Is Evolution a fact? Do we know it's true?

[Goose]

In fact, you're sounding like religions people here when they claim that evolution is "just a theory". That's totally false. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is simply the name given to the explanation that we now know is true.

Questions for debate: Is evolution a fact? Do we know evolution is true? How do we know it is a fact? How do we know it is true?

It will be necessary to define some terms:

Define what is meant by evolution in this context.
Define what is meant by fact in this context.
Define what is meant by know in this context.
Define what is meant by true in this context.

[Danmark]

Sorry, I'm not one of the "Headline" Profound Prognostication Guys. I'm one of those Scientific Method---"Validating Hypothesis" Guys.

You've demonstrated exactly the opposite; that you do not recognize the scientific method when you choose to deny it and refuse to accept validated hypotheses when it suits you.
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., a Brandeis associate professor* explains how the scientific method works over time to examine what we cannot observe directly.

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for the things that really matter. In fact, the most important discoveries of science have only be inferred via indirect observation. Familiar examples of unobservable scientific discoveries are atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radio-waves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, even though no one has ever observed the process to this day. All of these "invisible" phenomena were elucidated using the scientific method of inference. When the term "evidence" is used in this article, it is used strictly with respect to this scientific method.
....
"What is the scientific method?" - very simply (and somewhat naively), the scientific method is a program for research which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a logical order than a chronological one:

1. Make observations.
2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
4. Search for confirmations of the predictions;
if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).

Because scientists are constantly making new observations and testing via those observations, the four "steps" are actually practiced concurrently. New observations, even if they were not predicted, should be explicable retrospectively by the hypothesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Now if a person wanted to "quote mine" that site he might pick:
"If you thought that science was certain " well, that is just an error on your part."
__ Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
But Feynman is just saying in short hand what Dr. Theobald explicated in detail.

What you seem to demand from evolutionary biology is what we expect from religion:

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."
__ Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.

This is why evolutionary biology is always growing and changing as new information is discovered. Tho' Darwin's essential approach has been confirmed, as Mayr points out, some assumptions and hypotheses have been discarded. This is science at work.

As H. Sapiens has pointed out if you really want to get into the details, rather than read what Dr. Mayr writes for the general public, for example Populations, Species, and Evolution, you might read the work it is an abridgement of, Mayr's Animal Species and Evolution.

Sir Julian Huxley described it as "a magistral book... certainly the most important study of evolution that has appeared in many years--perhaps since the publication of The Origin of Species."
Quote mining as you did from Mayr to refute evolution is like quote mining Paul to prove he misrepresents God:
"We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise."

___________________________________________
*Associate Professor of Biochemistry
Evolution, structure, and function of macromolecular complexes
Ph,D., University of Colorado at Boulder
Structure and function of single-stranded nucleic acid protein complexes
Likelihood and Bayesian techniques in structural bioinformatics
Adaptive evolution of molecular structures

[Peter]

Attempting to explain evolution without abiogenesis is Tantamount to describing repairs to the Hubble Telescope before Space Flight.

Personally, I don't differentiate between Abiogenesis and Evolution. I think Evolution kicked in just as soon as chemistry started on this planet. Where we choose to draw the line between complex chemistry and true life (biogenesis) is still being debated.

Humans are, basically, just a bag of billions of complex chemical reactions. If we knew why this fact bothers so many people we'd know something very important.

I gather that you're highly critical of the Theory of Evolution so please, if you will, share with us your superior theory.

[Enoch2021]

Just a few this is getting quite boring...

Nobody except you cares how you'd characterize it, especially since, as a YEC, you make fairy-tales in to your own private reality on a full time basis.

Have you queried "everybody" to see if they cared? No?...Baseless Assertion (Fallacy)
Stereotype (Fallacy) "as a YEC".
And a Baseless Opinion (Fallacy). The Triple Crown in one sentence.

The point here is that Danmark accused you of several offenses against reason and logic

He (and You) accused me of "Quote Mining"... and apparently you haven't been keeping up on current events...that has been demonstrated to be frivolous and feebly contrived.

