Science Disproves Evolution

Complex Molecules and Organs 1
​

​

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are absurd. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support (a).

a. “There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” Michael J. Behe, [/]Darwin’s Black Box[/i] (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or book—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that—like the contention that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year—the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.” Behe, pp. 186–187.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Anyone claiming Jesus never existed cannot be taken seriously. There's more evidence for the historical Jesus than any other person in history. More typical and failed denial tactics.

Complex Molecules and Organs 2
​

​

There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye (b), the ear, or the brain (c).

b. “While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually, to simulate 10 milliseconds (ms) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of [1985] Cray time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.” John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain,” Byte, April 1985, p. 287.

“The retina processes information much more than anyone has ever imagined, sending a dozen different movies to the brain.” Frank Werblin and Botond Roska, “The Movies in Our Eyes,” Scientific American, Vol. 296, April 2007, p. 73.

“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.

“Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye? ” Wernher von Braun (probably the rocket scientist most responsible for the United States’ success in placing men on the Moon) from a letter written by Dr. Wernher von Braun and read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford on 14 September 1972.

“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), p. xi.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Complex Molecules and Organs 3
​

​

[continued]

b. “The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer’s ‘Melancholia’ is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.” [emphasis in original] Grassé, p. 104.

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.” Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296.

Although Robert Jastrow generally accepts Darwinian evolution, he acknowledges that:

“It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors.” Robert Jastrow, “Evolution: Selection for Perfection,” Science Digest, December 1981, p. 87.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Not true at all. Micro Evolution is shown with dinosaurs in my opinion. Throughout history man, animals, and plants have adapted to their surroundings. Adaptation is obvious. How else would you explain how animals have changed over the years?

Complex Molecules and Organs 4
​

​

[continued]

b. Many leading scientists have commented on the staggering complexity of the human eye. What some do not appreciate is how many diverse types of eyes there are, each of which adds to the problem for evolution.

One of the strangest is a multiple-lensed, compound eye found in fossilized worms! [See Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.]

Another type of eye belonged to some trilobites, a thumb-size, extinct, sea-bottom creature. Evolutionists claim that they were very early forms of life. Trilobite eyes had compound lenses, sophisticated designs for eliminating image distortion (spherical aberration). Only the best cameras and telescopes contain compound lenses. Some trilobite eyes contained 280 lenses, allowing vision in all directions, day and night. [See Richard Fortey and Brian Chatterton, “A Devonian Trilobite with an Eyeshade,” Science, Vol. 301, 19 September 2003, p. 1689.] Trilobite eyes “represent an all-time feat of function optimization.” [Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 29–74.] Shawver described trilobite eyes as having “the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature.” [Lisa J. Shawver, “Trilobite Eyes: An Impressive Feat of Early Evolution,” Science News, Vol. 105, 2 February 1974, p. 72.] Gould admitted that “The eyes of early trilobites, for example, have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity by later arthropods.... I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.” [Stephen Jay Gould, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, Vol. 93, February 1984, pp. 22–23.]

The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.” Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August 2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed today’s technology.

[continue]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Complex Molecules and Organs 5
​

​

[continued]

c. “To my mind the human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe and no geologic period seems too long to allow for its natural evolution.” Henry Fairfield Osborn, an influential evolutionist speaking to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December 1929, as told by Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1987), p. 57. [Even greater capabilities of the brain have been discovered since 1929. Undoubtedly, more remain.]

“And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.” Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 10.

Asimov forgot that the brain, and presumably most of its details, is coded by only a fraction of an individual’s DNA. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that DNA is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter known in the universe.

The human brain is frequently likened to a supercomputer. In most respects the brain greatly exceeds any computer’s capabilities. Speed is one area where the computer beats the brain—at least in some ways. For example, few of us can quickly multiply 0.0239 times 854.95. This task is called a floating point operation, because the decimal point “floats” until we (or a computer) decide where to place it. The number of floating point operations per second (FLOPS) is a measure of a computer’s speed. As of this writing, an IBM computer can achieve 3,000 trillion FLOPS (3 petaFLOPS). One challenge is to prevent these superfast computers from overheating. Too much electrically generated heat is dissipated in too small a volume.

Overall, the human brain seems to operate at petaFLOPS speeds—without overheating. One knowledgeable observer on these ultrafast computers commented:

“The human brain itself serves, in some sense, as a proof of concept [that cool petaFLOPS machines are possible]. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power. That’s a hard act to follow.” Ivars Peterson, “PetaCrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing,” Science News, Vol. 147, 15 April 1995, p. 235.

