Originally Posted by RayF
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
And once again, you demonstrate that you don't even know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

Perhaps.

And perhaps you maintain that approach in an attempt to distract from the fact that your opinion about human evolution is purely subjective.

It doesn’t matter. You have no proven theory in a practice that requires one. I have faith in a practice in which that is all that’s required.

Game. Set. Match.



You have "Faith", which is not evidence. If you had evidence you would present it instead of making a faith based claim, and you claim I don't have a theory when you don't even know the meaning of the word and it's application in Science.

Heck, you can't even find the court, let alone win a game.

Let me help you out a bit, as described in the following article, you are stuck in Elementary School:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell