Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:

Audie: "I'd agree that those arguing for creationism do so w/o regard to or information on science. "

Audie, that is a staggeringly ignorant/naive statement. Many highly qualified, published and peer-reviewed Phds, in fact, argue for Creationism PRECISELY BECAUSE of what they know about science! This is why they realize the limits of what is possible with the mere existence of the necessary elements involved, that their mere appearance is (yes, scientifically) inexplicable. And then these various, massively complex entities - from their very beginnings - must have programming and specific functions that adhere to consistent laws. There are just so many places in this argument where there is only data and no explanations for either these things and mechanisms existence, intelligence of programming, and unfathomable design and sophistication. In other words, such scientists are REALISTS in assessing what we DO know. Those in the fantasy realm suggest the impossible from nothingness, and then they assert those saying such things are statistically impossible, uncaused/from nothing, know little about science. This really pisses me off! It's both arrogant and a huge lie!

Audie, go to reasons.org, spend a few days there reading some of their many excellent articles - typically and prolifically footnoted to peer-reviewed research. Then come back and try to tell me that all those arguing for Creationism don't know anything about science. As it's the SCIENTIFIC data that drives the core approach of their ministry (btw, they are old-earth progressive creationists). Really, it's incredibly naive to say that - and I'm being generous in my assessment. And to say that the beginning origins of the universe has nothing to do with evolution - hooweeeeeeeeee - that's like saying that if we can just find a planet with enough H2O and the correct temperatures and atmosphere, that life likely arrived there as well (which NASA's promotes in it's constant search for relevance and funding). The initial beginnings and conditions have EVERYTHING to do with what was and is possible!

Here's a fun link (even though it is linked on a young earth website) (http://creation.com/richard-smalley): Know who Dr. Richard Smalley was (He believed in a 14 billion year old universe)? He was (M.A., Ph.D. (Princeton), the Hackerman Professor of Chemistry, Physics, and Astronomy at Rice University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1996 for his discovery of (and his research on) a totally new allotrope (form) of carbon. This comprised unique soccerball-shaped molecules he named buckminsterfullerenes. Smalley certainly didn't initially accept Creationism, nor was he originally a Christian. And it was precisely his intense research into the details of evolutionary theories that changed his mind that, as a theory, it had many fatal flaws, and came to believe in Progressive Creationism.

Are you saying there was something published for peer review in support of creationism?

Ken

Exactly.

Audie, all you are speaking of are unproven theories - ALL of which are based upon things that supposedly infinitely existed. The entire idea is built upon assumptions. One is an theorized infinite number of Hubble volumes identical to ours in the Universe. But not one shred of proof for this, btw. AND, it's a clever way to suggest something has always existed without a beginning. That very first level - hmmm, how did the components of THAT begin - and where did they come from? Where did the design and complex information driving all that sprang from those supposed levels?

Paul Davies, the English physicist, affiliated with the Institute for Quantum Studies at Chapman University in California. He has held previous academic appointments at the University of Cambridge, University College London, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Adelaide and Macquarie University, and his specialties are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology. He has served as the chair of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics. Here's what Davies said about this issue:

"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."

And this, from Princeton cosmologist Paul Steinhardt: "A pervasive idea in fundamental physics and cosmology that should be retired: the notion that we live in a multiverse in which the laws of physics and the properties of the cosmos vary randomly from one patch of space to another. According to this view, the laws and properties within our observable universe cannot be explained or predicted because they are set by chance. Different regions of space too distant to ever be observed have different laws and properties, according to this picture. Over the entire multiverse, there are infinitely many distinct patches. Among these patches, in the words of Alan Guth, "anything that can happen will happen—and it will happen infinitely many times". Hence, I refer to this concept as a Theory of Anything. Any observation or combination of observations is consistent with a Theory of Anything. No observation or combination of observations can disprove it. Proponents seem to revel in the fact that the Theory cannot be falsified. The rest of the scientific community should be up in arms since an unfalsifiable idea lies beyond the bounds of normal science."

