Two potential creation scenarios

[agnosticatheist]

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

A: The Christian God exists

B: The Christian God created the universe

Now, let's consider two possible creation scenarios.

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest?

2. The Bible says that God is trustworthy; can he still be trusted if he made it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't?

3. Why would God make it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't, knowing full well that this will cause many to doubt God's existence?

Scenario 2: God created the conditions in which carbon-based lifeforms could emerge and evolve on Earth, and eventually lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which God would give a soul to (and perhaps make some other minor changes to), which would result in the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans.

Scenario B Question for debate:

1. Why would God go to all that trouble when he could simply create each species in separate creation events?

Here's a broader set of questions that apply to both scenarios:

Why would God create lifeforms other than humans? Clearly humans are important because they "house" the human soul. But what about Wolves? Crocodiles? Crows? Gorillas?

What is the role of non-human lifeforms in God's "plan"?

Do they have souls too? Consciousness/awareness is a state that people claim is possible due to the soul.

Well, the more we observe and study the non-human natural world, the more it seems that consciousness/awareness exists on a spectrum, from human-level awareness (or perhaps higher...), down to complete non-consciousness/non-awareness (e.g. bacteria). There isn't some absolute line where life is divided between conscious and non-conscious, except for maybe at the "lower lifeform levels", but definitely not at the "higher lifeform levels". Dogs are conscious, they just aren't conscious to the same degree that humans are.

So, why create lifeforms besides humans and have consciousness exist on a spectrum?

Why would God do this knowing full well that it would cause people to question his existence?

It just seems to be such an interesting coincidence that God created lifeform consciousness on a spectrum.

[Jashwell]

A. "Failed" eh? Baseless Assertion (Fallacy), How so...?

The rest of his post attempts to show failures in it. Taking a statement "this is wrong; here's why: x,y,z" and responding to the first clause alone with simply "'this is wrong' is a baseless assertion" is at best quote mining and at worst straw-manning, even if you do go on to address x,y,z (in which case you don't call their assertion baseless, you say it had a false premise or that the justification is wrong).

Even if this weren't the case; clearly he thinks the same material was tried and didn't work previously (hence 'recycling your own failed material'), presumably he explained why a previous time. The evidence in support of you or him would be your previous posts.

B. "Conspicuously left out", eh? Now I suppose the URL isn't good enough.... How about if I get it Notarized next time? There are only 4 Steps. Do these 4 Steps Invalidate anything that I posted? All they did was leave out (Step 2 Lit Review, Step 5 Data Analysis, Step 6 Validate, Step 7 Report). As you can see, these are mainly logistical and ("Well Duh") Steps. [...]

I believe the part he's referring to is "There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation."
Given that your objection was (seemingly) an issue with controlled experiment/testing predictions of the future from a particular hypothesis; this particular paragraph is detrimental to your point.

Furthermore, if you take issue with a particular step that is in your 7, but not in the website's 4, it doesn't support your argument.

C. "Quote Mining" again, eh? geez. Even after I exposed you and this never ending feebly contrived Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) in Post# 273. This is tantamount to the Chairman of PETA showing up for work the next day after he was video-taped "Live", Clubbing Baby Seals with a 44" Louisville Slugger.

Leaving out information to alter the context and implications of the quote can be reasonably conceived as quote mining. Quoting "The scientific method requires X unless Y" and leaving out the exceptional circumstance when it is most relevant, is an example.

D. "when one cannot repeat the measurement"?

(A quote from the website you linked)

You can't even get to the First Step of the Scientific Method let alone a Valid Hypothesis then One TEST; Ergo...Straw Man (Fallacy)

This wouldn't be a straw man, and some support for 'you can't even get to the first step ... ' would be nice.

Obviously, we do not get a "do over" with another 4.5 billion year experiment. That was Mayr's point.

Ipse Dixit. He was "CLEARLY" saying that evolution isn't "science" and that Darwin was a Philosopher. Is Philosophy "science"...?

Disagreeing with your interpretation of a quote is not ipse dixit. Danmark quotes an article based on a lecture Mayr gave, in which evolutionary biology is described as a "historical science".

And.....Begging The Question (Fallacy) "4.5 Billion Years".

This isn't begging the question - you don't need to presuppose that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old in order to claim that a 4.5 billion year controlled test would be impractical.

You keep insisting, by quote mining, that if there are no experiments, than it isn''t science. You will continue to be wrong each time you make this claim.

Ipse Dixit.

This isn't ipse dixit, he's given his justification.

This is tantamount to: "You keep insisting that if there is no hydrogen, then it isn't water...You will continue to be wrong each time you make this claim".

No, it's tantamount to "[Here's why water doesn't require Hydrogen] You keep insisting ... " - of course, the example is somewhat biased, but it clearly isn't ipse dixit. Compare "[Here's why water requires Hydrogen] You keep insisting that just because it is water, there needn't be Hydrogen ..."

/////
//1//

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

[...] 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.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes

The follow up and example doesn't seem to support you.

