The main difference between creationist and evolutionists is that evolutionists can point to bones and fossils and say that they prove evolution. Creationists point to God as proof of creation. But since you cannot see God the evolutionists say there there is no proof. Evolutionists only want proof they can see and touch but that does not mean an invisible untouchable God does not exist. Also there are many gaps in the fossil records. Evolutionists may look at a tiny feagment of bone and try to say it proves something. May a fragment of fish bone was found in a bird nest. Does that prove fish evoled from birds ? Or maybe just that a bird ate a fish? Sometimes "proof" cannot be seen or touched.
It is “evidence”, not “proof”.
In science and maths, proof and evidence are not the same things.
The fossils, the fossil records, are evidences, not proofs.
Proof is a logic statement, like mathematical statements in the forms as equations or formulas. The logic used, is man-made, so it could be right or wrong.
Proof is a logical solution, and therefore often abstract; it is not a real world solution.
Evidence is real world solution that will either “verify” the statements (statements in the explanatory form of hypothesis or a theory), or “refute” the statements.
Until the statements can be rigorously tested, through finding verifiable evidences or through repeatable experiments, then no one can determine if the statements are true or false.
In the hypothesis, a scientist may provide some of these equations or formulas along with their explanation.
If the evidences support or back both the explanation and the maths, then that’s great. But what if the tests don’t support the maths, then it is clear, that one should ditch the maths (proofs), not the evidences.
Do you understand what I am saying here, lostwanderingsoul?
I am saying that proof isn’t the same as evidence, and science, and I mean real “experimental science” (as opposed to “theoretical science”), relied more on the testable evidences than on the maths (proofs).
(With theoretical science, it is the opposite, where theoretical scientists relied more on the maths, and therefore on proofs, than on testable evidences. Theoretical science are not real science, because they are not “testable” at this stage.
Theoretical science only provide possible and “proposed” solutions. Superstring theory and cyclical universe models are not “scientific theories” because they cannot meet the requirements of Scientific Method, they are fields of theoretical physics, relying on solution of complex equations.)
