survive millions of years, but does sometimes survive thousands of years, as found for examples in mastodons and Neanderthals.
And now I see where experiments claiming to find DNA of insects in Amber have not been verified.
OneVike: "We have more evidence to prove the earth is not billions of years old, than the flat earth evolution society has that the earth is billions of years old."
You have no serious evidence to "prove" anything of the sort.
OneVike: "Other than a theory, evolution has never ever been proven as fact."
Basic Darwinian evolution is a confirmed scientific theory based on two observed facts:
OneVike: "Its not surprising that the evolutionists and their old age theory folks argue a non bending proposal."
Of course, scientists always "argue non bending proposals" such as "two plus two equals four", regardless of what some non-scientific doctrines might claim.
OneVike: "Evolutionists argue that perhaps there are things we don’t quite know, and that is why they continue to cling to their pie in the sky belief that has never ever been proven."
Strictly defined, science consists of confirmed observations (aka "facts"), unconfirmed hypotheses (proposed explanations), confirmed theories (confirmed by falsifiable predictions) and laws (usually mathematical formulas).
Evolution is a many-times confirmed theory based on literal mountains of facts.
OneVike: "Yet, because Christians dare to show the evidence that disproves evolution and their billion year old earth theory, they will go out of their way to even attack Christians for daring to call themselves scientists."
Christians who claim a "young earth" are not scientists, period.
They are theologians masquerading and pretending to be scientists, when in fact there's no scientific spirit in them, only religious convictions.
OneVike: "What really gets me is the way they claim that theological scholars are ignorant of what the Scriptures tell us.
Anyone so utterly ignorant of theological facts who try to argue someone else’s theories are an affront to both God and Science."
You have a particular interpretation of biblical texts which the vast majority of Christian denominations do not agree with.
Your claims that only your theological interpretations are correct and necessary are not supported by rational thought.
Your claims that your theological interpretations have something to do with real science are utterly false and misleading.
OneVike: "The Holes in the theory of evolution are so massive, that you could literally put the whose universe into them."
In strict scientific terms, evolution does not attempt to explain the whole Universe, only one small feature: descent with modifications and natural selection.
OneVike: "The idea that they dare to claim that the Scriptures agree with them is actually Blasphemous."
Science itself is not concerned with who-ever's religious doctrines may or may-not agree.
But if it turns out (as it does) that much of Genesis does not necessarily contradict science, well, that I'd call a "serendipity", a happy surprise -- surprised by God, you might even say... ;-)
OneVike: "Those who claim such an idea, do not even have a cursory understanding of either Hebrew or Greek.
So for them to claim they know what the Scriptures say is not just ludicrous, but ignorant!"
There are a good many scholars of ancient texts who interpret some biblical passages different than you do.
Indeed, your views are a distinct minority within Christianity itself, which suggests to me that what seems so blatantly blasphemous to you may to God appear, well, not so much, FRiend.
;-)
Evolution is Evil