"against reason and logic"--- Sir, by proxy of your beliefs; you essentially can't tell the conceptual difference between a Sand Dune and a Sand Castle and Ascribe Authorship of all books to Ink Molecules. So, ahh...I don't think so.

you denied having done so and I demonstrated how you had.

Huh? Are you referring to your trainwreck concerning the Dino's? If so, see my last post to you and read SLOWLY.

Now, in keeping the hacknyed YEC approach we are into the Black Knight phase of denial, right on schedule. Keep repeating to yourself, it's only a flesh wound, it's only a flesh wound, it's only a flesh wound. That might help.

Do you think Monty Python References are lending credibility to your position?

(you do have an amazing propensity for cutting and pasting material from one site to another).

Yes, I have a file that I have compiled over the years dealing with these topics that I constantly update. It saves "TIME" and it would be quite nonsensical to recreate the wheel every time the same nonsense was trotted out and I had to RETYPE everything...wouldn't you say?

So, let me be sure to understand you, you are maintaining that the other sites I cited lifted the Ernst Mayr Scientific American quote and analysis from you? Or are you admitting to lifting it from them?

What on Earth are you talking about? Ahhh, NO.

Your deletion of the preceding and trailing paragraphs altered the meaning of what Dr. Mayr was saying and after doing so you criticized him for concepts that he was not presenting nor advocating. That's what quote mining is.
Now let's look at what Dr. Mayr wrote in context:

You haven't the first clue what "Quote Mining" is sir.

Thank You, This SPEAKS VOLUMES! Often (Like every single time) on forums, SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, and using other print media... it is sort of standard procedure not to quote ENTIRE ARTICLES when CITING SUPPORT for many reasons. It's often practice to use PARENTHETICAL CITATIONS which contains a Bibliography or a Work CITED page the end. Due to the numerous limitations on forums and including but not limited to "Head Space and Timing" of many readers, I adjust and use the Full Quote (CITED Appropriately) either before or just after MY explanation regarding the CITED WORK and how it relates to MY POINT. It limits the amount of space needed and Increases Readability and flow.
By the mere fact that I have to sit here and explain this: SEE: Speaks Volumes, above.

Here is where I explained to you what Dr, Mayr was saying, and what you were denying in your bizarre and willfully wrongheaded analysis.

Yes, It's called the Scientific Method and I surely understand why it would seem "Bizarre" to you.

So, what Dr. Mayr is showing, in the popular press, is how evidence based science ("The first two narratives were ultimately refuted by evidence incompatible with them.") was used to differentiate between the three proposed hypotheses that were, "proposed for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous".

In the "popular press", eh? First of all he didn't "show" anything he just "SAID"...big difference. Second, "Evidence-Based Science"? That wouldn't be "Scientific Evidence"? If so (and AGAIN)...

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

The Scientific Method:

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

Should I wait?

Item one, hypotheses: one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

Constructing a Historical Narrative is a "STORY" not a Hypothesis Sir.....Step 3 Hypothesis derives EXCLUSIVELY from STEP 1 OBSERVE A PHENOMENON; it's called the Scientific Method (SEE: above). How on Earth can you construct a "VALID" Hypothesis for a Past Event without a Time Machine?


And this is too funny, can you tell the difference between his quote and the definition for a Begging The Question Fallacy??..... "Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises."
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/inde ... e-question

Item two, experiments: Dr. Mayr was writing for popular consumption so he did not reference all the experiments that went into the testing of the three hypotheses (that you said did not exist) and ultimately resulted in the now widely accepted Alvarez theory.

Geez....Lame is an understatement. And you know this how? What was he thinking just before he typed this?
I want to see the INDEPENDENT VARIABLES and CONTROL VARIABLES of these TESTS of past events !! And if you don't realize what an Idiotic Request I was just reduced to type here...then I really can't help you.

