“Sorry, but you’re the only one doing that, as demonstrated by the article I posted from a scientist with a PhD who actually works in the field of evolution. It’s quite obvious you don’t have the credentials or even a basic level of familiarity with the subject to argue with him.”
Why would I argue with him. I am very happy that you agree his thoughts.
very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.”
“Why would I argue with him.”
Because he flatly refutes the false assertion that you made. If you don’t argue with him, but only argue with me when I dispute that same assertion, then you aren’t arguing honestly or consistently.
“I am very happy that you agree his thoughts.”
I agree with his assertion of the fact that theories are never proven, which is what the issue at hand is. He even agrees to this in what you quoted (”But then again, it is also possible...”), so if you agree with him, then you have tacitly admitted you were wrong.