Free Republic

I am sorry but I can not find the user that requested this information so I’ll post it to everyone.

I’m sorry it took so long to reply to your post asking for one proof of Evolution that was later proven false. I wanted to go home and get the information. I must confess however that I gave them out on a loan to a friend and they lost them in a resent move. Since I am unable to recall the titles or authors, I will have to use the web as my reference point.

At any rate, your request was for one, I have listed four. All of these can easily be checked using the web so I’ll leave the actual web site references to you. I used Google as my search engine.

Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)
In 1891 Dubois' laborers found a skull cap along the Solo River near the village Trinil, Java. A year later and approximately 50 ft. away from the skullcap he found a femur.
Today Java man is classified as Homo erectus but questions still remain, one of which is whether the skullcap and femur are from the same specimen. Recent opinions suggest that the femur is a modern type, which leads to a dilemma for evolutionists


Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus dawsoni)
In 1908 a workman at a gravel pit in Piltdown, England found a portion of a human skull and gave it to an amateur geologist by the name of Charles Dawson. Subsequent digging by Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum and Catholic paleontologist-priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin revealed more skull fragments and the lower jaw of Piltdown man. The Piltdown pit also produced fossil bones of elephant, mastodon, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, beaver and deer. Most scientists accepted this find as a genuine subhuman ancestor of man. For forty-five years, until 1953, this find was considered to be a missing link between man and ape. The only problem was that this was a total hoax! Someone had taken a human skullcap and a jaw of an orangutan, filled the teeth and planted the evidence.


Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)
In 1922 a single tooth was found in Pliocine deposits in western Nebraska. Dr. Henry Fairfeild Osborn of Columbia University, head of the American Museum of Natural History, determined that this tooth had characteristics of chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (Java man), and man. A few years later more evidence was found and the tooth was determined to be from an extinct pig! Little publicity was given to the error.


Although I did not attend the Missouri lecture given by Dr. Johanson, I did have the privilage and honor to attend one of his lectures at a different venue. In that lecture, he restated many of the facts listed below on the Lucy discovery. In all fairness, I never heard him make the statement that ‘Evolution is a fact” so I will have to trust the web source that makes that claim. He did verify that Lucy was found in an area that was 1 ½ mile by 1 ½ mile and approximately 200ft deep. In my opinion, this is not very conclusive.

Lucy (replacement for the outmoded australopithecines)
The bones comprising Lucy were found by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray on the 24th of November 1974, at the site of Hadar in Ethiopia. Lucy is a partial fossil skeleton, about the size of a chimpanzee, supposedly female. It is more complete than most fossil finds in that about 40 percent of the bones of the body have been recovered. According to Dr. Johanson, she walked upright! Her brain size is still small, ape-like in proportion, and most of the other features are predominantly ape-like. Some say that anatomically it is not different than a modern chimpanzee. The jaw, in particular, is distinct in that it is V-shaped, totally unlike human jaws. The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy. They were found about 200 feet lower and two to three kilometers away.
Dr. Johanson gave a lecture at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, Nov. 20, 1986, on Lucy. When Dr. Johanson was asked, given the wide range in which the total find was found why he was sure all of the bones belonged to Lucy, his reply was "Anatomical similarity." Please keep in mind many animals have anatomical similarities such as bears and dogs.
Dr. Johanson argued that homology (particularly DNA homology) is good proof for evolution. It was pointed out at that time that similar structures nearly always have similar plans. After more discussion along this line, Dr. Johanson gave this amazing reply: "If you don't believe homology, then you don't believe evolution, and evolution is a fact!" (emphasis mine)
(This seems to be more and more pervasive in today’s society; the statement Dr. Joanson made, “evolution is a fact!”)

With that, I will have to bid you all goodbye. I no longer feel I’m a good fit for this board. I’ve had my honesty, educational level, degree, and job performance questioned and belittled. Finally, I was even threatened with bodily harm, “ …. Sometimes we wish we could come over and (figuratively) hit y'all over the head till y'all finally get this ….,” The phrase sent my way, ‘all in good fun.’ I don’t think personal attacks make for good discussion points. I found myself getting defensive and falling into the same trap; i.e. stooping to that level in my replies. Not a very good place to go for a “Bible Thumping, Back Woods, Christian.” All this compassion from conservatives is just too overwhelming.
I now happily concede that I am not a “Real Scientist.” (ref: "Salem Hypothesis") I now identify myself as a Technician / Engineer. I’ll keep my eyes and ears open for any Scientist that claims they don’t believe in Evolution and let them know they’ve been reclassified so they don’t run the risk of public humiliation.
But so I don’t disappoint the fans I’ve seemed to have made here, let me sign off with ….
I hav’ta go now you’al. Have to get back to do’in that stuff that crazy company I work for pays me for. By the way, I’ma startin a new book tomorrow call “See Dick Run”. I’ma told that it a real thrill’r. Please feel free to ping away. It will give you something to do for the rest of the day. All meant in good fun of course.

