Many people use hypotheticals as if they are fact. A hypothetical is always conditional and can never be a basis for reaching conclusions, mainly because it is easily falsified. While it may on the surface, have a sound appearance, in the absence of numerous tests, some of which are not possible, it cannot be supported.
A good example of such falsification is commonly used by geologists. It is Radiometric Dating. There are so many conclusions reached on the basis of this falsified hypothesis that no one can truly call it science. Such conclusions are the result of blind faith. It does not even approach the threshold of theory.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. Many theories have been developed about events that occurred in the past. They have come to be accepted as fact, not on the basis of observation or testing but by fiat of the scientific community.
Science has been taken captive today by the elites of the academic, bureaucratic and scientific communities. Their tenants are manipulated to deceive and control the masses. How could this have happened? There is no peer review, so research is rarely challenged. If you don't want to lose your funding, you had better tow the line.
Climate change is a good example. Statistical manipulation is commonplace in their arguments. The testing of hypothesis includes historical records and projections, but if the model you are testing is not always supported by these, conclusions have to be questioned. You don't just throw out the data that doesn't support your hypothesis. Testing of hypothesis should also narrow the range of probability, not broaden it. If testing does not improve probability, it is failing to verify postulated results. Today, we see nearly every natural phenomenon blamed on climate change. Correlation of any kind is considered proof of it's validity. While no scientist would say because some people are carrying umbrellas, it must be raining; in principle that is what we are witnessing in the media. Since news outlets use one another's reporting, it is repeated in so many outlets, it is widely accepted as incontrovertible. (like the 97% of scientists that supposedly believe climate change is man caused) So our schools are teaching it to our children and you better not question it or you will be labeled "anti-science" or "climate change deniers" (horrors!)
The tendency for science professionals to cherry pick the data is growing proportionate to the propensity of researchers and corporate support of researchers to provide data, making products appear to have greater efficacy. Collusion has taken the front seat when huge profits are to be made. Governmental organizations like the FDA routinely accept laboratory results form the corporation marketing the product tested. There is no independent testing, so the FDA becomes the propaganda and marketing arm of the corporation. Conflict of interest is now a non-entity.
The atmosphere of dishonesty that permeates modern culture is not restricted to secular endeavors. It stems from the top down...from a president that is a habitual liar to an electorate that does not expect accountability or any measure of respectability above their own. Churches pop up all over the place teaching and preaching human doctrine. No one says "You are perpetrating lies" That might make someone uncomfortable. So as young people look around them for honor and dignity, it is nonexistent. Is it any wonder more and more of young people today are disillusioned? They look desperately for someone to look up to, but find no one. Even the examples of Jesus have been tainted by what appears to be a cacophony of varying teachings about Him. They get a phony sense of sincerity when hypocrisy is apparent to them. They assume that no one speaks truth, so science has the loudest voice and they capitulate to become blind adherents to what they don't understand.
The human body is proof of a creator. Bill Jahns article quite well illustrates that point. The book of Hebrews simply says "For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4) No one driving down a street and seeing houses along the way would conclude that they just evolved randomly, and houses are not nearly as complex as the human body. Yet people do it all the time with their belief in evolution. To be blunt, it is incredibly stupid. Romans 1:20 tells us that it should be evident to anyone with half a brain. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."
Proof Positive that God exists...
As the above article explains, the existence of objects that appear to have a degree of complexity and order that would rule out a natural occurrence are obvious evidence that they were made or designed and created by someone. It's like if you saw something as simple as a doghouse, you wouldn't assume that a dog built it or it evolved from a tree. The common sense you possess as a human being tells you the doghouse was built in a factory or that some human was responsible for it's existence. Even though you did not witness anyone building the doghouse, your ability to reason pointed out the necessity of someone being involved in it's production. Can you prove someone made the doghouse? Certainly! The conclusion is inescapable. Any other explanation is completely untenable. You don't need any evidence that the doghouse in fact exists, though I suppose you could round up some witnesses to testify that the doghouse exists and therefore was created by someone. So, we have proof positive that the doghouse exists and was made by someone. That wasn't too hard, was it? Then why do supposedly intelligent people conclude that all the complexity we see in the universe had no designer and creator?
The answer is simple. They dismiss any belief in the supernatural...without a viable alternative. Oh, they will throw out mounds of speculation and claim that as evidence, but it all flunks the commonsense test outlined above. They say their evidence is scientific and the rest of us are just uneducated hicks. They claim there is no evidence of a supernatural being or creator. To make their case, they cite the big bang theory, which assumes an already existing periodic table of elements and the natural laws that govern molecular structure. They do not offer any mechanism that explains the collapse of all these primordial elements comprising an explosion resulting in the universe we see. Even if this did happen 4 billion+ years ago, why is there no vacant epicenter of the explosion? If life is just an assemblage of chemicals ordered by billions of accidents over billions of years, why can't scientists create one living cell in a laboratory? Many scientists see the holes in the big bang theory, so they come up with an explanation involving aliens from another planet seeding earth with life millions of years ago. That idea begs the question; why not believe in the God of the Bible for which we have plenty of evidence instead of the fertile imagination of clueless scientists who claim to be the smart ones.
Many examples of proof for God's existence are available to anyone looking for evidence. I like the example of an acorn. When an acorn is buried it eventually becomes an oak tree. It doesn't become an apple tree or an elm or a maple tree. He doesn't sit and muse about what he is going to be when he grows up. He knows he is going to be an oak tree. How does he know? He knows he is programmed to be an oak. If that is so, who did the programming? God is the obvious programmer. All of life is that way. It is directional...towards the way it is programmed and has no means of programming itself.