By my count, that's the 12th time on this thread you've called science a "cult".
In no case is the epithet accurate or appropriate, as I've pointed out.
But you continue to use it, no doubt as a substitute for serious scientific argument, suggesting that perhaps you have no serious arguments to make, and can only hurl abusive terms instead.
annalex: "Understand the argument, then get back to me."
I've already understood and posted answers to every argument and even those "word salads" you've made here.
If you disagree, then go back and find even one of your arguments that I did not post a (often lengthy) response to.
You, on the other hand, made very few serious responses to my posts here, beyond repeating such terms as "cult" and "voodoo".
Do you disagree? Then cite an example.
annalex: "I pointed out what, exactly, needs a scientific proof, and what is indeed an observed fact."
What you've actually done is just blather word-salads at scientific questions.
The "experiment" that you fantasize, and the "proof" you imagine are neither scientific nor necessary to establish evolution as a confirmed theory.
But you obviously are not interested in real science, only in spouting words ("cult", "voodoo") you hope will somehow discredit it.
In 116 I posted a brief description of the scientific objections to the hypothesis of evolution. In 120 I explained it to you in sufficient precision. In 130 and then in 134 I explained what parts of your hypothesis are indeed supported by fact and which are not. In 176 I defined an experiment that would prove your hypothesis.
Since then you made no substantive posts but a lot of repetitions of stuff previously ridiculed by me successfully. Even a good comedy gets tiresome with repetitions.