In the off chance that a list of publications that describe some of the experiments that vindicated the winning hypotheses, here they are:

Alvarez, LW, Alvarez, W, Asaro, F, and Michel, HV (1980). "Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous"Tertiary extinction". Science 208 (4448): 1095"1108. Bibcode:1980Sci...208.1095A. doi:10.1126/science.208.4448.1095. PMID 17783054.

Kelly, Allan O. and Dachille, Frank (1953). TARGET: EARTH The Role of Large Meteors In Earth Science. Carlsbad, California. http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/news_detail.cfm?ID=72

De Laubenfels, MW (1956). "Dinosaur Extinctions: One More Hypothesis" (subscription required). Journal of Paleontology 30 (1): 207"218. Retrieved 2007-05-22.

David Perlman, "Dinosaur extinction battle flares," http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/D ... 261978.php, accessed 2013-02-08

Ocampo, A, Vajda, V & Buffetaut, E (2006). Unravelling the Cretaceous"Paleogene (KT) Turnover, Evidence from Flora, Fauna and Geology in Biological Processes Associated with Impact Events (Cockell, C, Gilmour, I & Koeberl, C, editors) SpringerLink. pp. 197"219. ISBN 978-3-540-25735-6. Retrieved 2007-06-17.

Kring, DA (2003). "Environmental consequences of impact cratering events as a function of ambient conditions on Earth". Astrobiology 3 (1): 133"152. Bibcode:2003AsBio...3..133K. doi:10.1089/153110703321632471. PMID 12809133.

Schulte, P. et al. (5 March 2010). "The Chicxulub Asteroid Impact and Mass Extinction at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary". Science 327 (5970): 1214"1218. Bibcode:2010Sci...327.1214S. doi:10.1126/science.1177265. PMID 20203042. edit

In the "OFF CHANCE" that this could be your Evidence, eh? This is the Poster Child for Intellectual Laziness and "Dodging". Absolutely Unbelievable. It's your Case Counselor!! You go find the Experiments that Validate your fairytale hypothesis---of past events , and you show!!! And "YOU" put it in the Scientific Method and Validate it, since we're discussing "SCIENCE"!

It's quite apparent you don't know what "Science" is or any of the Characteristics and Framework on which it is based. READ THIS SLOWLY....

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

I'm done here. If you have a cogent, SUPPORTED, well thought out response to my first 2 posts the by all means. Other than that, if I see one more frivolous clumsily contrived Baseless Assertion posted I'll just skip it

Thanks

[Danmark]

Just a few this is getting quite boring...
...Baseless Assertion (Fallacy)
Stereotype ... The Triple Crown in one sentence.

... you haven't been keeping up on current events...that has been demonstrated to be frivolous and feebly contrived.

...you essentially can't tell the conceptual difference between a Sand Dune and a Sand Castle

....see my last post to you and read SLOWLY.
...
What on Earth are you talking about? Ahhh, NO.
....
Geez....Lame is an understatement.
....
You haven't the first clue what "Quote Mining" is sir.
....
I'm done here. ....if I see one more frivolous clumsily contrived Baseless Assertion posted I'll just skip it.

This is just a series of ad hominem remarks, devoid of analysis plus a statement you are giving up. Your quote mining has been well documented by very specific references to what the author wrote, showing how you've lifted paragraphs out of context and used them to try [ineffectively] to say the opposite from the writer's thesis. H. Sapiens has done an excellent job demonstrating this with specific quotes showing the context of the paragraph. The Black Knight reference is spot on.

One question, just to make sure, do you really take the Young Earth Creationist point of view? Will you answer that specifically? How old do you think the Earth is? How long has life existed on it, in your opinion? What is your support for your opinion?

BTW, just to make certain we all understand what 'quote mining' is, here's a site demonstrating William Lane Craig's many examples of it:
https://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/cate ... te-mining/
That Craig so frequently resorts to it demonstrates his credibility and the weakness of his position.

[Enoch2021]

Sorry, I'm not one of the "Headline" Profound Prognostication Guys. I'm one of those Scientific Method---"Validating Hypothesis" Guys.

