When discussing evidence for ‘molecules to man’ evolution with someone with a scientific background, it is common to experience the ‘back off, I’m a scientist’ response when asking scrutinizing questions. True science is supposed to be an exercise of the observable, repeatable and testable which clearly cannot apply to origins as assumptions ALWAYS have to…

If you do an internet search for “is evolution true” the results will show this is not a straight forward question to answer. Some sites will give lists of reasons for evolution being a fact, while other sites disagree and say that it only an unproven theory. Surely we’re all looking at the same evidence?…