Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

That goes both ways.We see your, not simple but damaged, mind as well.As it turns out, sensei, you are just another in a long line of creationist yahoos who have periodically dropped by to add some fun to our day. I had hopes of some intellect from a Cdesign Proponentsists but, alas. Was not to be.

Again, all you have is insults. Why can't you address the science?

I addressed the logic, and you keep responding with poor logic and fallacies.

You do not address the logic. You address your fantasy.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that it is poor logic if someone says that the observations which match a theory's predictions is evidence for the theory. Am I getting that right?

Evidence is not proof, but you argue with logic as if it is.

The next time that you take an airplane trip, remember that there's no proof; there's only evidence.The next time you drive your car, remember that there is no proof; there's only evidence.The next time you take a step while walking, and expect the ground to not collapse under your step, remember that there is no proof; there is only evidence.When you next read your Bible, remember that there is no proof and there isn't even much evidence.

Are you done with your childish rants? You are so misinformed.

No he isn't. You are just stupid.

You are a troll with low intelligence for sure.

You are such an intellect.

Where?If you can't even admit that something is evidence, what reason is there to argue about proof?

You evolutionists here claim that evolution is fact, because the data you chose, fits the model you made up.You don't know what facts are.

Now you are confusing theory and fact. There are facts of evolution. There is also the theory of evolution. The facts of evolution are the empirical observations such as the nested hierarchy. The theory of evolution explains those facts. The match between the facts and the theory is what supports the theory. This is how all of science is done.You also seem to be accusing us of cherry picking the data. Can you even start to back this up? Facts are verifiable, objective observations. One example is the nested hierarchy. This observation was first described by Linnaeus in the 1700's. Linnaeus was actually a creationist, so it isn't as if the nested hierarchy is something evolutionists have dreamt up.

Wrong. Facts are things that are true with absolute certainty. You know so little.