Steinhardt, again: "A Theory of Anything is useless because it does not rule out any possibility and worthless because it submits to no do-or-die tests. Many papers discuss potential observable consequences, but these are only possibilities, not certainties, so the Theory is never really put at risk.

Audie, what you assert is good science, with theories about multiple "bubbles" or levels - it's all meaningless theory. Not one bit of it can be proven or falsified, all it can talk about is what MIGHT be possible. And yet you are impressed by such nonsense - nonsense, by the way, which has many, essentially metaphysical, components to it: matter, information, mechanisms, precise functionality - each of incredible complexity and intensely interactive, that just simply came into existence - at some point - OR there always were such things as they needed no cause, because whatever their beginnings or "levels," certain things always existed. This is metaphysical talk, I don't care how much it's dressed up in scientific jargon. It's belief in the miraculous, that things cause themselves (or exist infinitely without any cause) and then bring great precision, complexity and order within their levels and inherent systems.

I'm not impressed with JARGON that still must, at it's very basics, mean the impossible - or rather things so unproven, so mathematically/statistically unlikely that one could only call them miraculous. But just because it's dressed up in Scientific speak, doesn't make it true, provable, or even possible. But that is exactly what you are asserting is scientific. Wow, talk about people of faith not being realists - just look at what some scientists are asserting about the multiverse levels. And if you think that such people aren't typically motivated by there other belief - that there is NO God, NO Cause, for what exists - I mean, what other possible thing can they do, except invent theories to explain the impossible, because that is precisely what they believe in. It all SOUNDS very clever, until you realize "the king has no clothes" - even though everyone pretends he's well dressed.

Philip wrote:Audie, all you are speaking of are unproven theories - ALL of which are based upon things that supposedly infinitely existed. The entire idea is built upon assumptions. One is an theorized infinite number of Hubble volumes identical to ours in the Universe. But not one shred of proof for this, btw. AND, it's a clever way to suggest something has always existed without a beginning. That very first level - hmmm, how did the components of THAT begin - and where did they come from? Where did the design and complex information driving all that sprang from those supposed levels?

Paul Davies, the English physicist, affiliated with the Institute for Quantum Studies at Chapman University in California. He has held previous academic appointments at the University of Cambridge, University College London, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Adelaide and Macquarie University, and his specialties are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology. He has served as the chair of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics. Here's what Davies said about this issue:

"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."

And this, from Princeton cosmologist Paul Steinhardt: "A pervasive idea in fundamental physics and cosmology that should be retired: the notion that we live in a multiverse in which the laws of physics and the properties of the cosmos vary randomly from one patch of space to another. According to this view, the laws and properties within our observable universe cannot be explained or predicted because they are set by chance. Different regions of space too distant to ever be observed have different laws and properties, according to this picture. Over the entire multiverse, there are infinitely many distinct patches. Among these patches, in the words of Alan Guth, "anything that can happen will happen—and it will happen infinitely many times". Hence, I refer to this concept as a Theory of Anything. Any observation or combination of observations is consistent with a Theory of Anything. No observation or combination of observations can disprove it. Proponents seem to revel in the fact that the Theory cannot be falsified. The rest of the scientific community should be up in arms since an unfalsifiable idea lies beyond the bounds of normal science. Yet, except for a few voices, there has been surprising complacency and, in some cases, grudging acceptance of a Theory of Anything as a logical possibility."

Steinhardt, again: "A Theory of Anything is useless because it does not rule out any possibility and worthless because it submits to no do-or-die tests. (Many papers discuss potential observable consequences, but these are only possibilities, not certainties, so the Theory is never really put at risk.