On a more serious note, I do wish each of you all the best, especially those who launched the personal attacks, and I hope that Free Republic continues to grow.

BTW, the formal definition of the word proof :n. (please note 3b. “I” am not convinced or persuaded by the consideration of the evidence used for Evolution.)
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.

You are correct. I had forgotten the Carbon dating time limitation. I should have thought about the facts I was using in my admittedly poor example before posting them. I agree that Carbon dating is not used for fossil age testing nor should it be.

Acknowledging that however, and recalling of the article, I submit to you that Carbon dating could have certainly been used to test the age of artifacts coming out of an Egyptian tomb, not withstanding the 400K was probably more likely 40,000. The point of the article was that Carbon Dating was not infallible. I don’t think it’s to far a stretch to presume that no dating method today is infallible when dealing with those durations.

But that wasn’t your point of your personal attack was it.

Perhaps rather than launching into attacks questioning everything from job status, to educational level a more compassionate conservative approach would have been …

I believe your recollection of the article you mentioned in your post is in error. Although it is true that Carbon dating would be a valid why to measure the age of Egyptian artifacts, and therefore cat bones found in the tomb, it is not used to measure any dates of longer duration than 50,000 years and up to 100,000 years using ‘Accelerator Techniques for Carbon Dating” (ref. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html#c5 go to the bottom of the page. So now you and others on this blog have the correct facts when you launch your next personal attack on someone using the wrong numbers. Would it be appropriate to use your own words and say ….. Anyone even remotely close to the issue would know that 50k years for carbon dating would be an erroneous statement unless they knew nothing about Accelerator Techniques. All in good fun mind you).

Introductory ElectromagneticsDot and Cross Products, Line Integrals of Vector Fields,Gradient of a Scalar Field,Divergence and Curl,,Coulomb's Law,Gauss's Law,Electric potential ...
members.tripod.com/llovesumi/menu.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

You wrote:

your manifest ignorance of science (including the relationship between hypothesis, fact, theory, evidence, and proof), causes me to doubt your claim to be a trained scientist, your company title notwithstanding.

Last time I checked and went to school, granted that was back when they actually taught the basics, both in the science of math and physics the terms Hypothesis, Fact, Theory, Evidence, and Proof are used extensively. They are not just for the scientist of evolution and Astronomy, as you seem to be implying. ….. from my perspective. BTW, Proof means evidence that establishes the truth. I have yet to see where evolution is established truth, meaning it’s therefore acceptable to use the word proof in describing evolution. There is evidence that supports the theory, from your perspective, but not mine.

You wrote:

Further, I haven't discounted anything you've said based on you're grammatical errors.

From my perspective, that is exactly what you have been doing. Your comments, just using the example above from my first response, ignorance of science, are intended to do what you claim they do not. …. Again, from my point of view.

Your wrote:

Nor have I seen anyone else do so.

Perhaps you should re-read the post back to me again and try looking at them from the receivers view.

You wrote:

Your arguments, such as they are, stand or fall on their own merits.

This one is an interesting one to me. I’ve asked several times for the proof of evolution and people have responded back with document references with things like new species of salamanders and flowers. In response I sent a link to a paper on the web where it talks about Evolution and the beginning of life. A poster wrote back and said, I’ll try and quote as close as I can, “… see this proves the point….” I believe he was basically saying evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life just where the species came from. As a fellow poster said, I believe that is the new and modern definition of evolution but fine, I’ll use it for the purposes of this discussion. If salamanders and flowers can create new species of salamanders and flowers respectively, how was the species of salamander created? How was the species of flowers created? Once you’ve answered that question, go back one more species. After that, go back one more. Can you see my point? How can you separate Evolution with the origin of life? From my perspective and many how cannot accept evolution in fact or theory, it cannot be done for the very reason just listed.

No one, not one of you has addresses this issue. Instead you try to seperate the issues which I feel are invalid.
So you say my arguments fall on their own merits yet no one has stated where to find the facts showing the origin of these species. In my opinion, probably proving to you once again my “scientific ignorance”, different bred of dogs matting to create a new bred of dog is not the proof of evolution, just like a white man marring a Chinese woman producing a child is not a new species of man (no doubt I’ll be tarred and feathered over that one). Dog’s still produce dogs, flowers still produced flowers and man still produces man. It’s only sciensist that have come up with new names for the bred that labels them a new species. They are still basically a dog.

Didn’t they mate a lion with a tiger to get a liger? Wasn’t it sterile? I admit I’m not an authority on Liger’s so perhaps you’ll provide sources if there are now packs (is that the right word for a group of Liger’s) of Liger’s are now producing more Liger’s. I might actually consider that one a possible proof of evolution. There is only one problem with it, it was man made, meaning engineered by man (they probably thought they were scientist but let’s not open that can of worms again)

Your wrote:

Mostly they've been falling flat because you don't know what you are talking about. Someone who claims a scientific education and then talks about objects being carbon-dated at 400,000 years old (thereby revealing ignorance of absolutely basic atomic physics that anyone with college science education would know) cannot expect to be taken seriously.

Sorry, that was in the article I read, or should I say, as I remember reading it. Please accept my apologies for using an incorrect reference. It was a long time ago so perhaps Carbon dating accuracy has been updated since it came out. At one time, I believe scientist thought that carbon dating was the cat's meow of finding the age of fossils (that was until more modern methods were created by us technologist). Isn’t it interesting however, how you attack my credibility rather than ask where I got the source? I guess it’s much easier to belittle and make fun of someone, rather than address the issue.

Thank you for your civil and well-worded response. Yes, it was much more direct in addressing the issues and not personal in its approach.

Continuing with the discussion:

disagree with that premise. I believe that you cannot be a serious Christian and try to change who and what GOD is.
Then we disagree here. If you’re saying JPII wasn’t serious (and I don’t think you’re saying that), you’d be being silly. Your right, I am in no way saying he was not a serious Christian I take your point, then, to be that you equate accepting the scientific Theory of Evolution with trying to “change who and what God is.” We disagree on that, too – I don’t see how the Theory of Evolution has a bearing on God. This one is easy for me. I believe that God created the earth as stated in the bible, in 6 days. If that defines me as being a right wing Christian fundamentalist then so be it. He created Adam with age. He created Eve with age. Again, not trying to read anything into the bible and just accepting it for what it is. If I can therefore accept that he created these two beings with age, why is it such a great leap of faith to believe he could have also created the Universe with age? I don’t believe it is. If I base my belief on that axiom, then what the Pope says is redefining God’s words to fit his beliefs, which for fundamental Christians is a strict No-No. That’s my problem with the Pope’s statement, and from an earlier post, his word carries a great del of weigh with those who cannot read or don’t have access to a bible.

Well, fine. But the problem with a dogmatic insistence on the incompatibility of the Theory of Evolution and Christian belief is that it flies in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary (the previous Pope again). In addition, while there are undeniably Christians who as a matter of faith cannot accept the Theory of Evolution, there are also many who have no problem with it, and who may get irritated when they’re told they’re all atheists, heretics, etc. I hope you can see from my response in the above paragraph why I feel this is wrong. I do not believe current evidence on evolution discounts or negates the biblical explanation of creation. As stated above, God could certainly create all that is around us with age. Why one might ask? To test your faith in the creator which is what God requires us to have. God is not going to come down and slap people in the face to show them he is real. To do so would no longer be faith but undeniable truth. The bible does say, every knee saw bow and every tongue will confess that very thing but until the last possible moment, everyone must choose to believe or not all by his or her self based upon faith. Another reason he might have created the universe with age: as a possible explanation, would the solar system be to violent if it were created without age thus not allowing the earth to support life? No time for the eco systems to settle into a stable configuration? Just a question I'd like to field.

But they’re wrong about a scientific disproof of God – there can’t be a scientific disproof of God. Science doesn’t address the supernatural and therefore has nothing to say about God one way or the other. I agree with that 100%

You wrote:
You missed the point; You presented yourself as a degreed professional. Degreed professionals don't normally make 6 grammatical errors in two sentences.

