Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2

No, he cannot elaborate. See Message 1.Perhaps if you are a bit more specific about what you are asking, others can comment.

The next time that you take an airplane trip, remember that there's no proof; there's only evidence.The next time you drive your car, remember that there is no proof; there's only evidence.The next time you take a step while walking, and expect the ground to not collapse under your step, remember that there is no proof; there is only evidence.When you next read your Bible, remember that there is no proof and there isn't even much evidence.

Fair enough.With that definition, there are no facts and there never could be any facts. Nothing is absolutely certain outside of abstract logic and abstract mathematics.

What makes you so sure that's an absolute truth?

That's all evidence. But you have repeatedly told us that evidence is not proof.So you cannot be absolutely certain. Maybe tomorrow, ice will stop melting with heat. How can be certain that won't happen?

No, this has not been proven. There likely have been many instances of ice that has not been observed. What has been observed is evidence. And evidence is not proof, as you yourself have been telling us.The idea that ice melts with heat is an extrapolation from the observed evidence. I'll accept that it is fact, but not that it is proved. It's an example of us deciding what is fact based on sufficient evidence. And it contradicts your claim that proof is required before something can be called a fact.

And you misunderstand that.We observe change over time. That's evolution as fact.The theory is an attempted explanation of what we observer.Scientists are clear about the distinction between what we observe (fact) and the theory that attempts to explain it. Yes, we use some of the same vocabulary for each. But the distinction is still quite clear -- except, perhaps, to creationists.