''There is no proof of pure random, just as there is no proof of evolution.'' Claiming there is no proof for quantum theory or evolution theory shows how you argue. I give you evidence and facts, you argue with feelings and beliefs, even quoting the bible. If you think you are smarter than all scientists, go ahead and prove them all wrong, no point in arguing any further.
What are you saying? The theories certainly exist. The point isn't the existence of the theories. Copies of the theories exist all over the place.
The point is that the main hypotheses that the theories are trying to explain, are the things that nobody knows factually exist. And comparing the factualness of QT with factualness of ET is like comparing apples and mountains. They can't be compared in the same way, because they are extremely different.
A simple example is the difference between gravity and gravity theory. Everybody knows that gravity exists, because we all use it every day. So, gravity theory is not trying to explain the existence of gravity. Rather, gravity theory is trying to explain how gravity works. Nobody knows that gravity theory is explaining it right. But the existence of gravity, itself, is obvious. The existence of gravity theory is obvious. But how factual gravity theory is, is unknown.
The difference with evolution is that nobody knows that evolution exists. Why not? Because, unlike gravity which is in use all over by average people every day, we don't know by simple observation if we are seeing evolution or not. The things we can easily see are that adaptation and like-begets-like exist all over the place.
Evolution theory exists. But unlike gravity theory explaining gravity, evolution theory has to explain that evolution exists. Gravity theory doesn't have to explain that gravity exists because gravity is obvious. Evolution isn't obvious because the things that might suggest that evolution is obvious are explained much better and easier by adaptation and like-begets-like. So far, nothing has proven that evolution is factual.
In police forensics, police use science to prove this or that about a crime. The police forensics scientist gets on the stand and swears that something happened factually, because forensics science facts are real. Nobody gets on the stand and testifies that the things of evolution are fact in an evolution way, because nobody knows that evolution exists. If they get on the stand and say that according to evolution theory such and such are evolution facts, all they are doing is stating that such and such may be changed right along with evolution theory... possibly in the next minute, if evolution theory changes then. Forensics is real fact; evolution is not.
What is evolution like? It is like religion. A Bible scholar might get on the stand and say that something is for-a-fact recorded in the Bible. But unless there is corroborating evidence in the real world, he doesn't say that this "something" is a fact that makes the Bible factually real.
Same with evolution. An evolution scientist might get on the stand and say that something is for-a-fact written in evolution theory. But unless there is corroborating evidence in the real world, he doesn't say that this "something" is a fact that makes evolution factually real. Why not? Two reasons. One, there are too many unknowns regarding whether it is evolution, or adaptation or like-begets-like. Two, there are too many basic things like cause and effect, which totally eliminate the possibility of evolution according to any evolution theory we can dream up.
In other words, you don't have any facts that evolution is real. And since there are facts that show that it can't be real, those who promote evolution are at the best, misguided, but at the worst, hoaxers.
Evolution is a hoax.