//2//

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.fromquark...-theory-or-law/

[...]Theories are one of the pinnacles of science and are widely accepted in the scientific community as being true. To remain a theory, it must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven (this also happens). Theories can also evolve. This means the old theory wasn’t wrong, but it wasn’t complete either. Here are some examples.

Incidentally, this one references the previous quote as a source.
Here's another quote from a source the author gives:

A theory is really one of the pinnacles of science – what nearly everyone strives to make out of their hypotheses. A hypothesis is elevated to a theory when it has withstood all attempts to falsify it. Experiment after experiment has shown it sufficient to explain all observations that it encompasses. In other words, a “theory� has never been shown to be false, despite – usually – hundreds if not thousands of separate attempts to break it. It explains the observations with one or more mechanisms and, because it provides that mechanism, it is considered to be above the level of a Law. Examples these days are the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Germ Theory of Disease, and yes, the Theory of Evolution.

And from the final source the author gives:
(you may want to read on after the quote before responding)

Accepted theories are the best explanations available so far for how the world works. They have been thoroughly tested, are supported by multiple lines of evidence, and have proved useful in generating explanations and opening up new areas for research.

And an explanation of what is meant by tested (same source ofc):
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_06
Or more concisely, the website's right margin references evolutionary theory (without any tone of sarcasm in 'theory' or any mention of it being a quote).

Now, for our original quote's author, we have an aforementioned source that doesn't address the matter, and two other sources that explicitly support the idea that evolution is a theory. For testing, the author alludes once to the big bang theory:

In this case, scientists make observations, hypothesis and testable predictions to figure out which one is right (Example: I observe the universe is expanding, I hypothesize there was a beginning, I test by doing the math).

Observation -> the author can, at best, observe results (i.e. expansion of the Universe... or analogously, fossils/diversity/etc)
Testing -> the author can, at best, test results that are already there to be found - like checking the relationship between a trait and the species' survival and reproduction rates.

It is clear that the author's quote doesn't support you.
//3//

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

(this link was previously given, as was a follow up)

/////

Do you see any pattern that's "repeating" in the 3 statements above?

Either a misunderstanding of what is meant by 'test', or (alternatively) quote mining. I'm more inclined to the former.

And you are wrong on another front as well, because not only is evolution predictive, we've had thousands of 'experiments' in the sense that we both observe natural selection at work, but by artificial selection AKA breeding and the hybridization of plants.

Ipse Dixit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding
There's a degree of common ground expected, but responding 'ipse dixit' to everything isn't productive. What he's attempting to do is suggest that these things are experiments, not that artificial selection (for instance) had occurred (which he probably, and quite reasonably, didn't think you'd doubt - like doubting that better irrigation can make farms more productive)

“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

"Observations" aren't Experiments/TESTS (What's your Independent Variable...your Eyelids?).

Then maybe you should rescind every reference and every source you've just given.

Natural Selection is tautology. All you or anyone else has ever observed is change in allele frequency, aka Genetic Variation.

Natural selection very obviously conveys particular concepts, and isn't a tautology beyond any other definition. Are you arguing that it might be too vaguely defined?

As for your 1960 and 1967 out of context, one page quotes

1. What on Earth does "1960" and "1967" have to do with anything, Pray Tell?
2. "Out Of Context" One of Hundreds of your personal Baseless Assertions (Fallacy)

(to my knowledge) I haven't read either quote. so I shan't comment on their content.

just supply the URL for the entire book and article and I predict it will be easy to see how they are additional examples of quote mining.

1. I provided the URL the last time and you said that I conspicuously left stuff out lol. Did you mean left stuff out of the url?

If having the url was all that mattered, why bother quoting at all?
Clearly which content you quote is important, even if you give the full source.
I assume that the claim he's making is that if you were compared against the full source, that there would be obvious quote mining. Without the full source, nobody could (easily) tell anyway.

2. So you "conjure" a (Guess) then offer a prediction off an extrapolation from that guess, eh? Do you think it is logical for people to imagine things and then demand others who do not believe in your imaginings to demonstrate how your imaginings are false, BEFORE you give evidence for your imaginings?

I don't know what this is about.

3. It's quite obvious you haven't a Clue what "Quote Mining" is Sir. It would probably help if you READ THEM FIRST , See Post # 273.

You've misrepresented at least one quote in this post. A quote that explicitly calls evolution science and claims it 'introduced historicity' (which I'd call dubious - other fields like archaeology and some forms of geology can be based on historical data) is used to attempt to show why evolution isn't science.

The 1960 quote is from
http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut

This is tantamount to being attacked by a Grizzly Bear and instead of protecting yourself from being eviscerated you're overly preoccupied with where and by which route the bear came.
Are you saying the folks @ Creation.com wrote this in Kerkut's Book?
It's also a clumsy Genetic Fallacy.

Then why bother with the quote in the first place?