You've demonstrated exactly the opposite; that you do not recognize the scientific method when you choose to deny it and refuse to accept validated hypotheses when it suits you.

Another Baseless Assertion (Fallacy)

Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., a Brandeis associate professor* explains how the scientific method works over time to examine what we cannot observe directly.

Thanks...Looks like HE doesn't know what Science is either (Not Surprising)...

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., a Brandeis associate professor...

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science

He's Just taken the Scientific Method to the WOODSHED with this absurd preposterous Statement.

Moreover, OBSERVATION is Absolutely Crucial in Lieu of....

The act of a conscious observer creates the existence of Matter (Particles) and the objects they entail, Instantly! A Reality Independent of Observation...doesn't exist! Experimentally Validated, Repeatedly via Quantum Mechanics; SEE:

Double Slit Experiment
A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047
Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834.pdf
Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment: http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0610241.pdf

So when asked: "does a tree make a sound in the woods when it falls and nobody is around?"; the answer is an unequivocal....NO! There is no sound and more importantly...there is NO TREE! lol

"Who deserves to trust their intuition more than Einstein; and Einstein's intuition told him, like everyone's intuition tells them, that things are really there when you're not looking at them. Well, he was Wrong! That intuition is Incorrect."
Seth Lloyd, Professor of Mechanical Engineering MIT

How does it feel for you and (Professor Theobald) to hold a position in DIRECT CONTRADICTION with VALIDATED Scientific Experiment ??

"What is the scientific method?" - very simply (and somewhat naively), the scientific method is a program for research which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a logical order than a chronological one:

1. Make observations.
2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
4. Search for confirmations of the predictions;
if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).

You just Contradicted Yourself and The Fine Professor.

1. OBSERVE A PHENOMENON not "Make Observations". How on Earth are you going to FORM a Testable Hypothesis Sir without FIRST Observing a Phenomenon...."Conjure" One? How are you gonna TEST a Past event without a Time Machine?...

Can you Scientifically TEST and Validate the Speed of Cy Young's Fastball in the 2nd inning, 2nd batter, 1st Pitch of his Major League debut....On August 6, 1890 in Chicago? Please VALIDATE IT.....?

Predictions, eh? Please reconcile....

Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014

Let me guess...."Quote Mine"?

Because scientists are constantly making new observations and testing via those observations

Ahhh, you just contradicted yourself (and Professor Theobald) again. How are scientists making "new" observations and testing them when you just endorsed the Professors trainwreck above that stated.... you didn't need to have Direct Observations??

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Absolutely Unbelievable. You post a "Talk Origins" Reference on a science related topic? What's next the National Enquirer? ....

"The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara, the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.", pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk.origins

I guess we know now where the other "Monty Python" references came from.

What you seem to demand from evolutionary biology is what we expect from religion:

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."
__ Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.

First, evolutionary Biology is a contradiction in Terms.----- It's a Pseudo-Historical science incoherently slapped together with an Empirical Science.

evolution is a Religion...

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion " a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint " and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it " the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000

This is why evolutionary biology is always growing and changing as new information is discovered. Tho' Darwin's essential approach has been confirmed, as Mayr points out, some assumptions and hypotheses have been discarded. This is science at work.

It's a contradiction in terms as I've shown and is nothing more than "ad hoc" Hypothesis' (Punctuated Equilibrium and Convergent et) piled on a "Just So" Story.

As H. Sapiens has pointed out if you really want to get into the details, rather than read what Dr. Mayr writes for the general public, for example Populations, Species, and Evolution, you might read the work it is an abridgement of, Mayr's Animal Species and Evolution

.

Get into the details, eh? You are well out of your depth and you know it. What are you waiting for? Why don't you start of with VALIDATING just ONE of it's fairytale Postulates

Quote mining as you did from Mayr to refute evolution is like quote mining Paul to prove he misrepresents God:

If I see another "Quote Mine" Frivolous BASELESS ASSERTION (Fallacy) or you even imply it with any subsequent posts...I will ignore you Permanently.
Are we Tracking???