You missed my point, I replied in haste and did not proof my responses. I thought this board was a forum to be free-wheeling (figure of speech that may not adequately reflect my intended meaning) and not a location where term papers are graded (again, probably not the best way to get my point across).

You wrote:
Besides half of it was in good fun. Like the part where we were talking about the lab creating their patients.

From my perspective, it was not meant in good fun. It was in the form of personal attacks that were mean and hurtful. Perhaps you should review your responses from the point of view of the receiver before posting them.

I am not afraid to stand up for my beliefs despite the desperate attempts of those who try and belittle “all in good fun”. I believe the passage in the Bible where Christ says (not a direct quote) you will acknowledge me before men or I will not acknowledge you before my father. I believe the bible is God’s truth period. It says what is says and it is not up to me to try and imply or twist it’s meaning.

You wrote:
Where in my post did I use the term "belief"? You writing skills need to be improved. I find it sad that a person with a college degree demonstrates such.

From my perspective, that’s what your implication was.

You wrote:
Again, where did I use the term "weak of mind"? I was just commenting on you obvious lack of not only writing ability, but you general lack of science knowledge as well.

Again, from my perspective, that’s what your implication was from the style and wording used in your response. Perhaps before attacking someone for grammatical errors, you should proof read your responses to see how the receiver might interpret them.

You wrote:
Hey - You were the one who claimed to be a scientist. Remember?

Wrong, please read a latter post where I clearly state that my company hired me in as a Scientist, and my job title today is Senior Scientist. It is not I but those on this board who are saying my company’s classification of job title is incorrect. As a review, I've been labeled by members of this board as a technologist and engineer, not a real scientist. Although I feel most of what I do is in the realm of putting together pieces of the puzzle, many who are in my field deal with the abstract and create new ideas where none existed before. I believe my point is still correct, you can be a scientist and not work in the field of Evolution and Astronomy, which from my perspective is the implication of many on this board. As an illustration of that point please refer back to the post where the Salem hypothesis is mentioned.

First of all, thank you for being kind in your reply and not personally attacking me personally or my educational level because of grammatical errors. I must apologize for getting excited at times and not proof reading what I post back. Many on this board feel those posting replies are inferior if grammatical errors are made. They love making snide remarks and posting put downs discounting what they say by counter replies pointing out the errors. Perhaps my perspective is incorrect from your point of view, but the emotions I feel when those attacks are leveled on myself and others is one of defense, protection mode.

Now more to the point of my reply, you wrote:
Why would "many Christians" be more qualified than the Pope to interpret "Biblical truth," and therefore capable of determining the Pope was "distorting" it? Please be specific.
Specifically, Christians are no more qualified than the Pope in biblical interpretation. In so saying that, just because he is the head of the church does not make his word final on what the bible says or how it says it. There are many leaders of other denominations who were appalled by the Papal explanation of evolution. Yet, where was the mainstream press? They didn’t cover the dissenting views; they covered the Pope’s statement. The implication, from many Christians perspective, was that beliefs we grew up with, i.e. GOD gave us the bible as his truth. It's GOD's instruction book to his people. It says what it says, and God means what it says. It’s not a collection of fables. It’s not a set of suggestions.
You also wrote:
You've missed my point -- it's entirely possible to be a serious Christian and not reject the Theory of Evolution. That "many offended Christians" don't agree with JPII is irrelevant. I'm not saying JPII was right about this, I'm saying that unless you want to say the JPII was not serious about religion, or wrong, you'd better be prepared to demonstrate how. And how you'll demonstrate he was wrong about Catholic doctrine is an event I eagerly await.

I disagree with that premise. I believe that you cannot be a serious Christian and try to change who and what GOD is. Not trying to change the subject here, but as an example: it’s like the Episcopal Church Bishop who recently said that Homosexuality was acceptable to GOD or voting for a politician who openly is pro-choice, which from my perspective is pro-abortion. Again, please accept my apologies if you feel I’m trying to throw the basketball game by bringing in a different subject matter to the discussion, but I feel it represents the point I’m trying to make. Which is you might ask? With regard to Christians who believe in evolution, I believe these are people trying to change GOD into their image, not who and what he really is, from my perspective.

You’re missing the point of my reply ... many Christians are offended that a leader of a mainstream church would distort Biblical truth just to get along with, what is considered, mainstream scientific view.