[Enoch2021]

A. "Failed" eh? Baseless Assertion (Fallacy), How so...?

The rest of his post attempts to show failures in it. Taking a statement "this is wrong; here's why: x,y,z" and responding to the first clause alone with simply "'this is wrong' is a baseless assertion" is at best quote mining and at worst straw-manning, even if you do go on to address x,y,z (in which case you don't call their assertion baseless, you say it had a false premise or that the justification is wrong).

Even if this weren't the case; clearly he thinks the same material was tried and didn't work previously (hence 'recycling your own failed material'), presumably he explained why a previous time. The evidence in support of you or him would be your previous posts.

B. "Conspicuously left out", eh? Now I suppose the URL isn't good enough.... How about if I get it Notarized next time? There are only 4 Steps. Do these 4 Steps Invalidate anything that I posted? All they did was leave out (Step 2 Lit Review, Step 5 Data Analysis, Step 6 Validate, Step 7 Report). As you can see, these are mainly logistical and ("Well Duh") Steps. [...]

I believe the part he's referring to is "There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation."
Given that your objection was (seemingly) an issue with controlled experiment/testing predictions of the future from a particular hypothesis; this particular paragraph is detrimental to your point.

Furthermore, if you take issue with a particular step that is in your 7, but not in the website's 4, it doesn't support your argument.

C. "Quote Mining" again, eh? geez. Even after I exposed you and this never ending feebly contrived Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) in Post# 273. This is tantamount to the Chairman of PETA showing up for work the next day after he was video-taped "Live", Clubbing Baby Seals with a 44" Louisville Slugger.

Leaving out information to alter the context and implications of the quote can be reasonably conceived as quote mining. Quoting "The scientific method requires X unless Y" and leaving out the exceptional circumstance when it is most relevant, is an example.

D. "when one cannot repeat the measurement"?

(A quote from the website you linked)

You can't even get to the First Step of the Scientific Method let alone a Valid Hypothesis then One TEST; Ergo...Straw Man (Fallacy)

This wouldn't be a straw man, and some support for 'you can't even get to the first step ... ' would be nice.

Obviously, we do not get a "do over" with another 4.5 billion year experiment. That was Mayr's point.

Ipse Dixit. He was "CLEARLY" saying that evolution isn't "science" and that Darwin was a Philosopher. Is Philosophy "science"...?

Disagreeing with your interpretation of a quote is not ipse dixit. Danmark quotes an article based on a lecture Mayr gave, in which evolutionary biology is described as a "historical science".

And.....Begging The Question (Fallacy) "4.5 Billion Years".

This isn't begging the question - you don't need to presuppose that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old in order to claim that a 4.5 billion year controlled test would be impractical.

You keep insisting, by quote mining, that if there are no experiments, than it isn''t science. You will continue to be wrong each time you make this claim.

Ipse Dixit.

This isn't ipse dixit, he's given his justification.

This is tantamount to: "You keep insisting that if there is no hydrogen, then it isn't water...You will continue to be wrong each time you make this claim".

No, it's tantamount to "[Here's why water doesn't require Hydrogen] You keep insisting ... " - of course, the example is somewhat biased, but it clearly isn't ipse dixit. Compare "[Here's why water requires Hydrogen] You keep insisting that just because it is water, there needn't be Hydrogen ..."

/////
//1//

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://chemistry.abo...a/lawtheory.htm

[...] 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.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes

The follow up and example doesn't seem to support you.

//2//

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.fromquark...-theory-or-law/

[...]Theories are one of the pinnacles of science and are widely accepted in the scientific community as being true. To remain a theory, it must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven (this also happens). Theories can also evolve. This means the old theory wasn’t wrong, but it wasn’t complete either. Here are some examples.

Incidentally, this one references the previous quote as a source.
Here's another quote from a source the author gives:

A theory is really one of the pinnacles of science – what nearly everyone strives to make out of their hypotheses. A hypothesis is elevated to a theory when it has withstood all attempts to falsify it. Experiment after experiment has shown it sufficient to explain all observations that it encompasses. In other words, a “theory� has never been shown to be false, despite – usually – hundreds if not thousands of separate attempts to break it. It explains the observations with one or more mechanisms and, because it provides that mechanism, it is considered to be above the level of a Law. Examples these days are the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Germ Theory of Disease, and yes, the Theory of Evolution.

And from the final source the author gives:
(you may want to read on after the quote before responding)

Accepted theories are the best explanations available so far for how the world works. They have been thoroughly tested, are supported by multiple lines of evidence, and have proved useful in generating explanations and opening up new areas for research.

And an explanation of what is meant by tested (same source ofc):
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_06
Or more concisely, the website's right margin references evolutionary theory (without any tone of sarcasm in 'theory' or any mention of it being a quote).

Now, for our original quote's author, we have an aforementioned source that doesn't address the matter, and two other sources that explicitly support the idea that evolution is a theory. For testing, the author alludes once to the big bang theory:

In this case, scientists make observations, hypothesis and testable predictions to figure out which one is right (Example: I observe the universe is expanding, I hypothesize there was a beginning, I test by doing the math).

