That's repetition, not contradiction. I say there is no proof in science, then I say there is no proof in science. Though, in your defense, I made a typo: I should have capitalized "logic" as "Logic", so perhaps that threw you off
That's not what you said, and changing 'logic' to 'Logic' makes no difference. You are first claiming that math is not science, which is wrong.
It is, and I did, because it's not (though to be fair, I didn't specify a "natural science". One could argue that any body of knowledge is a science, but let's stick to natural sciences, else we could include just about anything, like the "science" of sewing or numerology).
Next you are claiming that "logic" is a field of science or subject of science, which is absolutely wrong (take an entry level Philosophy class if you are that lost).
I didn't. Find me quoted as saying "logic is science" and I'll mail you a Kennedy half dollar. Everything I said is all right up there ^^^.
Lastly, you claim that no other field of science has proven anything which is also wrong.
That's true, despite your assertions otherwise. And again, this is natural science we're talking about. The natural sciences don't prove things because there is no one final end-all, be-all fact to find about any given aspect of the natural world. Any new evidence can modify or nullify what we have already observed.
Your next paragraph seems rather incoherent, so let me get this straight. You don't agree that we can ever prove evolution, so I guess the work that we have done on genetics proving large portions of the complete theory are not proven.
We can't, because theories are provable in the same way the number 9 is salty to the touch. It doesn't make sense. What is the "complete theory" of Evolution? Which fact, once discovered, will close the books on ToE so we never have to study it anymore? That we have such a large body of knowledge about evolution is what makes it such a strong theory, one of the strongest theories of the natural world we have. There's still no proof of anything in there, though.
Hrm, something is wrong with that line of thinking.
In your gravity example, by your own thoughts you must accept Newton's Law as factual.
No, I accept it as a law, and I accept that it, like all scientific laws, only apply in limited conditions and limited circumstances. Newton's Law it only applies in weak gravitational fields. At subatomic levels or in immense gravity fields, for example, Newton's Law is invalid. But it still is immensely useful in day to day life, like predicting eclipses or firing missiles at Iraqi weddings.
The people that started looking at merging Einstein's work and Newton's work were heathens and of course those guys that showed where Einstein's work fails are simply blasphemous!
Einstein is the people who merged Einstein's work with Newton's work, and he called it the Theory of General Relativity. (As an agnostic, I guess he technically was also a heathen.) There is no blasphemy in science, only in religion. I'm beginning to suspect you are secretly an intelligent design proponent.
And of course any theory we have of gravity, even when it does not work, must be proven by your way of thinking.
That's something you just made up about me, especially in light of the fact that I must have said about 30 times already that theories are unprovable by their very nature, and can be completely undermined by even a single piece of evidence that contradicts all previous observations. Also, what I said about Newton's Law about two paragraphs up.
Your failure to contemplate theories of gravity in relation to evolution are not shocking, but demonstrate you really don't care to think.
There is no relation of the two, outside they both explain parts of the same universe.
Further, you can't take something as extraordinarily complex as "gravity" or "evolution" and compare them to "2+2" or "hot", or even the same.
Then I'm glad I didn't. I really dodged a bullet on that one! Wait, what is the exact scientific definition of "hot", and where do we observe "2+2" in nature?
Sure, we can look at various creatures and know they are not the same, but we don't magically have knowledge of how they came about. We gave it a term called "evolution" which encompasses a whole mountain of stuff.
Technically, we built a mountain of knowledge and then called it "evolution".
Many components of that are probably true...
Not probably. If they weren't repeatedly and observably true (and true is only ever "true for now" in science), they wouldn't be part of the theory.
...but other components are still just theory and speculation. Claiming otherwise is no benefit to anyone.
That you use the phrase "just theory" means you still don't have any idea what a theory is, yet you continue to argue about it. And I have seen your posts arguing with others in this same article when they, too, present to you the universally accepted definition of theory. I'm about 90% sure at this point of your secret devotion to intelligent design.
Your last paragraph shows that you lack any real level of intellect on the subjects, or philosophy. I have explained my position without resorting to childish fallacy to get my point across.
Your position is rubbish, because your position is in contradiction to accepted scientific principles, because you feel they are wrong.
You continually lie, distort...
Quotes, or it didn't happen.
...present ad hominem...
I can be a snarky asshole.
...and ignore the point.
I feel I've belaboured the point too long, and yet it still falls on deaf ears.
Calling me a troll in light of those truths is laughable...
Troll was one option I presented. The other is that you are incapable of learning. Maybe you're both.