Science lays no claim to being conclusive about anything, it just claims to have the best explanation for the evidence we know about, according to the knowledge we have, and it is subject to change by (a) developing a better explanation, (b) uncovering new evidence contrary to such explanation, or (c) developing new knowledge that looks at things in a different way.
RAZD has on more than one occasion presented conclusions of evolutionists as facts. Obviously evolutionism is not science, according to his own standard.
Your statement does not address the quote you seem to be addressing. In what way does the Theory of Evolution not meet the standards of (a), (b) or (c) in RAZD's description of scientific explanations?
Additionally, since this thread is about the formation of the Grand Canyon, should we in the audience consider your comments in this particular direction as a distraction? We have not failed to notice that you seemed to avoid addressing any of RAZD's post that covered geology. On second thought, don't reply to my question in the first paragraph since it would distract from the main subject of this thread. Please put all your effort into providing an applicable and substantive rebuttal to RAZD's geology-specific statements.
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
