You can't say something is fact when indeed it's speculation like evolution. People agree on what they see all the time, but it doesn't mean their conlusion is FACT! In fact there is plenty of reason to believe evolution is a huge deception or illusion. When you have science making conclusions on something without truly observing THE ACT then it's not true science in the first place...Maybe you're the one with the odd view.
At least 60 behind! ;-)
"When you have science making conclusions on something without truly observing THE ACT then it's not true science in the first place..."
Like the existence of subatomic particles? Or how about this, like the story of a world wide flood? Tell me you have seen that happen.
...such as?
And to save us all a lot of time, don't bother posting any of this old creationist crap, we've seen it before (*thousands* of times), and already know why it's bogus.
When you have science making conclusions on something without truly observing THE ACT then it's not true science in the first place...
Wow, just how ignorant are you? "True science" involves a huge amount of "making conclusions on something without truly observing THE ACT". Watch any of the CSI shows on TV if you're unclear on this elementary concept. Reconstructing events and processes that people *weren't* there to witness (or are unable to, because they occurred on too small/large a scale, or too fast/slow for human perception, etc.) is one of the primary functions of "true science".
Science rests on *observations*, yes, but not the kind *you* simplistically presume it means. Observing *results* of a process (or "AN ACT" as you put it) is a perfectly valid way of learning about it too. The creationist notion that the only thing that counts is "being there to see it happen" is epistemology on the level of a four-year-old.