Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact..?

We have tons of evidence for macroevolution, so that's just silly.
As for your other statement, you've completely reversed the principals of science.
Its not "we have no evidence on how life originated apart from God", since you never offered any empirical evidence FOR God.
Nor have you offered any empirical evidence of what he allegedly did.. Therefore, your statement should read as follows,,
"We have NO evidence that God originated life".. <--- That would be the correct "scientific" statement.

 

You're parroting creationist drivel..
Those Mt St Helens claims have been refuted by geology a 1000 times over now..
You'd know this if you left the bubble that creationists get their information from, and read actual GEOLOGY journals.

<quote>
Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93). A few thousand years are not enough time for 40Ar to accumulate in a sample at high enough concentrations to be detected and quantified. Furthermore, many geochronology laboratories do not have the expensive state-of-the-art equipment to accurately measure argon in samples that are only a few million years old. Specifically, the laboratory personnel that performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. Specifically, personnel at Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. This laboratory no longer performs K-Ar dating. However, when they did, their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."; also see discussions by Bartelt et al.). With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples (Dalrymple, 1969, p. 48). That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples. For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects. Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Austin carefully designed the research to counter all possible objections', Austin clearly demonstrated his inexperience in geochronology when he wasted a lot of money using the K-Ar method on the wrong type of samples.

 

No, they're parroting nonsense from creationist charlatans thats been refuted a 1000 times over..

 

I understand it perfectly.. You however seem to be having difficulty.
So, lets break it down for you..
Your "inerrant" interpretation of the word of God is a young earth and creationism.
Their "inerrant" interpretation of the word of God was Geocentrism..
Now, their interpretation was clearly 100% wrong... (since heliocentrism is correct)
Also, YOUR interpretation is also wrong, (as evidence proves Evolution is also correct)
BOTH you and them have botched your interpretations, since YEC has been disproved for over a century..

The above is your ONLY viable option.. as the only alternative is that the word of God is NOT "inerrant"..
Either YOU'RE "errant" or the word of God is..? So which is it..? lol

 

You keep making this claim, and you simply refuse to accept that you're 100% wrong.
Macroevolution is considered as "proved" as cell theory, germ theory, or heliocentric theory.
Thats as "proved" as you can possibly get..

The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity.

Paleontology relies for its evidence on two different but historically related fields, biology and geology. Evolution is the central organizing principle of biology, understood as descent with modification. Evolution is equally basic to geology, because the patterns of rock formations, geomorphology, and fossil distributions in the world make no sense without the underlying process of change through time. Sometimes this change has been gradual, and sometimes it has been characterized by violent upheaval. These processes can be seen on the Earth today in the forms of earthquakes, volcanoes, and other tectonic phenomena. Vertebrates have also evolved at a variety of rates, some apparently gradual, and some apparently rapidly. Although the fossil record is not complete, and our knowledge of evolution will always be less than entire, the evidence for the progressive replacement of fossil forms has been adequate to support the theory of evolution for over 150 years, well before genetic mechanisms of evolutionary change were understood. Paleontologists may dispute, on the basis of the available evidence, the tempo and mode of evolution in a particular group at a particular time, but they do not argue about whether evolution took place: that is a fact.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology , Statement on Evolution

Now, as for your other silly claim that, "im ignoring 'mountains" of evidence"..
If thats so, then PRESENT THE EVIDENCE THAT I'M IGNORING..
You keep claiming that i'm ignoring evidence, yet you never put forth any actual evidence for me to ignore..

 

Here's the problem.. You have YECs on this board saying that the earth is only 1000s of years old..
So, where then are they getting their SPECIFIC age from..? Certainly NOT from any geology resource..
So if they aren't using GEOLOGY to establish their age, then what criteria are they using to establish it.?.

 

OK, lets break this down..
Macro evolution has NOT been "disproven".. Its accepted by every science organization there is.
2nd, there is NO evidence for a Global flood.. Egypt has been around long before the alleged "global flood" and it was never destroyed 4400 years ago.. The city has been in existence long BEFORE this alleged flood, and it was still in existence AFTER this alleged flood.. How could there have been a "global flood" and no one in Egypt even noticed it..?
Why werent its buildings and homes destroyed..? Its landmarks, its culture..?
3rd, Dating methods are NOT "faulty". If the dating methods were faulty, you'd be able to present for us tests conducted that show the why the dates we have are faulty.. And NO creationist has ever been able to do so..
Sorry, but just "claiming" that the dates are faulty simply because you dont like the ages they show doesnt count as evidence in the real world.