Papal Infallibility is a primary Catholic doctrine. When the leader of this church speaks, many hold it to be the final truth, especially those who do not have access the Holy Bible and those that can’t read. That is why many Christians were offended by that declaration from the Pope.

(BTW, you're the one who brought up the Pope. I was simply replying to your post)

Please go to

http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/Projects/origins1.html

So all the patients granted to Drug companies today, they were created/invented by their staff. Those individuals are engineers? Their not scientist?

Sorry but the Pope declaration that GOD used evolution to create man doesn't make it so. Isn't one of the Catholic doctrines that the Pope is infallible? Do you really believe that the Pope, whomever is today, is without sin?

What does his age have to do with anything? Are you inferring because he lived a long life he was without sin or better than anyone else?

Oh now I'm hurt. Because I dare to question your beliefs, I now don't even have a degree.

Gads, I have to say your in the same boat. You too should ask for your money back. I thought Radio Astronomers were Intellectuals, who you obviously infer you are. Are not Intellectuals suppose to have compassion on the weak of mind, which you imply I am. I don't buy that your a radio astronomer. Your just some weak minded nerd trying to socially fit in.

You need to go back to your school and demand your money back and then go home and beat the heck out of both your parents for raising you to be such a non-compassionate nerd.

So someone who believes in Evolution says any scientist that doesn't believe in evolution is a Engineer and he comes up with a fancy statement to prove his own hypothesis and low and behold ..... it's fact, all those scientist are "Engineers"

So if I came up with a hypothesis, I'll call it the "Creation phobia Hypothesis". I'll post it on the Web and get several hundred people to agree with the final definition (may need refinement) Simply stated it says that anyone who believe in Evolution was say a pagan atheist who is incapable accepting even the remote possibility that their could have been a Superior being capable of setting up the universe as we know it with all the laws of nature that guide our lives or a moderate Christian so assumed at their own faith that they needed social acceptance from the so call enlighten elite so they modified what the bible says to allow that acceptance. ...

Makes about as much sense doesn't it




Salem hypothesis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The "Salem Hypothesis" is a description of an observed correlation between scientists who profess a belief in creation and the engineering disciplines. There are two distinct wordings of the hypothesis, each having a different implication. Both are associated with the "Salem Hypothesis" name, though.

The first states: "In any Evolution vs. Creation debate, A person who claims scientific credentials and sides with Creation will most likely have an Engineering degree."

The second states: "An education in the Engineering disciplines forms a predisposition to Creation/Intelligent Design viewpoints."

The validity of these hypotheses are debatable, as neither have actually been subjected to experimental data. The first description makes no comments about the engineering disciplines, nor engineers themselves, rather, it merely describes an alleged link between those who see themselves as both scientist and creationist and the posting of scientific credentials to claim credibility. The second description, however, posits a positive connection between the engineering disciplines and the belief in creation. Proponents of the second description often link the "Design" mindset of engineers to a belief that humanity itself was also "Designed".

[edit]
Origins
The "Salem Hypothesis" is credited to Bruce Salem, who developed it as a regular contributor to the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup. It continues to be used in circles where the debate between evolution and creation is ongoing, often for its humor value.

[edit]
See also

"OK, I'll bite. You've repeatedly talked about proof. Tell me about something in science that you know to be proven (outside pure fields like number-theory or geometry) and explain how that applies to your job. I'll wait"

Please don't tell me your that stupid. You profess to be superior intelligence and you want me to show one example that shows proof of science? How about the field of electro magnetics. It's just this minor field of science that dictates every facet of your life .... or should I say normal peoples lives.

Electro magnetics is something that can not be seen or touched yet it's proven to exist through experimentation and the applied sciences. From the ordinary electric generator to the highly comples MRI (which both are the result of the applied science of elector magnetics)

You wrote:
"You haven't read very much about biology then. Perhaps your knowledge of biology is as limited as your knowledge of the scientific method. The theory of evolution has survived 150 years of accumulated data collection since it was first publicly proposed, any of which had the potential to falsify it"

I've only read two or three books on evolution. Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the basic premise/theory of evolution that the beginning of all life started in a pool of primordial ooze somewhere? From that the spark of life came into existence and the first gems / bacteria developed. That in turn led to the first single cell organisms which developed into multiple celled organisms and so on and so forth. Eventually complex animals developed into four legged creatures which eventually started to walk on 2 feet dragging their hands on the ground. ect. ect. ect. until man as we know him today ... came to be. (simplistic I know, but isn't that the theory of evolution?)