Audie, what you assert is good science, with theories about multiple "bubbles" or levels - it's all meaningless theory. Not one bit of it can be proven or falsified, all it can talk about is what MIGHT be possible. And yet you are impressed by such nonsense - nonsense, by the way, which has many, essentially metaphysical, components to it: matter, information, mechanisms, precise functionality - each of incredible complexity and intensely interactive, that just simply came into existence - at some point - OR there always were such things as they needed no cause, because whatever their beginnings or "levels," certain things always existed. This is metaphysical talk, I don't care how much it's dressed up in scientific jargon. It's belief in the miraculous, that things cause themselves (or exist infinitely without any cause) and then bring great precision, complexity and order within their levels and inherent systems. I'm not impressed with JARGON that still must, at it's very basics, mean the impossible - or rather things so unproven, so mathematically/statistically unlikely that one could only call them miraculous. But just because it's dressed up in Scientific speak, doesn't make it true, provable, or even possible. But that is exactly what you are asserting is scientific. Wow, talk about people of faith not being realists - just look at what some scientists are asserting about the multiverse levels. And if you think that such people aren't typically motivated by there other belief - that there is NO God, NO Cause, for what exists - I mean, what other possible thing can they do, except invent theories to explain the impossible, because that is precisely what they believe in. It SOUND very clever, until you realize "the king has no clothes" - even though everyone pretends he's well dressed.

Ok, I will take it from your first sentence that you are taking me up on my "have a go at it".

If you wish to have me do so, I can and will detail quite a running list of stunningly naive and ignorant things you say about science. Shall we have a go at it?


There is is no such thing as a "proven theory". Talk of an unproven theory is a "tell" for scientific illiteracy, something as if I spoke of a football rink, or the net in a baseball game.

Your opinion about "based on...infinitely existed" is pretty strange. ToE is based on the data indicating deep time and change in life forms over that time.

I suppose you could make a similar case for the rules football being based on the origin of the universe but to what purpose?

I made no statement about "bubbles" etc. Nor did I say it was good science. You are inventing things.

Ive an idea you are not really up on cosmology, but then, Im not a physicist myself.

I can talk with some knowledge about the theory of evolution. Im not going to discuss cosmology, unless to learn from someone who does have some knowledge of it.

Audie, have you always been so sweet?

Things infinitely existing would relate to the theorized multiverse levels - which YOU brought up. Of course, evolution is WAY down the cosmic road, on the space/time continuum. And so what you brought up, "Level One," is related to what are the theorized "bubbles."

Audie wrote:
There is is no such thing as a "proven theory".

Audie,
Philip didn't say "proven theory". He said, "Audie, all you are speaking of are unproven theories".

They are unproven. And you are putting an awful lot of confidence on something that is unproven. I understand that. It's all you have.

But please don't be so quick to try to jump down someone's neck for saying something that is different than you'd say it.

Audie wrote:
Talk of an unproven theory is a "tell" for scientific illiteracy, something as if I spoke of a football rink, or the net in a baseball game.

Could it be that Philip is talking about something that you just don't understand? Ask for clarification. It's usually more polite than calling someone scientifically illiterate.

For example, I could say you shouldn't use analogies with things you have no idea about. It's a sign of ignorance.

Football rink:




And, Baseball net. There's one behind home plate in most baseball stadiums:


have a nice day!

We gone over this before and while many people love to point out the science doesn't prove anything or isn't in the business of proofs, the reality is that YES it is and people that say it isn't are simply using a disclaimer.
The simple reality is that IF science can't prove anything and is not in the business of "proving" then of what use is it ??????
What is it's point?

Philip wrote:Audie, have you always been so sweet?

Things infinitely existing would relate to the theorized multiverse levels - which YOU brought up. Of course, evolution is WAY down the cosmic road, on the space/time continuum. And so what you brought up, "Level One," is related to what are the theorized "bubbles."

Always. As for levels, I dont think we are ever going to find one in common.

Audie wrote:

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:Evolve: change. Yes, life 'evolves," and we can test and observe the mechanisms of evolution (NS, mutation....) changing the genome. And yes, it's a fact. Does anyone here dispute that? Not that I can see.

The person I was refuting said "I already know there is no evidence anybody who accepts evolution can give that proves,shows or demonstrates scientifically life evolves."

jlay wrote: So, let's look at the whole theory.
What do we know, and what is speculation?
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

Ok, Darwin has provided a means by which to falsify his theory, but the problem is that his theory isn't demonstrable in the first place. There is no evidence of the mechanisms of evolution creating such complex structures. None. So, how can we falsify a negative? It is simply assumed. It is question begging to the highest degree. I mean the theory literally presumes in its premise what it intends to demonstrate in the conclusion. That is circular. It presumes a closed system, which can't be argued scientifically. It's like taking a pair of scissors and being asked to explain the origins while being forced to ignore the design they demonstrate.
So here is a question, what is the function of an eye?

