In you passion to defend evolution you have chosen to label me as incompetent and, in doing so, you don't even realize that you are attacking your own statement.
You said, "The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations." You did not say that observations can rule out theories. You said that theories can and do rule out observations.
I replied, "If you allow a theory to rule out observations then you most certainly are not practicing science."
You responded, "Mercury's orbit deviates in a way not allowed by Newton's theory of gravity. This observation proved Newton wrong." Yes, observations can prove theories wrong. This is why I said that the opposite (what you said), that theories can prove observations wrong, is not science.
So we agree. Observations can prove theories wrong, but theories cannot prove observations wrong. It is you who made the error, but your deep bias against anyone who rejects evolutionary theory causes you to label them as incompetent. I pointed out your error but your bias blinded you so that you convinced yourself that is was me who made the error.
I submit that this is a common problem in discussions about creation and evolution. There is way too much passion and not enough careful, civil and objective debate of the facts. Once the name calling starts, we end up back at the school yard playground.
You said, "The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations." You did not say that observations can rule out theories. You said that theories can and do rule out observations. I replied, "If you allow a theory to rule out observations then you most certainly are not practicing science." You responded, "Mercury's orbit deviates in a way not allowed by Newton's theory of gravity. This observation proved Newton wrong." Yes, observations can prove theories wrong. This is why I said that the opposite (what you said), that theories can prove observations wrong, is not science. I think you are both misinterpreting each other. What Condorman meant (if I can be so bold as to put words into his mouth) is that the theory of evolution is testable, and thus scientific, even though it is not reproduceable in the laboratory, because it predicts that we will find certain things and not others.
In Darwin's time, there were no transitional fossils known, but his theory predicted that we would find fish-to-amphibian transitionals, amphibian-to-reptile transitionals, reptile-to-bird transitionals and reptile-to-mammal transitionals, but not, for example, fish-to-bird transitionals or mammal-to-amphibian transitionals.
These predictions have, IMHO, been borne out very well, which is why I accept evolution as the best description of the evidence so far.
There is, in contrast, little to no evidence of where the very first life form came from, which is why I am undecided on the abiogenesis hypothesis. In any event, neither proof nor disproof of that hypothesis would shake my faith that : (a) God is ultimately the author of all life, and (b) He has, aty least as far back as we can glimpse, used His natural laws to achieve His will.