True , but there again ,atomic theory and the the theory of gravity though we can't directly observe them , we are able to test and prove using the scientific method.Just because something is widely accepted as being true does not give it status as a theory.To do so opens the doors to make the same mistakes as has been done in countless years past. As for calling variations within a species "microevolution" as though that has anything to do with evolution, any scientist should be ashamed to cover under that sham.

May I ask, how does a scientist, whether evolutionist or creationist, examine a fossil according to the scientific method? I am supposing everyone knows what the scientific method is. How can he scientifically prove that his dating is accurate up to millions of years or that God did it? How does the fact that there were dinosaurs prove evolution or disprove creation? Of course scientist likes to think that they are arriving at their conclusion based solely on the evidence with out any previously biasing ideas. The truth is, if an evolutioni¬st finds evidence that seem to indicate creationis¬m, they will always suspect and look for other evidence that will explain away the first. Just the same a creationist will look for explanations of any findings in the light of intelligent design. How is one justified and the other not acceptable?”