I understand there is much that is under the umbrella of Evolution that people disagree with. It was not my intention to defend evolution against all who have disagreements with it, just to point out that saying all of it is false is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I am curious though; whatever disagreements you have with the theory, I am sure there are plenty of others who share your disagreements. Why do you suppose nobody publishes something for peer review? Why not put something down so those who study Paleontology can either pick it apart or admit it is true?

Ken

IOW, lets hear an actual fact contrary to ToE. Philosophy, religion, "information", etc aint it.

Nobody has published such facts, They may be there, but they seem to remain undetected.

IF ToE is wrong, the proof should be everywhere.

So it must be a peer reviewed scientific paper pointing out the flaws of evolution before you accept it?You put a lot of faith in scientists and it is telling when you can't look for yourself.Also after the way people are treated for coming out against evolution,what makes you think a flaw of evolution could be peer reviewed? You need to look into Rupert Sheldrake who is an evolutionist,not a creationist and see how he was treated for pointing out some flaws of the TOE and then giving his theory on how to fix it was treated.You act like unless its peer reviewed it is just "hot air" but you also never can get into the real evidence for the TOE maybe it is just easy to trust scientists on what you accept or not.Science is in a bubble and anybody who dares go against evolution will be ignored and treated badly making it impossible to get anything peer reviewed that goes against evolution.
Scientific heretic Rupert Sheldrake
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... mysteries/

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
There is is no such thing as a "proven theory".

Audie,
Philip didn't say "proven theory". He said, "Audie, all you are speaking of are unproven theories".

They are unproven. And you are putting an awful lot of confidence on something that is unproven. I understand that. It's all you have.

But please don't be so quick to try to jump down someone's neck for saying something that is different than you'd say it.

Audie wrote:
Talk of an unproven theory is a "tell" for scientific illiteracy, something as if I spoke of a football rink, or the net in a baseball game.

Could it be that Philip is talking about something that you just don't understand? Ask for clarification. It's usually more polite than calling someone scientifically illiterate.

For example, I could say you shouldn't use analogies with things you have no idea about. It's a sign of ignorance.

Football rink:




And, Baseball net. There's one behind home plate in most baseball stadiums:


have a nice day!

Im sure our hero can speak for himself, but WHY on earth would anyone bother to say
"unproven theory' except in contrast to some other sort of theory?

Regarding sports analogies, and a "tell' for not knowing anything about a subject, I outdid myself. Id do poorly on a post game show, analyzing the game.

A speaker who got up before a panel of scientists and said "just a lotta unproven theories" would not be getting off to a very good start. It better be a joke, or they better have something really profound to say.

A person who went on t suggest that the ToE cant be discussed until the ultimate secrets of the universe are revealed first will find he is the last man standing, in the room, that is. Everyone else will leave.

PaulSacramento wrote:We gone over this before and while many people love to point out the science doesn't prove anything or isn't in the business of proofs, the reality is that YES it is and people that say it isn't are simply using a disclaimer.
The simple reality is that IF science can't prove anything and is not in the business of "proving" then of what use is it ??????
What is it's point?

One can prove beyond reasonable doubt that, for example, at STP pure water will boil at 100C. Its fine to say it is true, or maybe even Truth, for those who like to talk that way.

No theory or law can ever be proven to be correct. Are you somehow disputing that?
If not, there is no need to belabour this topic.

When a person speaks of 'unproven theories" or "just a theory" it is very suggestive of a serious laack of scientific literacy. May not, uh, prove it, but, it sure makes a person look silly.

Audie: A speaker who got up before a panel of scientists and said "just a lotta unproven theories" would not be getting off to a very good start. It better be a joke, or they better have something really profound to say.