Observation -> the author can, at best, observe results (i.e. expansion of the Universe... or analogously, fossils/diversity/etc)
Testing -> the author can, at best, test results that are already there to be found - like checking the relationship between a trait and the species' survival and reproduction rates.

It is clear that the author's quote doesn't support you.
//3//

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

(this link was previously given, as was a follow up)

/////

Do you see any pattern that's "repeating" in the 3 statements above?

Either a misunderstanding of what is meant by 'test', or (alternatively) quote mining. I'm more inclined to the former.

And you are wrong on another front as well, because not only is evolution predictive, we've had thousands of 'experiments' in the sense that we both observe natural selection at work, but by artificial selection AKA breeding and the hybridization of plants.

Ipse Dixit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding
There's a degree of common ground expected, but responding 'ipse dixit' to everything isn't productive. What he's attempting to do is suggest that these things are experiments, not that artificial selection (for instance) had occurred (which he probably, and quite reasonably, didn't think you'd doubt - like doubting that better irrigation can make farms more productive)

“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

"Observations" aren't Experiments/TESTS (What's your Independent Variable...your Eyelids?).

Then maybe you should rescind every reference and every source you've just given.

Natural Selection is tautology. All you or anyone else has ever observed is change in allele frequency, aka Genetic Variation.

Natural selection very obviously conveys particular concepts, and isn't a tautology beyond any other definition. Are you arguing that it might be too vaguely defined?

As for your 1960 and 1967 out of context, one page quotes

1. What on Earth does "1960" and "1967" have to do with anything, Pray Tell?
2. "Out Of Context" One of Hundreds of your personal Baseless Assertions (Fallacy)

(to my knowledge) I haven't read either quote. so I shan't comment on their content.

just supply the URL for the entire book and article and I predict it will be easy to see how they are additional examples of quote mining.

1. I provided the URL the last time and you said that I conspicuously left stuff out lol. Did you mean left stuff out of the url?

If having the url was all that mattered, why bother quoting at all?
Clearly which content you quote is important, even if you give the full source.
I assume that the claim he's making is that if you were compared against the full source, that there would be obvious quote mining. Without the full source, nobody could (easily) tell anyway.

2. So you "conjure" a (Guess) then offer a prediction off an extrapolation from that guess, eh? Do you think it is logical for people to imagine things and then demand others who do not believe in your imaginings to demonstrate how your imaginings are false, BEFORE you give evidence for your imaginings?

I don't know what this is about.

3. It's quite obvious you haven't a Clue what "Quote Mining" is Sir. It would probably help if you READ THEM FIRST , See Post # 273.

You've misrepresented at least one quote in this post. A quote that explicitly calls evolution science and claims it 'introduced historicity' (which I'd call dubious - other fields like archaeology and some forms of geology can be based on historical data) is used to attempt to show why evolution isn't science.

The 1960 quote is from
http://creation.com/evolution-definition-kerkut

This is tantamount to being attacked by a Grizzly Bear and instead of protecting yourself from being eviscerated you're overly preoccupied with where and by which route the bear came.
Are you saying the folks @ Creation.com wrote this in Kerkut's Book?
It's also a clumsy Genetic Fallacy.

Then why bother with the quote in the first place?

The rest of his post attempts to show failures in it. Taking a statement "this is wrong; here's why: x,y,z" and responding to the first clause alone with simply "'this is wrong' is a baseless assertion" is at best quote mining and at worst straw-manning

Failures in what? The Baseless Assertion Claim that I made was in regard to this statement..."You are recycling your own failed material and quote mining again." See it? It's A Baseless (Bare) Assertion Fallacy because all that was in support was a CLAIM and no Beef.

Please define Straw Man (Fallacy)....?
Please Define "Quote Mining"....?

Even if this weren't the case; clearly he thinks the same material was tried and didn't work previously (hence 'recycling your own failed material'), presumably he explained why a previous time. The evidence in support of you or him would be your previous posts.

Well who cares what he "Thinks"....unless he provides "SPECIFIC" evidence in SUPPORT....it's status is BASELESS.

Judge: What's The Charge?
Joe Shmoe: Jack robbed the bank!!
Judge: Very Well, present your Case.
Joe Shmoe: I proved this Yesterday @ Home, I have Pictures.
Judge: Go get the Pictures
Joe Shmoe: I lost them
Judge: Case Dismissed, The Charge is Baseless!

Follow?

I believe the part he's referring to is "There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation."
Given that your objection was (seemingly) an issue with controlled experiment/testing predictions of the future from a particular hypothesis; this particular paragraph is detrimental to your point.

"Detrimental"...How so? The only "Objection" I had was to his charge of there being only 4 Steps. And I thought I explained why.

Furthermore, if you take issue with a particular step that is in your 7, but not in the website's 4, it doesn't support your argument.

