Hmmmm....is the fact that you chose to respond to my post twice, betraying a kind of desperation on your part?....any challenge to evolution (especially if it is reasonable) seems to elicit a sort of knee jerk response from some responders...twice even. LOL
Its like I have committed blasphemy or something!
There are no "proofs," but there are theories, and facts -- not arrived at through faith.
On the contrary...if there are theories then these are speculations called "hypotheses". (sounds better than just an idea, doesn't it?) These are not facts however. They cannot be turned into facts without proof....and because there is no proof for macro-evolution, regardless of the protestations, it is still just an unprovable idea that a lot of people subscribe to... (for obvious reasons) If you had no "faith" in the musings of human scientists, then you would not cling so tenaciously to something that cannot be possibly proven.
Science doesn't want to support any particular theory.
You must be kidding.
When you see the 'religious' fervor with which this theory is defended by scientists...it is clear that they want to support the one thing that apparently makes
them the smartest of the intelligent creatures In existence. Egos, money and recognition drive science, not intellect. Supposition is the basis of macro-evolution, not scientific facts.
It accumulates evidence, proposes interpretat, and tests them. Trying to disprove one's theorems is a fundamental step in science, as is peer review. In this, it's methods are the opposite of religious apologetics.
Peer review is a joke.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
You've been given references in previous posts. There are more below.
Seen them all before.....they are all the same.....no proof, just suggestions couched in jargon ,masquerading as facts. Adaptation is provable.....macro-evolution that takes us from amoebas to dinosaurs...is not. That has no basis in facts, it's just an idea that is promoted as if it
were fact. A classic example of the power of suggestion in action.
The ToE is a verifiable fact, with mountains of evidence -- which you are apparently unfamiliar with. As other posters have pointed out, there are no other rational or empirically evidenced explanations -- none! Creationism and ID are unsupported, religious pleadings.
Ah there is that word..."rational"....what does that imply? That those who can clearly see intelligent design in nature are somehow "irrational"? And what "empirical evidence" would that be? This is evidence derived through observation and experimentation, not on guesswork by those with biased leanings with an agenda to uphold.
Evidence needs interpretation which is why there is so much debate about this topic. If there was all this overwhelming evidence, there could be no debate.
Those "mountains of evidence" are nothing but molehills of suggestion. If you read through your own "evidence" through a lens that can make the distinction between suggestion and actual facts, then you would begin to see how gullible so many science "believers" really are.
If you're unaware of the mountains of constantly accumulating evidence, from a dozen different fields, you really aren't qualified to comment on this subject.
If you read the info in your links, how many of them are recent?.....so where is the "constantly accumulating evidence"?
It doesn't take a genius to spot a snow job.
Please go through the links you posted and see how old some of that information actually is.