Let us be clear that as you rightly stated above, Evolution is a Theory.
From Dictionary.com
A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Yeah, there are facts, such as organisms adapt to their surroundings through various selection pressures, and the ones unable to adapt die off. Another fact is that new traits appear in populations and depending on either it being neutral or beneficial to the survival of the organism dictates whether or not it survives to procreate. Those are facts that the Theory of Evolution explains how they work.
You and others would tout Evolution as fact, when by your own admission it is simply a theory.
Here is the problem, you don't know what the theory of evolution is. You copy/pasting arguments from pages, but don't understand that the theory of Evolution is just the model that explains observed facts, facts that were recorded either independent of Darwin or before Darwin even penned his book. Many of which he cited.
As far as it being a part of observable science, it simply is not because if it was, Evolution wouldn't have to constantly modify it's theory.
You don't know how science works. Also, its not like the theory is reworked from the ground up. For most part its just been added to to better explain phenomenon that was not understood during the age of Darwin. Key point genetics. Darwin didn't know what genetics was, So when Mendel's work was better noted, it helped solidify Darwin's theory, because it explained how traits transferred to each generation, and how new ones are made. Most other changes where just clarifying different types of selection. Like Sexual selection, bottleneck effect, founder species, advisms, punctuated Equilibrium, etc. Have you ever looked at the theory of Gravity, or the HIggs particle? You want to talk about theories that change a lot? Check them out.
Regardless, the oldest recorded writings we have are from about 5,500 years ago from the Sumerians and none of the writings have anything to do with the notion of Evolution so we see that we can only observe how things are now and make a hypothesis on how they used to be to support a particular theory.
The Sumerians also didn't talk about gravity, Newtonian Mechanics, Particle Physics, Plate tectonics, Viruses, Heliocentric, The theory of relativity, Aerodynamics, etc. Citing the Sumerians ignorance of theories that didn't exist until thousands of years later means nothing.
I do understand. Actually I understand that Evolution depends on unsupported assumptions.
Then you don't know what the theory of evolution is. Plain and simple, because to make that claim you would have to say that organisms don't have offspring. That organisms complete in the wild and adapt to their surroundings. That organisms don't die off when they can't compete. that new traits don't appear in populations. That breeding can't produce different species. That Bears, Wolverines, Dongs, Wolves, Foxes, and Weasels all have canines, and are all share similar genetic information which is why some species of Dogs can breed with coyotes and wolves, and why racoons and bears share very similar physiology. Really none of this is real? This has all been tested. To say it hasn't is either outright lying or you are ignorant of the information.
Actually, even assumptions that have proven to be wrong.
Genetic drift has not been proven wrong. Heredity has not been proven wrong, natural selection hasn't been proven wrong, The existence of genes hasn't been proven wrong, population mechanics hasn't been proven wrong, Phylogeny hasn't been proven wrong, Punctuated equilibrium hasn't been proven wrong. Its funny how none these mechanics that are part of the theory of evolution have not been proven wrong. I bet you have a bag filled with stuff like piltdown man (which didn't fool any actual biologists), irreducible complexity (Which is usually just an argument from ignorance fallacy), and possibly a bunch of misquoted phrases meant to look like authorities are stuff they aren't. Anyone who has access to google scholar (everyone) can find the original works and see that most anti evolution quotes are taken out of context, such as Einstein, Darwin, Boyle, etc.
This is the very nature of Science. One postulates a position and based on the available facts, one creates a hypothesis to support a theory.
Yep, and that process has passed over 150 years ago. Minor changes to the theory has been done, but only when new evidence comes along. Such as punctuated equilibrium, genetics, and various selection pressures. The thing is you are not arguing against evolution, but theories that came after. Such as Human evolution, or theories that have nothing to do with Darwin's theory.
One huge assumption is that the earth is 4.6 Billion years old.
Which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and you have been told this over and over again.
Facts don't bear this out, only Theory.
Except for the 100+ years of study gone into refining our understanding of the age of the Earth.
Creationists can take the same facts that Evolutionist have available to support their theories as well.
The thing is, Creationism by itself isn't a theory, field of study, or law. Its a sub category of theological studies that relies on the Sciences to figure things out, then depending on your religion, the theories and laws are then filtered through the religious dogma to see if it fits. That is the peer review process of Creationism, does the data fit with the religion. If yes, its a creationist theory, if not its all bunk, even its supported by repeatable testing and weathers hundreds of years of attempts to prove it wrong. Its 2 completely differn't worlds.
You see, the facts are based on observable science. That's why they are facts. Nobody was around 10,000 years ago to record how things were.
Which is why the theory of evolution doesn't claim to know everything. Its a theory based on the information we do have. Just like every other theory in science.
Scientists can also test out all the factors of Creationism,
How about you go ahead and name these testable facts. Can you name the facts of creationism that have been tested and weathered peer review. To break it down even more, what is the creator theory? If its Philosophy, then we have left science and you misspoke.
so to dismiss Creationism by asserting that the theory of evolution falls under observable science is a strawman and simply isn't true.
This argument right here is a strawman because I never made any such claim. You are assuming I'm making such a claim and arguing from this false assumption. I'm quite open to the idea of there being a creator. I'm just not convinced by current apologetic that spend more time bashing evolution then actually constructing working theories.
Its like a film producer that spends more time claiming that all other film producers are horrible, but doesn't have his/her own name on that many films either. None that even got a theatrical release for over a couple of decades.