What in the World? I'm not making a comparison between their Step 4 and my Step 7. They just consolidated My: Step 1, Step 3, and Step 4.... into 4 Steps. As I clearly explained, the rest are logistical in nature and not the focus of the link. Are you suggesting Scientists don't "Report Their Results"?
Moreover, The link and the "Quote" I posted was to Highlight what is an Actual Hypothesis and a Scientific Theory......NOT the Specific Steps in the Scientific Method.

Leaving out information to alter the context and implications of the quote can be reasonably conceived as quote mining. Quoting "The scientific method requires X unless Y" and leaving out the exceptional circumstance when it is most relevant, is an example.

Ahhh Sir, I didn't leave out anything in the "Quote". The "Quote" I posted wasn't referencing "The Steps of The Scientific Method", ya see....

"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."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

You see where the Quote Stops and the link? That means "End Quote". Then I wrote....

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

This is from ME...not the link.

This wouldn't be a straw man, and some support for 'you can't even get to the first step ... ' would be nice.

Well possibly, it may be closer to a Red Herring. Yes, well the First Step of the Scientific Method is "Observe a Phenomenon" so unless you have a "TIME" Machine...your outta luck.

Disagreeing with your interpretation of a quote is not ipse dixit. Danmark quotes an article based on a lecture Mayr gave, in which evolutionary biology is described as a "historical science".

It is an Ipse Dixit and a Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) because that's NOT what Professor Mayr said. Please post the Quote in your next response and show me where anything in that quote ='s even remotely says or implies: "Obviously, we do not get a "do over" with another 4.5 billion year experiment."

This isn't begging the question - you don't need to presuppose that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old in order to claim that a 4.5 billion year controlled test would be impractical.

Oh Brother. I said the "4.5 Billion Years" was Begging The Question. And is the BASIS of his STATEMENT. Anything downstream from it is conjecture.

The follow up and example doesn't seem to support you.....

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry ... theory.htm

How so....? Go ahead and post this in your next response and will scrutinize it together.

And an explanation of what is meant by tested (same source ofc):
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_06
Or more concisely, the website's right margin references evolutionary theory (without any tone of sarcasm in 'theory' or any mention of it being a quote).

Now, for our original quote's author, we have an aforementioned source that doesn't address the matter, and two other sources that explicitly support the idea that evolution is a theory. For testing, the author alludes once to the big bang theory:

I really don't care what it "says". Provide Scientific Evidence of evolution or the big bang.....?

Observation -> the author can, at best, observe results (i.e. expansion of the Universe... or analogously, fossils/diversity/etc)
Testing -> the author can, at best, test results that are already there to be found - like checking the relationship between a trait and the species' survival and reproduction rates.

It is clear that the author's quote doesn't support you.

It's quite clear that the author doesn't know what "Science" or the Scientific Method Is. Ya Ready....

Please show the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE of each and every TEST you wheel out here and let's get to scrutinizing!
MATH is not a "TEST".....MATH is IMMATERIAL and Abstract. @ Best Mathematics "Describes" it "Explains" exactly ZERO.

Either a misunderstanding of what is meant by 'test', or (alternatively) quote mining. I'm more inclined to the former.

Of course you left out "Your" definition of a TEST/Experiment, eh?
Start here: (Dependent Variable, Independent Variable, Control Variable)

And the Endless "Quote Mining" Last Port in the Storm.

Then maybe you should rescind every reference and every source you've just given.

Care to elaborate why....? Or just leave this "Opinion" hanging here?

Natural selection very obviously conveys particular concepts, and isn't a tautology beyond any other definition. Are you arguing that it might be too vaguely defined?

I'm arguing that it's a mere "concept" it's Inanimate. If you disagree then post the Chemical Structure and where it resides....?

If having the url was all that mattered, why bother quoting at all?
Clearly which content you quote is important, even if you give the full source.
I assume that the claim he's making is that if you were compared against the full source, that there would be obvious quote mining. Without the full source, nobody could (easily) tell anyway.

Have you ever heard of a "Works CITED" page or Bibliography? I do give the SOURCE, each and every time. It's a common practice from 5th Grade through and Including the Supreme Court. It's Quite COMMON in Scientific Literature.

I just don't post "LINKS". On most "Science" forums just posting a "link" is a Banning Offense...it speaks to Intellectual Laziness @ BEST. If I post something, it's in SUPPORT of a Topic or CLAIM I'm making and I can SPEAK to it.

You've misrepresented at least one quote in this post. A quote that explicitly calls evolution science and claims it 'introduced historicity' (which I'd call dubious - other fields like archaeology and some forms of geology can be based on historical data) is used to attempt to show why evolution isn't science.

1. I haven't in the least and you haven't shown where I Have.

2. Archaeology and Geology aren't "science" either because they don't follow the Scientific Method. If you care to refute, then Go Ahead and post any of their "Theories" and will scrutinize.

regards

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 281 by Enoch2021]

Jashwell nailed it, and you. His point by point expose' of your misleading effort was perfectly detailed and spot on.

