You have asked an extremely intelligent question. Kudos for that. The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution is NOT subject to the scientific method and is therefore technically not even "scientific" and has certainly never been "proven". The reason of this is obvious. The theory of evolution states that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a single common ancestor which itself arose from an inorganic form billions of years ago. No scientist was around billions of years ago to see this happen, nor have they ever observed one kind of creature changing into another which must have occurred if evolution is true. Evolution has never been observed in any form, EVER. No events, including evolution, from the ancient past can be observed, repeated or measured, the three immutable properties of the scientific method.

Evolution is based squarely on the ASSUMPTION that God does not exist or had no hand in our origins and therefore everything we see today came about by purely natural means. If we use different assumptions, we arrive at different results. No fossil comes with a label telling us how old it is or what other fossil it supposedly evolved from. You must first ASSUME that evolution is true in order to INTERPRET any historical evidence in its favor. This is called circular reasoning. For example, one of your respondents stated that homology (likeness) infers common ancestry. However, this is more validly interpreted as living things having a common designer, NOT a common ancestor. In another breath he hypocritically advises you to not start with the "belief that evolution is wrong, and then develop an understanding of science that confirms that rejection". But as I've pointed out, this is EXACTLY what evolutionists do by believing that evolution is true and then developing an understanding of science that confirms that belief!

A simple example will demonstrate how evolutionary theory is based on philosophical presuppositions and not science. Suppose a girl and a boy enter a mutual friend's apartment at 2:45 and find a note next to a lit candle. The note says that he has gone to the store and will be back around 3:00. However, the girl suspects foul play because she measures the rate at which the wax is melting and the amount of wax that has dripped so far and determines that he's been gone for a whole day. She's about to call the police when their friend arrives back at the apartment. She cries out "what took you so long" and explains her calculations. The friend is surprised as he explains that he used another candle to light a used one and some of that wax dripped onto the other candle. In addition, the candle is not burning nearly as brightly as when he first lit it. He tells them that he left them a note telling them what happened and asks them why they didn't believe it.

In likewise manner, God has left us an eyewitness account of what happened in the past, but evolutionist do not want to believe it because it goes against their materialistic beliefs. Many surveys have demonstrated that the vast majority (80-90%) of evolutionary scientists do not believe in the existence of God.

Forgive me for the length of this, but I wanted to point out how evolutionists have deceptively attempted to get around these facts as your respondents have done. First they will try to redefine "evolution" to simply mean change over time. However, no one disagrees that living things change over time! That is not a statement of evolutionary theory, but simply an observation of a process for which evolutionists conjecture might have caused evolution. I have surveyed at least a hundred textbooks on what evolution is (including books by leading evolutionist such as Ernst Mayer) and 80% of them define evolution in a similar fashion as I have done above. Because we observe things changing does not mean we all arose from a common ancestor.

Next they will try to tell you that evolution has been observed. One of your respondents provided a link to the long debunked notion that peppered moths demonstrate evolution. The theory goes that the percentage of dark and light colored moths changed as the bark of the trees changed with increased levels of pollution. Since they were not camouflaged as well, more of one color was eaten by predators. However, this study was discovered to be a hoax since the moths rest on the underside of leaves, not on the bark of the tree. Evolutionists actually glued moths to tree trunks in order to deceive people that evolution was occurring. What's ironic is that even if it were true, it has nothing to do with evolution. It simply demonstrates a change in EXISTING features. For evolution to be true we must demonstrate NEW features developing. This has never been observed to happen.

In the interest of time, I'll lastly point out that the examples they gave of trees growing or your house being burglarized to demonstrate validity of interpreting past events is completely and utterly bogus We can interpret these events because we have plenty of examples in the present for which we can offer inference. For example, billions of trees have been observed to grow and many people's homes have been burglarized. However evolution is based on speculations about ONE-TIME events that have occurred in the past that have NEVER been observed in the present, nor can they ever be repeated. Growing trees and burglarized homes are subject to the scientific method. Evolution is NOT.

Sorry, but one last thing. I'd like to demonstrate how dishonest your other respondents have been when they go on about how evidence from evolution is so "overwhelming". One respondent wants you to believe in evolution because an "overwhelming consensus of scientists" believe it. Since when does a majority opinion dictate truth? If it did you should reject evolution since the majority of Americans reject it. In addition, by many accounts only about 60% of scientists accept evolution. He insists that the evolutionary tree has been confirmed, but according to Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality" he says! Remember that taxonomy was founded by a creation scientist whose objective was to determine what the originally created kinds of life were, not to confirm evolution.

Bottom line, believe what God has told us and don't rely on the fallible imaginations of evolutionists. Science only makes sense because God created a rational logical consistent world that reflects his rational logical and consistent nature. While this is already too long to go into the evidence in detail, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports God's version of our origins. There are no conflicts between God and science.