If it was conclusive, it would be called the Law of Evolution.
I think you have no idea what you're talking about.
I think you lack the ability to question that which you hold as sacred. First you are telling me that it is based on something that is accepted as truth. Then you tell me that it isn't conclusive but I should treat it as something that is almost conclusive but not quite. I think you cannot elloquently argue your point, likely do to a lack of real familiarity with the subject, so you make broad generalizations and don't deal with any of the topics I present. Instead you look for me to make syntactical errors and exploit them. Have fun with that.
Mike
It's not about syntax. Words have meaning. Especially in the Scientific Community. Saying that a Theory is "just a theory" and saying it's not "conclusive", clearly shows you don't know what you're talking about. Or you do, but you're using this as a veiled attempt to attack Science, like may others do. Regardless, my point has been proved now multiple times just within this thread.
So, since there is now a CLEARLY established fight against Education, both in this thread and in this country, care to answer the original question?
Without an education, what kind of jobs will be available?
There you go again. "I'm going to state a rule then we must have a discussion assuming my rule is true".
You clearly missed my point. Words DO have meaning, you are correct. Its funny though. My questioning a theory is somehow "against" science. I don't think you understand science at all. The essence of science is questioning what we assume to be true. Newton and Einstein both "attacked" science. Turns out they are right.
Mike