"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.
No, but that's my point! I have NOT seen it! I see what looks like evidence of it and make a conclusion based on that evidence. Just like evolutionist, the difference is I don't call what I believe FACT, and tell people this is absolutely what happen. I leave room for other theories to be explored, eventhough I concluded a global flood did happen, but I'm honest enough to also say it's only ONE conslusion since I can't take people back in time to actually witness the event.
Evolutionist do not allow other views to be introduced. Why, because there is an agenda? An agenda to fool people into thinking this is ALL chance and there is no meaning to any of it, because logically that's what evolution leads too...now evo maybe true, but until I see some monkey turn into a man, or a half an eye, true transitional changes, (Not someone guess of a transitional change) it's all speculation and conjecture.