Also, the 1,400 cubic centimeter (3 pound) human brain is more than three times larger than that of a chimpanzee, and when adjusted for body weight and size, larger than that of any other animal. How, then, could the brain have evolved? Why haven’t more animals evolved large, “petaFLOP” brains?

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Complex Molecules and Organs 6
​

​

An adult human brain contains over 10^14 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections (d), more than all the soldered electrical connections in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel (e).

d. “The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.” Denton, pp. 330–331.

“... the human brain probably contains more than 10^14 synapses ...” Deborah M. Barnes, “Brain Architecture: Beyond Genes,” Science, Vol. 233, 11 July 1986, p. 155.

e. Marlyn E. Clark, Our Amazing Circulatory System, Technical Monograph No. 5 (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976).

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

DNA Discoveries Demonstrate Design
​

​

Recent discoveries about DNA—including the finding that so-called "junk DNA" is anything but—once again clearly points to a supreme Intelligence having imbedded an incredible multifaceted code in our genes.

When first discovered, scientists believed that DNA was a somewhat simple genetic code filled with what they termed "junk DNA," useless bits assumed to be evolutionary remnants from our supposed ancestors. But now they have found the code to be astoundingly complex, multilayered and even bidirectional.

On Sept. 5, 2012, The New York Times reported: "The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as "junk" but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave . . .

"The thought before the start of the [DNA] project, said Thomas Gingeras, an Encode researcher from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, was that only 5 to 10 percent of the DNA in a human being was actually being used. The big surprise was not only that almost all of the DNA is used but also that a large proportion of it is gene switches.

"Before Encode, said Dr. John Stamatoyanno-poulos, a University of Washington scientist who was part of the project, 'if you had said half of the genome and probably more has instructions for turning genes on and off, I don't think people would have believed you'" ("Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From 'Junk,' Play Crucial Role," Sept. 5, 2012, online edition).

The astounding complexity of the DNA code was the main reason Sir Antony Flew, the late world-famous philosopher who had been the leading atheist in England, renounced his atheism a few years back and accepted the existence of a divine intelligence behind it all.

He wrote: "What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together" (There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, 2007, p. 75).

Let's see some of the examples of the incredible complexity of the DNA code.

Spy codes—as in Washington's day

Back in the days of the American Revolution, George Washington and his officers sent each other letters with double meanings. A letter intercepted by the enemy would simply have sounded like a typical message describing incidents on a farm. But to those with the deciphering key, the same message may have described troop numbers and locations. Yet without the key, the secret message would be safely hidden.

Similarly, scientists have come to realize that certain areas of the genetic code have secondary messages that can be deciphered by a cell's translating devices.

Comparing DNA to a spy code, science historian Stephen Meyer explains: "In the same way, the cell has protein machinery and RNA codes that jointly function as a cipher enabling it to access and read the secondary imbedded messages within the primary message of the genome . . . The presence of these genes imbedded within genes (messages within messages) further enhances the information-storage density of the genome" (Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, 2009, pp. 463-464).

Imagine how difficult it would be to write a message and inscribe within it other messages! Mindless evolution could never produce genetic information of any kind, much less in overlapping levels of this nature!

DNA's bidirectional code

Scientists also have found the genome to be bidirectional—relaying different messages when read from opposite directions—providing efficiency of space.

Dr. Meyer explains: "In the same way that words are ordered into sentences and sentences into paragraphs, nucleotide bases [within the DNA molecular chain] are ordered into genes and genes are ordered into specifically arranged gene clusters.

"Or think of these individual genes as computer data files and groupings of genes as folders containing several files. The groupings of DNA 'files' that we observe serve several roles. These groupings allow the cell to make longer transcripts that are combinations of different gene messages. In other words, the coding modules of the gene files in a 'folder' can be combined in numerous ways—and in both directions—to greatly increase the number of encoded transcripts and protein products from the same genomic region or resources" (pp. 467-468).

Again, imagine how difficult it would be to design something like this! If you read forward, you find one message. If you read backwards, you find another message. Again, how could evolution possibly account for this? It is further clear evidence of a brilliant Mind at work!

From "junk DNA" to a complex computer operating system

Computer users are familiar with a computer's operating system, such as Microsoft Windows, which sets and controls the environment in which software programs run. Scientists are now startled to discover that many regions of the genome, previously thought to be useless, in fact provide key functions similar to a computer's operating system.

