If you ask me why I think it is impossible that life evolved into its various forms, I will basically tell you that the theory is based on scientific conjecture. And more than that, the conjecture may seem to add up, but -- not really. Why do I say that? Because the energy and "natural selection" needed to have the organisms, small or large, to evolve from one type (plant vs. animal) to another no longer makes sense to me. And, of course, it cannot be proved.
This is typical creationist tactics - misinformation.
But the misinformation come from not out of understanding the theory, but through allowing creationist’s personal belief in one’s own religion, to put “log” in front of one’s eyes (borrowing the speck-log parable) and plugging fingers in one’s ears.
Clearly, not all theists act in the same way as you do, as they don’t confuse religion with science or science with religion.
And you clearly have neither knowledge, nor the qualifications, nor the experiences, to judge objectively if Evolution is or isn’t science, because you don’t understand the basic concept of empirical “scientific evidence”, which are essential requirements of Scientific Method in every falsifiable theory.
But your religious faith and your bias are not your biggest faults, as shown below:
And, of course, it cannot be proved.
The biggest fault is your incapability of learning from one’s own errors.
Like how many times, must everyone explain to to you that any scientific theory that worth its salt, relied on observable and testable evidence, NOT ON PROOFS?
You keep confusing proof with evidence, and proving/disproving with testing. In the world of natural sciences and world of mathematics, they are not synonymous with one another.
Sciences “test” their models through observations of evidence, they don’t “prove” or “disprove”.
Testing a hypothesis or a theory, means testing the explanatory model, the predictive model & the logical model (this “logical model” is where the equations are formulated, equation = proof).
Such (multiple) tests involved (multiple) observations of physical evidence and gathering information about the evidence (data). It is these evidence & data that determine if the hypothesis or theory is scientifically valid or not valid, probable or improbable.
The tests are all about verifying or refuting any models, whether the models are explanatory, predictive or logical.
You keep refusing to understand the differences -
- between evidence vs proofs,
- between testing/observing vs proving/disproving.
Anyway, it is evidence that verify which theory is “science”, and Evolution have 163 years of evidence (163 years since the publication of On Origin Of Species, 1859).
Actually more than 163 years, since Darwin began his observations and researches of nature that led to On Origin, during his voyage onboard of HMS beagle, from 1831 to 1836.
Since his death, other biologists have been able to correct-&-update his work on Natural Selection, as well as expanded to include modern genetics, modern testing techniques (eg DNA tests, various techniques to date any materials’ age, eg radiometric dating, thermoluminescence dating, etc).
These new testing methods provide evidence and data to support Natural Selection, as well as more evidence other mechanisms of Evolution, eg Mutations, Genetic Drift, etc.
If you allow your bias to not see these evidence, then you have a very big log in front of your eyes. Stubborn ignorance and intellectual dishonesty (eg when you use misinformation in your arguments) are not virtues.
(Like even from the supposed "stone age" that was considered prehistoric, yes?)
