Np:
What is this, a contest to see who can come up with the most absurd straw man?
A useful analogy would be to say that we cannot be certain how Rome was built (except that we can be sure it probably wasn't built in a day).
Well if it can't be reproduced then that's not really science then.
Another bogus straw man. And why would anyone speculate about where americans came from? We have a reliable history that tells us where we came from.
Can this history be reproduced in a lab? How come I can't see it? Show me using pure observation this history.
If you can't it must be a matter of metaphysics, and a belief that the US came from aliens living on Venus is just as scientific as the idea that US colonists came from England.
We can see other planets.
Only in our solar system. Not in others, that's just metaphysics.
We can examine and measure light travel in the lab
But can we actually see the light waves themselves directly? If not then that speculation about the results of the experiment are just that, empty vacuous speculation, and the idea of light waves is no better or worse then that of : ghosts causing the results.
Fortunately, we can see things here and now that look like the formation of stars and rotation of galaxies, so we at least have something we can observe that we think are forming stars and rotating galaxies. They may not be forming stars or rotating galaxies, but we can at least see these examples now, which makes speculation a little more realistic. We never observed macroevolution from any distance, so we can't even say it occurred let alone guess how it happened.
But we never observed macro-changes in these galaxies, meaning all that speculation is just metaphysics.
Evolutionary scientists can observe adaptation. You can also build a car that automatically adapts to external climates by adjusting the heat or air conditioning inside the car. That doesn't imply that the car will develop wings and fly when the terrain gets too bumpy.
What a vacuous analogy. Comparing a organism, who's creation is under questin, to something designed as evidence for its design, is circular reasoning. We see people build cars, nobody has ever seen anything build an organism. Organisms are biological and can reproduce, cars aren't and can't.
That doesn't imply that the car will develop wings and fly when the terrain gets too bumpy.
That shows a huge misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Evoltionists do not believe an organism can go from no wings, to having wings within its lifetime. Evolutionists say that over millions of years, a population of organisms may be able to attain flight due to accumulated variations among offspring. There is a big difference.
Yet scientists have fantasized that because organisms have been designed to adapt to various stresses, they would also develop new features if you simply applied the right stresses and mutations.
Buzz, wrong answer. No scientist has ever said because one organism has adapted to some enviromental stress it showed how organisms could evolve Darwinian style. They said a group of organisms will change if slowly introduced to stress over generations. Something that has been observed with moths, dogs, finches, bacteria.
What they still can't
seem to get through their thick craniums is that the reason this kind of evolution has never been observed is because it doesn't occur.
Well seeing as they never even made the claim you are talking about, I'd stop looking at their craniums and start looking at my ears if I was you. Scientists know that saltation doesn't occur in an organisms lifetime. Do you realize that sort of observation would actually refute Darwinism?
And the fossils don't confirm their fantasy stories, so they simply make up new fantasy stories like punk eek. You'd think they'd have figured out by now that the fossils don't confirm their fantasy stories because their fantasy stories are only fantasy and not reality.
Oh really? Well seeing as they haven't found anything disconfirming, only confiriming I'd beg to differ. They haven't found anything for example like a 70 million year old man, even given their dating techniques which have, been fairly consistent. Fossils are not arranged randonmly but in the order one would expect if Darwinism were true. No "freaky" half bird/insect creatures have been found, a sort of animal that could be created but could not have evolved.
Certain animals that are obviously related have been found more or less in a sequence, of course there are "gaps" cause scientists don't get every single fossil, but given what they have seen, an evolutionary explanation is the least superfluous and thus confirmned.
You can test your theory of atoms here and now even if you can't see them.
I can't. I'd have to go to a lab.
But in any case you seem to be using equovocation. Historical evidence doesn't mean that scientists have their evidence in the past, it means they use relics from the past as evidence. Their evidence is just as "present" as that for atoms. If you can ignore one theory, then you can ignore the other. The same line of reasoning, confirming or disconfirming a theory via evidence applies to both.
