You are thinking of a hypothesis in relation to many questions being unanswered
But you fail to understand that if the hypothesis also has a great deal of unanswerable questions along with its opposing theory then the opposing theory is no more fruitless than the hypothesis.

In the sciences, a theory is a particular framework used to describe and understand the world around us.
A theory is also not fact, which makes creationism as much a valid hypothetical school of thought as evolution. Im not saying evolution is not correct, once it is established as a theory science is used to increase the probability of it being true through the use of discovery and whatever means you wish to use to prove that we evolved from rocks.

I doubt you can conduct an experimentation to prove we evolved from rocks, let alone observe it happening. But I dont know, have you got 4 billion years of time to spare?

A theory is a hypothesis and what is the definition of a hypothesis?

:

a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
The meaning of the word opinion?

:

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty;

And this does not by any means say that creationism is true or even that evolution is not true.

I rest my case:thumbsup:

This is done through such things as extensive and long-term experimentation and observation.
How do you go about using observation and experimentation as a means to prove that man evolved from rocks over a 4 billion year period?

Have you ever seen an ape evolve into a man?

Dont you think scientists would actualy laugh at your means as an attempt to "prove" without a shadow of a doubt that evolution is true?

Now you have lost credibility, nice try, I always enjoy seeing people joining in and learning from their mistakes

:thumbsup:

Until you take two seconds to even understand one of the most basic terms in science, you may want to hold off on judging the merits of science.
I by no means look down on science and discredit it, I doubt someone who actually studies the subject for a living would go about doing this lol.

Science is not about evolution, science is about learning, it is a skill to produce solutions which by no means should discredit the creationists theory OR the evolutionists theory.

I think you should understand that my message simply entails that due to the lack of evidence proving the evolution THEORY it makes it on parr with creationism which also is a theory based upon no fact or evidence.

Thats all im saying.

:thumbsup:

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say there but ok.
Well if you think about it, its simple, clearly we can look at evolution on a short term basis and show how animals can form into more adapted beings and conclude that their environment be the basis upon the characteristics they ascertain.

But try doing using this concept to prove that we evolved from rocks over 4 billion years.

And this brings me back to my original point, one may ask this question to an evolutionist and he/she may say:

"well it did take a long time" - hiding behind the time factor.

Yes because we think we evolved from rocks.... /facepalm
Who is "we"? Do you represent yourself and your own theories of coming to existence or are we talking about Darwinist evolution?

Because if we are talking of the latter then if you had any knowledge on the subject of evolution you would find that we did evolve from rocks and water according to the theory evolution.

But the former doesnâ??t bother me, you may think we were planted here by a race of hybrid horse monkeys.

Do some research, I have studied with evolutionists and I have asked many times; is this what you think? and they always reply "yes, this is the universal concept of evolution".

Now we just need to prove it.

Wow, do you actually believe what you are saying. You have no grasp of the science at all yet you are sure it is wrong. I've at least read the bible and a lot of people who believe in evolution were raised religious.
WOW slow down, I have not once said evolution is not true, how can I say this when there is no evidence to prove so?

You should think before you speak because I dont like people putting words in my mouth.

It is true evolutionists have to hide behind the 4 billion year period, that by no means makes evolution not true, it just emphasizes the fact that there is a huge flaw or gap (possibly waiting to be filled) in evolution, which CLEARLY puts evolutionists whom run down creationism as a stupid idea lacking evidence in a complete utter paradox.

And incase you dont understand the meaning of paradox here it is:

A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition.
Its also an English Indie rock band.