Quote from: RodeoX on September 19, 2014, 03:28:19 PM

Quote from: BADecker on September 19, 2014, 06:04:58 AM

Quote from: Rassah on September 19, 2014, 05:39:39 AM

... That's why scientists don't need to prove evolution. The evidence they collect just keeps pointing to it already.

As scientists are able to collect more and different kinds of evidence, much of the other evidence points away from evolution. Then there are those scientists who interpret the evidence in a non-evolution direction.

I'm not sure what you mean? There has never been a single finding that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. It would only take one finding to destroy a theory. That is why in science a theory is a powerful idea.

The ONLY reason that there has never been a finding that is inconsistent with evolutionary theory, is that evolutionary theory essentially (if not straight forwardly) says that every finding is consistent with evolutionary theory. The question is, how do we make multitudes of findings that don't seem to fit with each other in evolutionary theory, or each other in any kind of theory, so that they fit? And how do we do it in the light of many (most?) of those findings fitting creationism and who knows what other theories, as well? The point is, in this exact way, evolutionary theory has virtually proven that it is not worthy of even being called theory, to say nothing about having any kind of chance whatsoever of becoming law. Of course, there are going to be all kinds of scientists that think or say it is law. And there are all kinds of political scientists who say it is law no matter what they think, for other purposes.