Audie, now you are playing around with words, as you well know that to place the adjective "unproven" in front of the word theory is merely to emphasize that it is an essentially MEANINGLESS theory and not any better or worse than any other idea put forth, excepting some probabilities are far less likely than others. And even scientists occasionally (even OFTEN) need to be reminded that a theory is ONLY a theory. Why? Because they often talk about such theories AS IF they are a proven certainty. Also, you're attempting to change to subject (more smoke and mirrors), to talk about semantics of someone pointing out a theory has yet to be proven, as an obvious strategy to belittle one who is pointing out where all someone has is an improbable theory (the multiverse being one without ANY evidence). But that's what you like to talk about are theories and that they are well discussed in the scientific literature - well, what does THAT mean? Nothing! Why? I won't use the word you think is so funny.

And so what did Princeton cosmologist Steinhardt, referring to mulitverse theories call such, yes, UNPROVEN theories? "The Theory of ANYTHING!" Why? because, as mere theory, it is both meaningless, unobservable, and has not one shred of evidence showing it to have the slightest validity. He does this in chastisement to how scientists often push theory as if it were fact. And, he says, this is a HUGE problem. The guy's a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry? Hope no one's laughing, as he is essentially pointing out the very same thing others are when they comment on mere theories.

Who's really the realist? The person whom points out a theory remains an unproven idea, or the one who is so enamored with scientists discussing theories and possibilities as if their training makes something that is unproven far more than simply that? This is what you are doing when you appeal to the supposed superiority of scientific uncertainty as opposed to that of others, because as neither uncertainty changes the known facts or that something is that remains unproven.

Philip wrote:

Audie: A speaker who got up before a panel of scientists and said "just a lotta unproven theories" would not be getting off to a very good start. It better be a joke, or they better have something really profound to say.

Audie, now you are playing around with words, as you well know that to place the adjective "unproven" in front of the word theory is merely to emphasize that it is an essentially MEANINGLESS theory and not any better or worse than any other idea put forth, excepting some probabilities are far less likely than others. And even scientists occasionally (even OFTEN) need to be reminded that a theory is ONLY a theory. Why? Because they often talk about such theories AS IF they are a proven certainty. Also, you're attempting to change to subject (more smoke and mirrors), to talk about semantics of someone pointing out a theory has yet to be proven, as an obvious strategy to belittle one who is pointing out where all someone has is an improbable theory (the multiverse being one without ANY evidence). But that's what you like to talk about are theories and that they are well discussed in the scientific literature - well, what does THAT mean? Nothing! Why? I won't use the word you think is so funny.

And so what did Princeton cosmologist Steinhardt, referring to mulitverse theories call such, yes, UNPROVEN theories? "The Theory of ANYTHING!" Why? because, as mere theory, it is both meaningless, unobservable, and has not one shred of evidence showing it to have the slightest validity. He does this in chastisement to how scientists often push theory as if it were fact. And, he says, this is a HUGE problem. The guy's a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry? Hope no one's laughing, as he is essentially pointing out the very same thing others are when they comment on mere theories.

Who's really the realist? The person whom points out a theory remains an unproven idea, or the one who is so enamored with scientists discussing theories and possibilities as if their training makes something that is unproven far more than simply that? This is what you are doing when you appeal to the supposed superiority of scientific uncertainty as opposed to that of others, because as neither uncertainty changes the known facts or that something is that remains unproven.

It might be best to push the reset button here.

To whatever extent I may have misread you is at least fully matched by your misreading of me.

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:We gone over this before and while many people love to point out the science doesn't prove anything or isn't in the business of proofs, the reality is that YES it is and people that say it isn't are simply using a disclaimer.
The simple reality is that IF science can't prove anything and is not in the business of "proving" then of what use is it ??????
What is it's point?

One can prove beyond reasonable doubt that, for example, at STP pure water will boil at 100C. Its fine to say it is true, or maybe even Truth, for those who like to talk that way.

No theory or law can ever be proven to be correct. Are you somehow disputing that?
If not, there is no need to belabour this topic.

