Darwinism has no probability calculation. Thus, it is not a theory. How many chimps have become humans in 2020? Is it more than in 2019? Darwinism uses luck to create new information, that violates the natural laws: due to holding of laws, no new information can be added.
You said that you would disprove (prove incorrect) Darwin's theory. You didn't.Why? Because proof is that which convinces that an idea is correct or incorrect by eliminating the possibility of other previously logically possible scenarios now excluded. Consider a suspect telling the police that he is innocent of a crime. At that moment, two possibilities exist - guilty or not. Suppose an alibi is offered that confirms that the suspect had no opportunity to commit the crime. If the alibi is confirmed, the alibi is proof of innocence. Two logical possibilities have been winnowed down to two.
You've done nothing like that. The fact that you have convinced nobody if the proof that you proved nothing to anybody.
I like to use the analogy of a stand-up comedian who claims that he was hilarious on stage when nobody laughed. If people behave as if or tell you that you weren't funny, you weren't funny to those people. You have to make them laugh or smile.
Similarly, if you claim that you proved something to an audience where nobody was convinced, you're wrong.
How many chimps have become humans in 2020? Is it more than in 2019?
What you have demonstrated, unless you are lying about your stated opinions and don't really hold them, is that like almost every creationist that has come before you (and every one without exception in my experience on religious forums), is that you don't know the science you criticize. You don't know what a scientific theory is, you have a bizarre outlook on the need to quantify for science to be legitimate or a theory to be a theory, and that you don't know what the theory of evolution says. In fact, if a monkey gave birth to a human being, it would falsify the theory, which predicts that that never happens.
So there's a 50-50 chance evolution is correct?
No, there's almost no chance that the theory is incorrect. Suppose that the theory were falsified tomorrow after a monkey gave birth to a human being with no human technical or genetic intervention. The theory has to tossed out. But here's the creationist's problem: all of those mountains of data that preceded the falsification don't go away. They need to be reinterpreted in light of the totality of evidence, which now rules the theory out. What's left?
Only intelligent design by a deceptive intelligence with the power to seed the earth with so many false clues intended to mislead us. Consider just the geological column with its deeper and more superficial strata, with the deepest forms being further from modern forms morphologically, and having radionuclide ratios that were put there to make it seem that they were older than the more superficial forms.
Does that describe your god - a trickster? Sounds more like Loki. I'd say that the Christian god - the god that loves you, is sinless, is perfectly good and moral, and who expects you to believe him that he made the world and the life forms on it and worship and obey him because of it - has already been ruled out.
Incidentally, this intelligence need not be supernatural (a god), so even falsification of the theory doesn't prove a god, since an alternative logical possibility exists - very powerful extraterrestrials who came to exist naturalistically through abiogenesis on a remote location followed by biological and then cultural evolution. Whatever you consider the likelihood of this being the case is the difference between certainty and the likelihood that the theory is correct - much less than 1% in my estimation.
The theory is probably correct. Christian creationism is definitely in error.