[Enoch2021]

... you haven't been keeping up on current events...that has been demonstrated to be frivolous and feebly contrived.

...you essentially can't tell the conceptual difference between a Sand Dune and a Sand Castle

....see my last post to you and read SLOWLY.
...
What on Earth are you talking about? Ahhh, NO.
....
Geez....Lame is an understatement.
....
You haven't the first clue what "Quote Mining" is sir.
....
I'm done here. ....if I see one more frivolous clumsily contrived Baseless Assertion posted I'll just skip it.


This is just a series of ad hominem remarks, devoid of analysis plus a statement you are giving up. Your quote mining has been well documented

Pssst.... Professor, guess what you just did above...."QUOTE MINED" me!!! Absolutely Classic...it's like giving you a hammer to put out a c4 fire.

One question, just to make sure, do you really take the Young Earth Creationist point of view? Will you answer that specifically? How old do you think the Earth is? How long has life existed on it, in your opinion? What is your support for your opinion?

Clearly, you wouldn't understand my explanation if I gave it to you...I'd just get a wiki or "talk origins" rebuttal

Consider yourself ignored.

[Danmark]

Sorry, I'm not one of the "Headline" Profound Prognostication Guys. I'm one of those Scientific Method---"Validating Hypothesis" Guys.

You've demonstrated exactly the opposite; that you do not recognize the scientific method when you choose to deny it and refuse to accept validated hypotheses when it suits you.

Another Baseless Assertion (Fallacy)

Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., a Brandeis associate professor* explains how the scientific method works over time to examine what we cannot observe directly.

Thanks...Looks like HE doesn't know what Science is either (Not Surprising)...

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., a Brandeis associate professor...

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science

He's Just taken the Scientific Method to the WOODSHED with this absurd preposterous Statement.

Moreover, OBSERVATION is Absolutely Crucial in Lieu of....

You've demonstrated again that you either do not understand the scientific method, or you simply reject it and refine it to suit your purposes when it goes against your personal beliefs. Further, you fail to distinguish "Direct observation" from indirect. Nowhere did Theobald claim there is no observation at work in science. This is one of the fundamental errors you make. Do you expect science to take a single snapshot at one instant in time and expect from that single direct observation to see evolution in action? Under that standard, no observations could satisfy your demands for how you think the scientific method should operate.

BTW, I note you failed to answer the direct questions put to you about YEC.

[Peter]

Attempting to explain evolution without abiogenesis is Tantamount to describing repairs to the Hubble Telescope before Space Flight.

I gather that you're highly critical of the Theory of Evolution so please, if you will, share with us your superior theory.

Hmmm, as I suspected, after all your harping on the scientific method you've got nothing that wouldn't be laughed right out of a grade school science class. How embarrassing for you.

If you're going to criticize the work of literally thousands of scientists over the past 150 years you might at least have a competing theory.

Call the Discovery Institute. I believe they've rented out some laboratory space at Hogwarts for their research.

[H.sapiens]

I did not realize when I entered this conversation that I was dealing with someone who believes that:

Secular" science is evil and is the hand of Satan, used by Satan to:

1. Create Doubt

2. Outright Denial of the WORD

It appears that your belief system requires you to proselytize against the advancement of human knowledge with such outlandish statements are: What 'Establishment'/Organization on the Planet Earth and on a MASSIVE SCALE attempts to Cast the Most DOUBT and then Outright Denial of the Existence of GOD, Bar None??? 'Secular' Science. (See: http://www.worthychristianforums.com/to ... try2088087 )

I see no point is further discourse with you. You not only quote mine and misrepresent good peoples' efforts at sharing knowledge, but it appears that you dwell in a paranoid miasma that permits you to rationalize your actions to yourself, as your glorious part in some cosmic battle between good and evil.

Our opinions and arguments are on the record and should be left for future readers to judge.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 206 by Enoch2021]

Yar sew fall oaf bowls hit know rest pons East kneaded.