When a person speaks of 'unproven theories" or "just a theory" it is very suggestive of a serious laack of scientific literacy. May not, uh, prove it, but, it sure makes a person look silly.

Audie, the simple realistic fact is this:
IF science can't prove anything, it serves no purpose (besides entertainment value of course).
When people say that science doesn't prove things what they are basically saying is that nothing that can be observed and repeated can be proven to be what is observed and repeated.
IF that is the case then science is a exercise in pointlessness.

The reality is that science is approached with the understanding that it can prove certain things and that the scientific process is a valid on in proving that things are a certain way.
No one sets out in science to NOT prove something.

The evidence we have for evolution is what we use to try and prove that evolution happens, the degree of success is not the issue in regards to WHY science collects data and evidence for evolution because what is the issue is the POINT of collecting data and doing experiments and establishing evidence and that is to PROVE that evolution happens.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:We gone over this before and while many people love to point out the science doesn't prove anything or isn't in the business of proofs, the reality is that YES it is and people that say it isn't are simply using a disclaimer.
The simple reality is that IF science can't prove anything and is not in the business of "proving" then of what use is it ??????
What is it's point?

One can prove beyond reasonable doubt that, for example, at STP pure water will boil at 100C. Its fine to say it is true, or maybe even Truth, for those who like to talk that way.

No theory or law can ever be proven to be correct. Are you somehow disputing that?
If not, there is no need to belabour this topic.

When a person speaks of 'unproven theories" or "just a theory" it is very suggestive of a serious laack of scientific literacy. May not, uh, prove it, but, it sure makes a person look silly.

Audie, the simple realistic fact is this:
IF science can't prove anything, it serves no purpose (besides entertainment value of course).
When people say that science doesn't prove things what they are basically saying is that nothing that can be observed and repeated can be proven to be what is observed and repeated.
IF that is the case then science is a exercise in pointlessness.

The reality is that science is approached with the understanding that it can prove certain things and that the scientific process is a valid on in proving that things are a certain way.
No one sets out in science to NOT prove something.

The evidence we have for evolution is what we use to try and prove that evolution happens, the degree of success is not the issue in regards to WHY science collects data and evidence for evolution because what is the issue is the POINT of collecting data and doing experiments and establishing evidence and that is to PROVE that evolution happens.

So do you think that science is in the biz of proving laws and theories are true?

Or is it a matter of probabilities?

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:We gone over this before and while many people love to point out the science doesn't prove anything or isn't in the business of proofs, the reality is that YES it is and people that say it isn't are simply using a disclaimer.
The simple reality is that IF science can't prove anything and is not in the business of "proving" then of what use is it ??????
What is it's point?

One can prove beyond reasonable doubt that, for example, at STP pure water will boil at 100C. Its fine to say it is true, or maybe even Truth, for those who like to talk that way.

No theory or law can ever be proven to be correct. Are you somehow disputing that?
If not, there is no need to belabour this topic.

When a person speaks of 'unproven theories" or "just a theory" it is very suggestive of a serious laack of scientific literacy. May not, uh, prove it, but, it sure makes a person look silly.

Audie, the simple realistic fact is this:
IF science can't prove anything, it serves no purpose (besides entertainment value of course).
When people say that science doesn't prove things what they are basically saying is that nothing that can be observed and repeated can be proven to be what is observed and repeated.
IF that is the case then science is a exercise in pointlessness.

The reality is that science is approached with the understanding that it can prove certain things and that the scientific process is a valid on in proving that things are a certain way.
No one sets out in science to NOT prove something.

The evidence we have for evolution is what we use to try and prove that evolution happens, the degree of success is not the issue in regards to WHY science collects data and evidence for evolution because what is the issue is the POINT of collecting data and doing experiments and establishing evidence and that is to PROVE that evolution happens.

So do you think that science is in the biz of proving laws and theories are true?

Or is it a matter of probabilities?

Are you suggesting that Newton and Einstein set off to discover and establish JUST probablities ??

If science is only about what is possible then it is just as good as placebo's in medicine since it is POSSIBLE that placebos work too !