OK, let's look here at what's being said. RAZD stated:

Quote
The problem with proving there wasn't a flood is that you cannot prove a negative. You can't prove that pink unicorns don't exist, for example, because you have not seen all of the universe. This is why science sticks with theory as an explanation of evidence, but held tentatively and discarded when invalidated.

Example:
(1) observation: no pink unicorns have been observed.
(2) theory: there are no pink unicorns.
(3) invalidation test: find a pink unicorn.

Note that theories are often stated as assumed truths in order to form invalidation tests, but this doesn't mean that they are true.


RAZD is making a point about how scientific theory works. He has shown you the logical steps in this. I don't see any logical fallacies in what he has said; what I see is that you object to his word choice, which is a personal preference but not a falsification of what he has said.

You are now claiming yourself that valid evidence against evolution would consist of connecting it to Hitler, eugenics, etc. What you seem to be failing to understand is that the theory -- the change in heritable traits in populations over time -- explains the evidence from a wide variety of scientific fields. However you try to tar people who call themselves evolutionists does nothing to invalidate the theory itself, any more than claims about atrocities committed by Christians in the past invalidates Christianity itself. (As Jeanie observed, that was my point about Christian slave owners.)

What you seem to have been avoiding, since you quit the Grand Canyon debate, is any conversation which actually deals with the scientific details of evolution or an old earth.