Dr. Meyer explains: "Portions of the genome that many biologists previously regarded as 'junk DNA' are now known to perform many important functions, including the regulation and expression of the information for building proteins . . . the nonprotein coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a software program, directing and regulating how other information in the system is processed" (p. 367).

Discarding the "junk DNA" myth

To believe that all this incredible, efficient complexity simply evolved through mutation and natural selection is to deny the overwhelming facts.

As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells concludes: "Scientists make progress by testing hypotheses against the evidence. But when scientists ignore the evidence and cling to a hypothesis for philosophical or theological reasons, the hypothesis becomes a myth. Junk DNA is such a myth . . .

"As recent discoveries have demonstrated, we are just beginning to unravel the mysteries of the genome. Indeed, the same can be said of living organisms in general. But assuming that any feature of an organism has no function discourages further investigation. In this respect, the myth of junk DNA has been a science-stopper. Not anymore. For scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, these are exciting times" (The Myth of Junk DNA, 2011, p. 107).

God, Science and the Bible: DNA Discoveries Demonstrate Divine Design - Good News Magazine | United Church of God

Fully-Developed Organs 1
​

​

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a).

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner.” Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Fully-Developed Organs 2
​

​

There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing (c).

b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye.” Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas.” However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta” [or the eye of any organism]. Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose?” Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

Posting copied work multiple times on a thread won't make anyone engage in the topic, rather it just makes people avoid the thread.

Actually, evolution is not a theory, it is still a hypothesis seeking evidence.

Every scientific fact I have shared disproves evolution.

Where is the reality of evolution? I agree that Christianity and science go hand in hand because they are both from God. However, I do not agree that evolution does not in anyway go against God, because God said He created everything. That takes a lot of power and intelligence. Evolution, on the other hand, teaches the source of everything is natural, unintelligent forces. The two ideas contradict, don't they?

I don't really need to go further than your first point but to argue the theory of evolution is wrong is one thing to argue it is not a scientific theory is obviously either uneducated or so unwilling to look at evolution they have begun to try and attack its status. Whether you agree with the scientific theory or not won't change the fact is a scientific theory.

The definition of science is: the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms.

Does not that definition rule out evolution? How can the events of the past be observed?

There are two methods of proof: Scientific and Evidential/Historical.

Scientific proof is based on showing that something is a fact by repeating the event in the presence of the person questioning the fact. For this modern scientific method you need to have a controlled environment where the event can be repeated over and over and over again, observation made of it, data drawn from it, and hypothesis (not fact!) empirically verified.

Science is never absolute; it’s always open to correction, because you might do 1,000 experiments, and if the 1,001st is different—the whole law is voided.

Assume we have a fact in question. To be proven scientifically it must be related to measurement of phenomena and experimentation, or repeated observation. Science is limited, very limited.

Legal proof is based upon showing that something is true or a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The scientific method can only be used to prove repeatable events, but is not adequate for people or events within history.

Did Patrick Henry say, “Give me liberty or give me death?” or did he simply say, “Let me out!” You can’t repeat that in a controlled environment, observation made, data drawn, hypothesis empirically verified.

sci·ence
noun /ˈsīəns/ 
sciences, plural

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment
- the world of science and technology

A particular area of this
- veterinary science
- the agricultural sciences

A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject
- the science of criminology

Knowledge of any kind

That is the definition of science I don't know where you got yours, I think you just briefly described science.
Also evolution is observable and experiments can be done in regards to it. This is not you and I arguing over this, this is your interpretation of science over the entire scientific community, I've met and talked to many people who don't agree with the theory of evolution but none are so brazen as to even suggest that it is not a scientific theory.I don't really feel there is anymore to say on it because it speaks for itself.

Distinct Types
​

If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. In fact, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill somewhat like that of a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like those of an otter and a flat tail like that of a beaver. The male platypus can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. The duckbilled platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment. Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the so-called “evolutionary tree.”


Figure 5: Duckbilled Platypus. The duckbilled platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment.

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group (a). Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence (b).

a. “And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.

“Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution].” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.

“The fact that all the individual
species must be stationed at the extreme periphery of such logic [evolutionary] trees merely emphasized the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is required by evolution.” Denton, p. 132.

b. “...no human has ever seen a new species form in nature.” Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

If you say that evolution is false because it's just a "theory" clearly shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Theory is fact. A theory is what describes a scientific law. Scientific theory is the highest status something can be. There is no "proving" a scientific theory because it's already a fact.