Mmmhmmm...
I really did want to find if you agree that we're talking about two different areas of science. I can see how - I don't know what to call it - active and testable science would require proof, but - again, don't know what to call it - origin science cannot be proved in the same sense.
Like I said, I can understand how people would believe in macroevolution. What I can't see is how people believe that existence came out of absolutely nothing. The process of macroevolution would demand matter, yes?
Where did the matter come from? It couldn't have always existed because where did "always" come from itself?
I'm much more inclined to back the ideas behind Darwinian macroevolution.
ETA: You must have been answering my question before I posted this one!!! My bad!
With that in mind, I don't dispute the Laws...my question is about where everything began in the first place. Things beget things. Nothing, it appears, would beget nothing.
Matter can't be created or destroyed - by us, though. Where did matter come from?
that the way science is practiced today that we take EVERYTHING literally and not with belief... Maybe science practiced during Darwin's time was not practiced that way, for sure, but the way it is practiced to day, you cannot DO science with a grant or fellowship without PROOF... That's the way the game is played in our "corner of the Universe". 
Threaded Mode