I have gone over this claim with Rachumlakenschlaff several times on this very thread. Here for example.
Then I turn around and the same claim pops up again. I'm telling you it's like rabbits around here.
Once again, and for the record:
This is so basic to science, but screaming about "unproven" is so basic to creationist propaganda ...
You just can't be a creationist and a scientist at the same time.
Sinner condemned in Tartarus to an eternity of rolling a boulder uphill then watching it roll back down again.
Another description:
For a crime against the gods - the specifics of which are variously reported - he was condemned to an eternity at hard labor. And frustrating labor at that. For his assignment was to roll a great boulder to the top of a hill. Only every time Sisyphus, by the greatest of exertion and toil, attained the summit, the darn thing rolled back down again.
But wait, Condorman, if you please. I confess I didn't go very far in the sciences, but I do remember something from my grade school education:
The empirical process moves from hypothesis, to observation, to theory, to experiment, to fact. (I was immediately stubborn about this as a child, in saying that there had to be observation before a hypothesis, too. Even now, I believe that was right, while qualifying that exercises of the imagination can substitute for observation.)
Did they change it after all these centuries? Like "The New Math?" Anyone care to address?
Highest reg's