On another note, what are you attempting to illustrate with the pictures of various skulls? How accurate shall we say the dates are? What portion of 'evolution' do you say they support? Many people may agree on 'facts'. Their agreement does NOT, in and of itself, constitute truth. So now where shall we go?
I was responding to your statement that "Not many (if any) scientific 'facts' exist to support the 'Theory of Evolution'."
I supplied the photograph of a number of nice fossil skulls, along with chimp and modern human skulls, noting that these are facts.
On another note, what are you attempting to illustrate with the pictures of various skulls? How accurate shall we say the dates are? What portion of 'evolution' do you say they support?
What I was trying to illustrate is that there are a lot of facts to work with. The dating is another subject, but there is a lot of evidence there too. Radiometric dating is a whole broad field with geology, nuclear chemistry, and a variety of other disciplines involved. It might not be exact, but it appears from several dating methods and corroborating evidence that it is pretty accurate.
Many people may agree on 'facts'. Their agreement does NOT, in and of itself, constitute truth. So now where shall we go?
The goal of science is not truth--you need to seek elsewhere for that. What science tries to come up with are well-supported theories. This sums it up well:
In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.[From an NSF abstract cited by RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.]