Comment: "The above statement is

(See in situ)

"The above statement is

"The above statement is scientifically illogical, I'm sorry."

Not according to a handful of sciences that accept evolution as a fact.
How have so many scientists been duped about the meaning and processes of science? Just curious. I'm not saying, "It's right because they say it's right." (It's right for the many reasons I've already mentioned) What I'm asking is why do you believe they've all gotten it wrong? Surely such a phenomenon - scientists misunderstanding the meaning and function of science - deserves an explanation since you're positing it to be the case.

"Your hypothesis has not been demonstrated."

Sure it has. Several hypotheses have been demonstrated from multiple perspectives, all of which corroborate the theory of evolution.

"Being true to a "functional degree" is not scientific proof, sorry."

Yes it is. Science is -never- concerned with absolute truth. Science is concerned with what is most likely, or 'functionally true.' This is true whether you're testing the observable or unobservable.

"Functions having been demonstrated and existence corroborated is not scientific proof, sorry."

It most certainly is.

You're confusing science with mathematics. The only place where you get literal 'proofs' is mathematics. In science you have a hypothesis which must be tested against, in a manner such that the results might falsify it. If it is not falsified, then it must be tested again. There is no literal threshold for a theory to cross to be considered truth, but a theory that has been tested thousands of times and confirmed in each case will be accepted as the highest functional truth. That's the case with evolution, oh and gravity. Do you see gravity as a fact or is it only an unproven theory?

"As far as your religious beliefs go, you irrationally belief a certain axiom: that evolution is scientific fact. That axiom is undemonstrated and undemonstrable. Hence, it is a religious belief, no different than any other religious belief. Your religion is belief in certain principles and beliefs that are generally accepted, but are not scientifically provable. Hence, it is a faith-based belief system."

Using religion as a pejorative is hilarious.

Also it's funny that you claim that evolution is not demonstrable. Even with your position that it is not demonstrated, why would you conclude that it is not demonstrable? In other words, nothing I've said to you would have met your burden of proof. Good job revealing the bias I've been referencing all along.