We understand, we just disagree with how science has been hijacked for this particular hypothesis. It's called disagreement, not ignorance.
Real smooth...just when I thought you wanted no ridicule, you reply with ridicule.
Lets see. Does evolution comply with scientific theory? Seeing as we have been unable to experiment and have nature to allow us to observe one species change into another species, no. Since the scientific method is the basis for turning hypothesis into scientific theory and providing proof to support that theory, evolution remains a hypothesis only. This is the basic version, lots more I could put into this.
The problem is that you are speaking of science while the evolutionists speak of philosophy. Whereas you obviously understand the difference, they don't. Or more accurately, the average undiscerning gullible high school and college biology student does not understand the difference. But the leading proponents of evolution understand the difference very well, they just don't want the rest of us to understand it. As long as they can masquerade their philosophy as empirical science, then they can advace their agenda. But if the facade is revealed for what it is, then their agenda will come to a halt. And the agenda is atheism and all of the social implications that ensue. And the leading evolutionists are more than happy to have "theistic evolutionists" as their useful idiots.
I haven't been following along with the last couple of posts simply because I gave up. I'd venture to say people like you, as has been evident in another thread know nothing about how science works, or just don't care.
I asked some VERY basic easy questions, and kept it at that basic level, which still remain unanswered because evolution has no answer to them. Instead, questions were asked of me. It doesn't work that way. Either the evidence is empirical, or it is not and it is not.
They were already answered for you. You simply just made up your mind.
Humility dictates that you even agree to disagree, but you take things further and imply "expertise" by debating and knowing how science works. Let's be honest. Is anyone here debating against evolution in a respectable science occupation with research that involves principles of evolution?
Chrevbel is trying to show you how science works by a Socratic method. But you avoid it because of your pre-conceived notions of how science works. And are you a scientist?
The best way to explain science is to compare it to detective work on crimes. Obviously you can't see a direct observation, but you observe the results of whatever happened and work backwards to solve it. The problem is you are asking Chrevbel to prove evolution by going back in time and observing it, whereas Chrevbel is telling you we are forward in time, and are trying to figure what happened in the past. That's the what he's trying to explain to you, but you're too stubborn to see it and blame scientists for being "philosophically oriented" and lead Gebre to believe theistic evolutionists are the "atheist's idiots".
Humor Chrevbel. Answer his question so that he can better explain science to you as he practices it rather than as you understand it, because clearly the "multiple" biology classes you took seem to either not have done a good job explaining science to you or you just rejected everything the teacher said but passed based on what the teacher is looking for. Either way, this whole discussion is useless with you if you're not going to be stubborn-minded to understand how people like me, Chrevbel, and Celticsfan understand science.