Has evolution been proven ?

Nope, as pointed out already, what you are doing is ignoring evidence.Not all the layers in the Grand Canyon are sedimentary; there are many metamorphic and igneous layers. There are many plutons that obviously cooled slowly. There are igneous layers that were not deposited uinderwater.From Strata of the Grand Canyon - Grand Staircase:

quote:

---

Rocks of the Vishnu complex originated as sediments and volcanic rocks laid down on the sea floor ... After burial, the sediments and volcanics were subjected to at least two seperate episodes of regional metamorphism ... The Vishnu complex was intruded by large quantities of magma before the overlying Bass Limestone was deposited. ... At least 20 plutons are known within the Vishnu. Some plutons are highly folded and foliated by metamorphic activity (Ruby Superunit), others less so (Phantom superunit), still others totally unfoliated (Surprise Canyon superunit). ... Other intrusive igneous structures within the Vishnu include dikes and sills ... The Unkar Group consists of the Bass Limestone (up to 330ft), the Hakatai Shale (up to 985ft), the Shinumo Quartzite (1328ft), the Dox Formation (3100ft), and the Cardenas Lava (~900ft)

---

And, of course, when asked about a detailed model of the depostion of the different layers, the trackways, the raindrop impressions, the dessication cracks, and so on ... the creationist disappears.

You are oversimplifying, so far that the meaning is lost.When the DNA research shows a consistent pattern of less or more similariites that mathches the pattern of common descent and the phylogenetic tree inferred from the fossil recordm which matches the pattern of common descent and the phylogenetic tree derived from zoology, then we conclude that the DNA evidence supports common descent. If there was a significant mismatch, we'd have a problem.When the pattern of DNA differences clearly shows mutations, dupications, etc ... that match the above, then we conclude that the differences are evidence for evolution. If the differences didn't have such a pattern, we'd have a problem.So you are wrong ... we can lose, we just haven't lost. Yes, you can say that ... but when it comes to backing it up and explaining why the alleged designer chose to design in such a wacky way, that looks just like something cobbled together over and over again from existing parts, that is so differnt from any other designs we know in that it has the characteristics of an evolutionarily-produced system, that has the patterns that match the other phylogenetic trees so well, that clearly indicate changes over time from common ancestors whether or not that really happened ... well ... the IDists abandon science and say "we can't know the mind of the designer" or they just abandon the discussion.

This is known as Pascal's Wager. There are plenty of problems with it not the least of which is ...Which God are are you betting that you will face in Heaven, and why? Yes, I got A's in both graduate and undergraduate thermodynamics at MIT. Please don't bring up the old "evolution breaks the scond (or first) law of thermodyamics" canard without learning something about thermodynamics yourself ... only those who don't understand thermo try that one.Some good resources on thermodynamics, especaily as it relates to evolution, are Entropy is SimpleEntropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Life on Earth - Flow of Energy and Entropy, and The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith.

Good attitude.You really should change your signature; it's false.