You talk about fossils as if there were know ever found that contradict the facts of evolution. I can think of two such examples. The feet of man fossilized in the same mud as that of dinosaurs and the bones of a common everyday house cat, dead approx. 1000 years (a tomb in Egypt I believe - no I don't have the reference) that were carbon dated to be over 400,000 years old. And there is one one, the dig that showed fossils that were from the beginning of time that were found above the bones of animals that die only a few thousand years ago.

you wrote:"(I am not a scientist by the way, but I know one when I see one; they know something about science)"

So by your definition "Real" scientist deal in theories that are the result of looking at pieces of a puzzle and developing a theory that is refined over and over again. There is no way to disprove it because it's based upon subjective reasoning based upon "hypothesis", and "evidence". That's real science and those who deal with that a real scientist.

So your right, I'm wrong. I'm not a real scientist because I deal in theories that have proof through practical applications. As another poster put it, and I'll phrase it based upon they're definition, I'm just a technologist. Using magnetics to see inside the human body, that's not real science, that was just technology. Never mind that someone had to develop a theory about how magnetics works and how the human body is effected by it. never mind they then had to perform experiments to see if their theory could be put into practical application for the benefit of all mankind. No those aren't real scientist, they're just technicians.

So all of the research "Scientist" who develop new medicines, and microelectronics aren't real scientist; their really just technologist? The MRI was just a machine that used the technology of electro magnetics. The scientist who are currently working on the RAM Jet engine are just using technology which hasn't existed until they invented it but they're not real scientist, they're just technologist.

I guess your only a real scientist if you deal with theories that take billions and billions of years to prove. You see something in nature or the Cosmo's that regular people can't explain, so you develop a theory that explains it. Over the years you refine that theory because of the bugs found in the first one and it can change form year to year until you get the majority of your fellow "thinkers" to agree with your theory and low and behold ..... your a Real Scientist!!

All these year I thought that working with new discoveries and inventing things that we never used or existed before were the results of the applied sciences by scientist who were making lives better, people live longer and with greater comfort. Who knew that they were just technologist.

One last post before I leave ....

" Just good old fashioned science, which relies on the same basic methods for just about all fields."

The definition of Science in Websters New World Dictionary, page 405, left hand side middle of the page: Science 1. Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, ect. 2. a branch of knowledge that systematizes facts, principles, and methods 3; skill and technique.

The definition of Scientific in Websters New World Dictionary, page 405, left hand side middle of the page: Scientific 1. of or dealing with science 2. based on or using the principles and methods of science; systematic and exact.

I think I've figured out what my problem is as a scientist. My job and career are based upon the science that employees scientific method that is exact and factual. I believe from all I've read that Evolutionary Science is based only on observations and hypothesis. Bottom line, no facts just theory.

Or have I misunderstood the definitions again?

I'll have to answer all replies tomorrow. Thanks everyone once again.

To everyone who has posted to me .... thank you for taking the time. I found the responses quite mentally stimulating. Some were kind and some were personal attacks. It is my hope that I did not offend anyone and if I did please accept my apology. It is obvious to me that neither of us is going to change the others mind.

Perhaps in time, what I consider real proof will surface, perhaps not. I think questioning ones purpose and existence is good. It shows growth.

Be careful not to become to overconfident in your intelligence however. As a Christian I am reminded of the passage ..... "thinking themselves wise they became as fools"

As I stated in an earlier post .... every one of us will face our maker and we will answer for our actions ... all of them. Whether or not you believe that makes no difference. It doesn't make it any less true. For me it's an axiom of life. If I'm wrong, hey all it cost me was nothing. If your wrong, all it cost you was ...... your soul. (unless you don't believe in a soul .... but what if your wrong about that too?)

So your proof of the Evolutionary Theory is the hypothesis of the observations that support the theory?

"Funny, one would expect a scientist to know that no scientific theory addresses the supernatural."

the whole theory of evolution is based upon the supernatural.

I ask for proof and you show an article clip that shows how a new flower was produced. That's Evolution? Producing a new flower or species of flower? Your right I don't understand evolution? I thought evolution was (see post #179)