I can't wait until it's so dead and gone we can finally shed this silly "evolutionist" term that is just completely absurd because not one electrician is an ohmist, no more than anyone is a magnetist or gravitationist or a germist.
The reason why there are no ohmists, magnetists, gravitationalists or germists is because all of these have proof of their existence.
Electricians are taught to understand how to generate electricity....how to direct it via cable to power machinery and appliances....and what the dangers are in misusing it.
Magnetism is also provable and well understood. Experiments in labs can demonstrate its existence and its properties. Things like compasses have been utilizing the magnetic properties of the magnetic poles for centuries. The first compass was invented in China 200 years BC.
Gravity is testable in everyday life. It is proven to exist. All I have to do is drop something heavier than the air around it....or jump off a building.
Germs can be observed under a microscope, and found in the bloodstream of victims of the various diseases caused by them. There is no "belief" required.
Now, tell me how macro-evolution fits into this scenario? All science has as evidence for "evolution" is adaptation, which is not at issue in these discussions. Adaptation can be verified in lab experiments ,but macro-evolution is an 'assumption' based on that process continuing on a grand scale over an infinite period of time....so there is no way to test it or to verify it, except to pretend that it "might have"....."could have".....or even "must have" happened. The power of suggestion could sell ice to Eskimos.
No one "believes" the sun rises in the East. It's silly to say we "believe" that, because it has been proven to be true millions and millions of times over.
Exactly....we see with our own eyes every day that the sun rises in the same place every day according to where we live in this world. There is no "belief" required. It is provable and astronomers tells us why it happens that way.
At least Creationists acknowledge evolution as a theory, even if they don't understand what a scientific theory actually entails and why it isn't at all like the way the word is used by many people in everyday life.
The very fact that science needed to change the definition of the word "theory" to
not mean a theory at all is very telling IMO. When is a theory not a theory? When you can't prove it and you need to sell it. This is why discussions of this topic invariably end with name calling and personal insults....its all evolutionists have left after you expose the fact that they have no substantiated evidence for what they claim.
Yes, saying evolution happened is ridiculous, because evolution is a current and ongoing process.
Actually, there is only proof for "adaptation" as an ongoing process. Man keeps changing the environment so creatures must adapt to survive his impact on their habitat. There is no proof however, that adaptation leads to macro-evolution at all. It is a "suggestion" based on very biased interpretation of "evidence" like fossils. They can't speak for themselves, so scientists have to put words in their bony mouths to support what they "think" might have happened all those millenniums ago when there was no one to document a thing.....I hope people understand the difference. Science students are never taught that difference.
Germs are a theory and a fact.
Which is why God told the Israelites to wash their hands before a meal and after using the toilet. He even told them about touching dead bodies and how to practice quarantining. How long did it take medical science to get those memos?
Louis Pasteur proved the germ theory of disease though he was not the first to propose that diseases were caused by microscopic organisms. His view was controversial in the 19th century, and opposed the accepted theory of “spontaneous generation”. Imagine! The Israelites knew something thousands of years before science "discovered" "germs". Go figure.