Yeah, right. There's going to be scientific evidence for every single event in the bible. Right. Please, there isn't scientific evidence for half of the theory of evolution.
Your right there is not evidence for half ...there is evidence to support the whole theory ...thats why its called a "theory " and not a supposition or an allegory or a story or a bible .
"Theory ' according to wikkipedia;
In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts). Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.
In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be "electromagnetic theory", which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell's equations.
The term theoretical may be used to to describe a certain result that has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment, but failed predictions do occur. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics, there can also be confirmed experimental results which are not yet explained by theory.
For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.
Unfortunately, the usage of the term is muddled by cases such as string theory and "theories of everything," each probably better characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data, and is often a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism.
Other claims such as Intelligent Design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience
Psuedoscience by wikkipedia;
Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, or practice that is erroneously regarded as scientific [1]. The standards determining such a distinction vary, but often include lack of empirical evidence, unfalsifiability, or failure to comply with scientific method or apply a heuristic such as Occam's Razor. A number of attempts have been made to apply philosophical rigor to the notion with mixed results. These include Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability and the historiographical approach of Imre Lakatos in his Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Other historians and philosophers of science, chiefly Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend have argued, from a sociology of knowledge perspective, that a clear philosophical distinction between science and pseudoscience is neither possible nor desirable.
The term "pseudoscience" often has negative connotations, implying generally that things so labeled are false and deceptive (though a strict interpretation of the term would not necessarily have it mean either). As such, those who are labelled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" almost always reject this classification, and often the distinction itself.
Some critics of pseudoscience consider some or all forms of pseudoscience to be harmless entertainment. Others, such as Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan, consider all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether or not they result in immediate harm to their followers. These critics generally consider that advocacy of pseudoscience may occur for a number of reasons, ranging from simple naïveté about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial or political benefit.
There you go .
h, and PS - That was surpirisingly - alarmingly - fascist.
. However, TouringMars usually gets it and sometimes Famine.
