You just keep provide material for good laughs that cannot be passed up.
Heliocentrism is the hypothesis that planets have orbits that are nearly circular with the sun at the center. That is a proven theory: astronomical observations agree with it, the observations do not agree with the geocentric hypothesis, and the laws of gravity explain the mechanism. Nothing even remotely similar can be said of the evolution hypothesis: fossil observations can agree with the similar species being unrelated just as easily; the breeding experience does not speak to the issue; and the genetic mechanism more readily explains why the species remain confined to their own boundary overtime, rather than how they supposedly evolve and cross them.
I agree that at the time of Galileo his hypothesis was not yet duly proven, this is why the Church felt it necessary to censor him. However, the insinuation that fundamental astronomical facts such as the shapes of planetary orbits are all merely relative truths that obtain till found false (”some new evidence will be discovered to disprove it”) is another example of your fellow cultists not having a grasp what science is and isn’t.
In response, first note the example of scientific terms used below:
"It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland, leading to the Copernican Revolution.
In the following century, Johannes Kepler elaborated upon and expanded this model to include elliptical orbits, and supporting observations made using a telescope were presented by Galileo Galilei."
Notice that real scientific language almost never uses the term "proven theory", and if it does, qualifiers such as "apparent" or "claimed" are usually attached.
The usual scientific term is "confirmed theory", though in this particular case, note the words, "fully predictive mathematical model".
That's scientific talk, because science always has to leave open the possibility that some future data or understanding could overturn or obsolete our current thinking.
A good example of that is Einstein's Relativity Theory compared to Newton's Laws of Motion.
Einstein did not invalidate Newton, but did show the limits of Newton's laws and put them in a larger context.
And the same could happen some day with with any other scientific theory or law, however often confirmed.
It could happen with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
Indeed, it already has, in several senses, since today's understandings (i.e., of DNA) are far beyond what Darwin originally imagined.
Or perhaps in vindication of anti-evolutionists, scientific evidence will someday be found of not only Intelligent Design, but also the Intelligent Designer!
annalex: "Nothing even remotely similar can be said of the evolution hypothesis: fossil observations can agree with the similar species being unrelated just as easily;"
No, the analogy of heliocentrism with evolution is exact, since no data-observations of any kind suggest anything other than 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
No scientific hypothesis even hints how species might arise on their own, without ancestors, at various times over millions of years but in sequences which make it appear as if long term evolution has taken place.
Indeed I'll ask it again: what scientific hypothesis explains why an Intelligent Designer would make it appear as if long-extinct species had evolved into those we see today?
annalex: "...the breeding experience does not speak to the issue; and the genetic mechanism more readily explains why the species remain confined to their own boundary overtime, rather than how they supposedly evolve and cross them."
Those are not factually true statements, as I have explained now several times, in seemingly infinite details, none of which phase you, do they?
annalex: "However, the insinuation that fundamental astronomical facts such as the shapes of planetary orbits are all merely relative truths that obtain till found false (some new evidence will be discovered to disprove it) is another example of your fellow cultists not having a grasp what science is and isnt."
In every post you demonstrate how little you know about real science, and how much you loathe it, and your statement here is no exception.
In actual scientific terms:
If all that sounds just a bit "wishy-washy" to you, well, there's a reason for it.
Every serious scientist understands, in the words of Sir Arthur Eddington: