Another delusional atheist that doesn't get it.
Fact is a truth that is ascertained by direct experience or observation. i.e., that which can be empirically established. You have established nothing.
The burden of proof is not on me to disprove your claims, it is on you to prove your claims.. You deny God, yet you also deny any burden to disprove God.. How is it that you don't understand that your affirmative claims Darwinism, Big Bang have the same burden? Would you accept anything less empirical evidence (actual observation) for God? If not then why do you expect me to believe when you cannot provide empirical evidence for your own claims?
Confirming your delusions, you think disproving one thing proves something else, or you think someone else thinks this way. Whenever I hear someone tell me they know how I think or what I think, I know this person is either stupid or delusional, not just ignorant.
Worse, you claim evolution to be a fact by innuendo. Evolution has never been an observed part of science. In fact there is plenty of science that shows Darwinism is wrong, like "breeding has limitations" and "mutations" are more often than not detrimental. So why would anyone make the false claim that Darwinism is a proven fact?
It's not up to us to disprove a given theory. It's up to the theory to prove itself against the laws of science. In this manner, evolution disproves itself; it is operationally impossible. When you also then consider the laws of information, then it becomes exponentially impossible.
You don't have a single fact, yet say something is a fact? How delusional inept ignorant and downright childish stupid is that?
Lazy ignorant atheists want us to do their work for them. Okay then, let's disprove Darwinian Evolution once and for all.
Those atheists denying the evidence of the Bible are essentially saying "creation cannot be true because it involves the supernatural." Atheists fear and deny anything to do with God, and demand that Science must be limited to natural explanations.
This begs the question because whether the universe was naturally formed or supernaturally created is the very question at issue. In the above argument, the evolutionist has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove. Another example would be, "how can the Bible be right about a ~6,OOO-year-old earth, when we know from radiometric dating that the world is billions of years old?" This assumes that radiometric dating gives consistently reliable results; but creationists deny this and have offered evidence to the contrary. This hypothetical critic has merely assumed the very thing he is attempting to prove.
Science is a methodology outlined by Francis Bacon—who accepted Genesis as history, by the way. Real science is accurate and precise, not vague and sloppy like historical science for evolution. Bacon was aware that the creation model is useful for discovery and collecting observations that can be repeatedly tested. The evolutionary model cannot be placed in this framework. For example, one cannot design an experiment to test evolutionary ideas. How can this be real science that demands burden of proof?
Those saying evolution is a fact are confused and generally point to natural selection. Natural Selection alone is insufficient to result in Darwinian evolution.
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits, the Creation model using many of the same principles, something we agree on. But as a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds or a new genus to emerge.
There is no current explanation or hypothetical mechanism for Darwinian Evolution that has not been discredited by observation or experimentation.. Real science involves observable, testable and repeatable testing of evidence. Anyone can repeat and observe the results; empirical science, observational science, operational science, all the same thing.
Science cannot even make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—but let's say you can just for fun. Turn it into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.
What you are looking for is empirical evidence. That may be a new idea to most atheists, so define your terms. Empirical evidence is how we "know" something with a very high probability, by the integrity and detail of the evidence in truth of fact.
Empirical Evidence against evolution
1. Watson and Crick disproved Darwinian Evolution in 1953, but some people still must believe in "mythology & folklore," because we're still discussing it, still trying to get the correct information out to dispense with an infinite number of lies that develop around the myth called evolution.
The mechanism for Darwinian Evolution was discredited in 1953 when Watson and Cricks discovery of DNA refuted Darwin's assertion that the possible variation was infinite thereby disproving the common dissent aspect of Darwin's Model.
2. Crick says the human genome cannot occur randomly. If life cannot occur randomly, evolution in the past is impossible. Proof enough. Even if they some day do figure out how to create life from non-life in the lab, doesn't make any difference.
3. Evolution relies on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is empirically proven false over and over, and will remain false until it isn't. Abiogenesis violates the natural universal law of biogenesis--life comes from life, not non-life. Abiogenesis is scientifically proven false. That means evolution has no starting point and is therefore non-existent.
4. The Natural Laws pertaining to information hold that information is immaterial and that matter cannot bring forth anything immaterial. Yet the whole of the material universe contains vast amounts of information. To assert a materialistic explanation, it is necessary to demonstrate information arising from material interactions.. When we include DNA into the mix we are talking not just information but language - including syntax and grammar and complex algorithms. Not only can science not explain this but the Natural Laws pertaining to Information assert this type of information cannot be produced by matter or material interactions.
This is yet another line of evidence that invalidates systematic materialism..
5. Natural selection is well established but a common tactic is to point to evidence of natural selection and assert it proves common descent.. best to clarify Common Descent so everybody is talking about the same thing.
a. The net product of natural selection is a loss of information - the opposite of what is needed to drive common descent.
b. Gene knockout experiments have demonstrated once a gene is knocked out the cell uses other pathways to obtain what it needs. As a result there is no basis for natural selection to preserve the mutation, and good reasons not to.
c. Experiments and observation demonstrate most mutations are not random but are the product of guided physiological processes - once again observation and experimentation contradict the evolutionary model's claims.
d. Genes are not central and experimental evidence has demonstrated it is not the genes but other factors that determine body types - as all the selection in the world will not produce a novel body type because body type is not mediated by the genes.
At first the inferences used to argue evolution are almost compelling, but looking more closely they all fall through. Evolution fails because the more observations you make and the more data you gather the less viable it becomes. The point has been reached where those arguing for evolution sound more like the Greek Sophists than scientists!
-- the Darwinist's have been comparing the genes but ignoring the organization and structure.. Looking at organization and structure they would have found that the genes for this or that protein was located on different chromosomes. Genomics is concluding that all mammals have a common compliment of proteins (and so genes coding for those proteins) but where those proteins are coded in the Genome varies from genus to genus. Building a tree of life taking into consideration where in the genome the individual proteins are coded and you have something completely different than just looking at individual genes. This is one of several reasons Genetics and genomics empirically disprove Darwinism.
The simple fact is the more data that comes in - the less plausible Darwinism (any of it's forms) becomes. Were it not for the social and political aspects of the theory it would have been abandoned a long time ago.