On you, obviously. You have made several claims and not substantiated them.

Again, since when is hybridisation not evolution?

Yes yes, very nice kid, but where does it say that hybridisation isn't part of the process?

I'll take your holy book. Particularly seen as your holy book includes demonstrable lies (EG: The tradition of clemency. You know, where the Roman governor - in a rebellious province - wa supposed to have had a tradition of releasing the most popular rebel. Another one being the census, think about it, these highly organised Romans even cared where Joseph's long past ancestor came from? And this is without even getting into tales about astronomic events which were only recorded in one small part of Israel and no where else.)

What cannot be proved?

That which doesn't exist. It's about the only thing that absolutetly never ever can be proved - whether or not a non-existant object exists. Hence why the positive statement must be proved, not the negative.

If god is incapable of being proved, in other words proof is really impossible, the only thing left is that god doesn't exist.

If gods do exist, and those gods are all knowing, and we have established they would really like people to believe in them because we keep on getting told so by suspicious characters with a historic aversion to honest work, then they pretty well know what it would take to prove their existance and could come down and do it. They don't, because they don't exist.

Of course, the other problem with your theory of teaching creationism in schools and letting kids decide for themselves is this: Which creation myth? Why not the Hindu creation myth? What about the Norse myth? Aztec? Wiccan? If proof is not going to be a measure as to which theory gets taught, why go for the Jewish myth? Simply because it is currently popular?

There is a difference between unproved and unproveable.

While there might come a day when gods suddenly get proven, who knows? Maybe we are all wrong and there are entire nations of them out there. Maybe God is a giant plate of pasta, maybe it is some guy with a big beard and alchoholic blood.

We don't know, and we can't prove anything yet, but that doesn't make something unproveable. It just makes our means of investigation overly primitive at this stage.

The God hypothesis is unproven, not unprovable unless gods really don't exist - in which case you could map out the universe, invent time travel, turn the moon into a forested paradise, and grow a cheese which can whistle the theme to pokemon and never quite prove the gods' nonexistance.

Your weakness, appears to be that you don't know the difference between the word "Unproved" and "Unprovable." Something that is unproved may well get proved at a point, it is always possible.

Something that is unprovable, can't.

So please, don't blame me because you are illiterate.

The trouble is, is a scientific theory requires a lot more then a lot of people nodding sagely and agreeing to it to actually make it as a theory.

One of the weaknesses in American education appears to be the scientific definition of "Theory" appears not to be being taught in schools.

What you have with creationism is not a theory, scientifically speaking, it is a unproven hypothesis. With evolution you have a theory, it has a certain amount of evidence backing it, with creationism? Well just go back and read through rupert_c's posts.

Ah, so the problem is that you are too stupid to understand the word "Impossible" too. That explains a lot.