Enoch wrote:

Please define Straw Man (Fallacy)....?
Please Define "Quote Mining"....?

You know perfectly well what the 'Straw Man' fallacy is and what 'Quote Mining' is. You are simply recycling your tired, failed, and transparent technique of asking for definitions you know the answer to, in lieu of actual argument.

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 281 by Enoch2021]

Jashwell nailed it, and you. His point by point expose' of your misleading effort was perfectly detailed and spot on.

Enoch wrote:

Please define Straw Man (Fallacy)....?
Please Define "Quote Mining"....?

You know perfectly well what the 'Straw Man' fallacy is and what 'Quote Mining' is. You are simply recycling your tired, failed, and transparent technique of asking for definitions you know the answer to, in lieu of actual argument.

Jashwell nailed it, and you. His point by point expose' of your misleading effort was perfectly detailed and spot on.

Thanks for the Generalized "Color Commentary". Can you be a tad more Specific...? No Bias on your part, eh?

Are you talking about where "He Nailed" conflating "My Scientific Method" with what was referenced and CITED in the The Quote just above the "END QUOTE"/Reference....? And then said it was "Quote Mined". However Hilarious that may be, it doesn't hold a candle to your 2009---- 44 year Old---- "Quote Mine" charge.

in lieu of actual argument.

R-Ya-Serious?? Of all the posts that's been my displeasure to come across, I have yet to see ONE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT you have presented ACTUALLY dealing with the Content of the Message.
Why? Well you haven't any coherent arguments so you BOG them down in Irrelevant and Baseless: Quote Mines, Wholesale 3rd Party Cut and Pastes...you can't speak to, Genetic Fallacies, and Ad hominems. I already CITED some (SEE: Post# 273)

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 281 by Enoch2021]

Jashwell nailed it, and you. His point by point expose' of your misleading effort was perfectly detailed and spot on.

Enoch wrote:

Please define Straw Man (Fallacy)....?
Please Define "Quote Mining"....?

You know perfectly well what the 'Straw Man' fallacy is and what 'Quote Mining' is. You are simply recycling your tired, failed, and transparent technique of asking for definitions you know the answer to, in lieu of actual argument.

Jashwell nailed it, and you. His point by point expose' of your misleading effort was perfectly detailed and spot on.

Thanks for the Generalized "Color Commentary". Can you be a tad more Specific...? No Bias on your part, eh?

Are you talking about where "He Nailed" conflating "My Scientific Method" with what was referenced and CITED in the The Quote just above the "END QUOTE"/Reference....? And then said it was "Quote Mined". However Hilarious that may be, it doesn't hold a candle to your 2009---- 44 year Old---- "Quote Mine" charge.

in lieu of actual argument.

R-Ya-Serious?? Of all the posts that's been my displeasure to come across, I have yet to see ONE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT you have presented ACTUALLY dealing with the Content of the Message.
Why? Well you haven't any coherent arguments so you BOG them down in Irrelevant and Baseless: Quote Mines, Wholesale 3rd Party Cut and Pastes...you can't speak to, Genetic Fallacies, and Ad hominems. I already CITED some (SEE: Post# 273)

That is more a reflection on your poor judgement as what constitutes a quote mine and what a logical fallacy is than anything else.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 283 by Enoch2021]

Are you saying that you're:

1. Not biased?
2. Unaware of what "strawman" and "quote mine" mean?
3. Nonplussed by Jashwell's points against yours?
4. In possession of facts that will overturn the concept of geology and stellar evolution as science?
5. Not the most famous person alive and a winner of the Nobel because of your incredible insights on science and what isn't science?

[Danmark]

One of the things that has puzzled me when YEC's talk is how they dismiss the fact that several sciences come to the same conclusion about the age of the Earth which is consistent with how long life took to reach it's current state.

By taking pristine objects, such as the Canyon Diablo meteorite as a way to get at the true age of the Solar System, and therefore the Earth, geologists have been able to determine that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old within a margin of error of about 1%.
This is consistent with many other rocks dating around 4 billion years that were not from meteorites.
http://www.universetoday.com/75805/how- ... the-earth/
The many types of radiometric dating is consistent with tree rings, plate tectonics, starlight measurements and the age of our solar system.

It is also consistent with the dating of man made artifacts that date to 100,000 years, and are consistent with the fossil record and geologic stratification.

Against this mass of data we have a theory based on a misinterpretation of a collection of books written about 1900 to 3500 years ago. No wonder the techniques used to attempt to support this silliness consist of:

"Quote mining:
This is the practice of isolating quotes from their original context in order to support a particular view. This often is used in conjunction with the argument from authority—i.e., an authoritative person said this, so it must be right, even if the quote is out of context. ....

Politicization:
Claiming modern science is politicized and biased because "most scientists are liberals or moderates." This is, of course, untrue, and even if it were true, it constitutes a fallacious appeal to motive.

Exaggerating the limits of a scientific theory:
Usually the phrase "only a theory" is passed about without any sense of irony, as creationists themselves sometimes attempt to pass creationism off as a "theory," albeit one unsupported by any evidence. This is also due to a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. Yet for them somehow the Bible is not "only a theory."

Pointing out science has been wrong before:
This is often combined with the above method of citing the fact that science is theory. Indeed, science has been wrong, but when it is found to be wrong it changes and becomes more accurate. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, by definition doesn't change, maintaining, at best, a constant distance from reality....

Exploiting the existence of non-uniformitarian views:
This can be wide reaching, from the speed of light changing over time to support the apparent age of the universe to bizarre hypotheses and suggestions that help support a global flood event.

Exploiting science fiction and popular culture:
As not all people are experts in all fields of science, a lot of people have to make do with popularised and slightly inaccurate versions of scientific theories....

Invoking divine intervention:
This technique solves many problems, like the starlight problem and explaining why incest was not an issue for Adam and Eve's offspring as well as for those aboard Noah's Ark.... Often this is abbreviated to "goddidit." ....YECs are known to resort to the related but more specific Flooddidit, Falldidit and Satandidit.

Referring to obsolete sources:
Science thrives on change. When discrediting evolutionary theories, creationists will often cite Charles Darwin's original The Origin of Species and point out issues which were poorly understood at the time. As all of science is a work in progress the specific details of the theory of evolution have changed much since Darwin's time....

Creationist "scientists" writing outside of their field:
For example, a physicist writing about DNA analysis or geologists commenting on biology....

Referring to "the flood" for everything
* * *
Mainstream scientists classify young Earth creationism as a pseudoscience, putting it on par with astrology. Indeed, at the Dover trial, Michael Behe, arguing that intelligent design should be allowable in public schools, admitted that his definition of science was broad enough to include astrology."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 283 by Enoch2021]

Are you saying that you're:

1. Not biased?
2. Unaware of what "strawman" and "quote mine" mean?
3. Nonplussed by Jashwell's points against yours?
4. In possession of facts that will overturn the concept of geology and stellar evolution as science?
5. Not the most famous person alive and a winner of the Nobel because of your incredible insights on science and what isn't science?

1. Not biased?

No, we are all Biased. It's Important to identify exactly where they reside and attempt to deal with them objectively.

However, in this specific Case.... Danmark provided a one liner "Color Commentary" commenting on how well Jashwell defended...."Danmark". Can you say "Conflict of Interest" lol. It's even more hilarious once you read the content.

2. Unaware of what "strawman" and "quote mine" mean?

Na, I know what they are. I was challenging Jashwell because it appears HE didn't know what they were.....especially conflating what "I" had wrote with what was stated in the CITATION. Follow?

3. Nonplussed by Jashwell's points against yours?

Why? Take a good look @ my response to his post...then attempt to characterize accordingly. Should take less than 2 minutes.

4. In possession of facts that will overturn the concept of geology and stellar evolution as science?

To easy, they each don't follow the Scientific Method. Ya "SEE", you have to OBSERVE Phenomenon...which has to be Repeating so it affords you the Ability to TEST IT....Hypothesis TESTING "Science".

Then you can form a VALID Hypothesis....

A hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of PHENOMENA OBSERVED in the natural world. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.britannic...ific-hypothesis

So then...

An "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).

So then....

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

Please show any postulate from either discipline that conforms to the criterion above...?

I'll save you some time with one...

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.� {Emphasis Mine}
Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.

So you have a boatload of "disciplines" Masquerading under the guise of "science". If you need a complete list, just ask.

5. Not the most famous person alive and a winner of the Nobel because of your incredible insights on science and what isn't science?

Don't need a Nobel to figure the meat goes in-between the bread slices.

regards

[Danmark]

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl..../appendixe.html

Please show any postulate from either discipline that conforms to the criterion above...? ....

This is easily met by the simple and most important principle of science: verifiable facts. I repeat:

One of the things that has puzzled me when YEC's talk is how they dismiss the fact that several sciences come to the same conclusion about the age of the Earth which is consistent with how long life took to reach it's current state.

By taking pristine objects, such as the Canyon Diablo meteorite as a way to get at the true age of the Solar System, and therefore the Earth, geologists have been able to determine that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old within a margin of error of about 1%.
This is consistent with many other rocks dating around 4 billion years that were not from meteorites.
http://www.universetoday.com/75805/how- ... the-earth/
The many types of radiometric dating is consistent with tree rings, plate tectonics, starlight measurements and the age of our solar system.

It is also consistent with the dating of man made artifacts that date to 100,000 years, and are consistent with the fossil record and geologic stratification.

Against this mass of data we have a theory based on a misinterpretation of a collection of books written about 1900 to 3500 years ago. No wonder the techniques used to attempt to support this silliness consist of:

"Quote mining:
This is the practice of isolating quotes from their original context in order to support a particular view. This often is used in conjunction with the argument from authority—i.e., an authoritative person said this, so it must be right, even if the quote is out of context. ....

Politicization:
Claiming modern science is politicized and biased because "most scientists are liberals or moderates." This is, of course, untrue, and even if it were true, it constitutes a fallacious appeal to motive.

Exaggerating the limits of a scientific theory:
Usually the phrase "only a theory" is passed about without any sense of irony, as creationists themselves sometimes attempt to pass creationism off as a "theory," albeit one unsupported by any evidence. This is also due to a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory actually is. Yet for them somehow the Bible is not "only a theory."

Pointing out science has been wrong before:
This is often combined with the above method of citing the fact that science is theory. Indeed, science has been wrong, but when it is found to be wrong it changes and becomes more accurate. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, by definition doesn't change, maintaining, at best, a constant distance from reality....

Exploiting the existence of non-uniformitarian views:
This can be wide reaching, from the speed of light changing over time to support the apparent age of the universe to bizarre hypotheses and suggestions that help support a global flood event.

Exploiting science fiction and popular culture:
As not all people are experts in all fields of science, a lot of people have to make do with popularised and slightly inaccurate versions of scientific theories....

Invoking divine intervention:
This technique solves many problems, like the starlight problem and explaining why incest was not an issue for Adam and Eve's offspring as well as for those aboard Noah's Ark.... Often this is abbreviated to "goddidit." ....YECs are known to resort to the related but more specific Flooddidit, Falldidit and Satandidit.

Referring to obsolete sources:
Science thrives on change. When discrediting evolutionary theories, creationists will often cite Charles Darwin's original The Origin of Species and point out issues which were poorly understood at the time. As all of science is a work in progress the specific details of the theory of evolution have changed much since Darwin's time....

Creationist "scientists" writing outside of their field:
For example, a physicist writing about DNA analysis or geologists commenting on biology....

Referring to "the flood" for everything
* * *
Mainstream scientists classify young Earth creationism as a pseudoscience, putting it on par with astrology. Indeed, at the Dover trial, Michael Behe, arguing that intelligent design should be allowable in public schools, admitted that his definition of science was broad enough to include astrology."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Until the YEC contingent can meet these facts, that there is overwhelming physical evidence the Earth is over 4 billion years old, YEC's silly claim about a 6000 year old Earth will remain where it should, ignored by the scientific community as a religiously inspired wishful fantasy that science does not even dignify with a response.

In the meantime, I wonder why the YEC folks have moved their goal posts 4000 years to say, the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, considering the Biblical genealogies only support a 6000 year old Earth.

[Jashwell]

The rest of his post attempts to show failures in it. Taking a statement "this is wrong; here's why: x,y,z" and responding to the first clause alone with simply "'this is wrong' is a baseless assertion" is at best quote mining and at worst straw-manning

Failures in what? The Baseless Assertion Claim that I made was in regard to this statement..."You are recycling your own failed material and quote mining again." See it? It's A Baseless (Bare) Assertion Fallacy because all that was in support was a CLAIM and no Beef.

I'd have preferred not to reply with the exact same statement.
Added emphasis.

The rest of his post attempts to show failures in it. Taking a statement "this is wrong; here's why: x,y,z" and responding to the first clause alone with simply "'this is wrong' is a baseless assertion" is at best quote mining and at worst straw-manning

Please define Straw Man (Fallacy)....?

Intentionally addressing misrepresentations of the opposition's arguments. Compare "The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition." (wikipedia)

Please Define "Quote Mining"....?

Intentionally misrepresenting what someone meant by controlling which parts of the quote are given and how.

Quoting out of context such that the meaning of the quote is misrepresented. Compare: "The practice of quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as "contextomy" and quote mining), is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning." (wikipedia)

Even if this weren't the case; clearly he thinks the same material was tried and didn't work previously (hence 'recycling your own failed material'), presumably he explained why a previous time. The evidence in support of you or him would be your previous posts.

Well who cares what he "Thinks"....unless he provides "SPECIFIC" evidence in SUPPORT....it's status is BASELESS.

Judge: What's The Charge?
Joe Shmoe: Jack robbed the bank!!
Judge: Very Well, present your Case.
Joe Shmoe: I proved this Yesterday @ Home, I have Pictures.
Judge: Go get the Pictures
Joe Shmoe: I lost them
Judge: Case Dismissed, The Charge is Baseless!

Follow?

Danmark made a claim and the rest of his post attempts to provide justification.

I believe the part he's referring to is "There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation."
Given that your objection was (seemingly) an issue with controlled experiment/testing predictions of the future from a particular hypothesis; this particular paragraph is detrimental to your point.

"Detrimental"...How so? The only "Objection" I had was to his charge of there being only 4 Steps. And I thought I explained why.

Your objection to evolution being scientific.

Furthermore, if you take issue with a particular step that is in your 7, but not in the website's 4, it doesn't support your argument.

What in the World? I'm not making a comparison between their Step 4 and my Step 7.

I'm saying that any of your 7 steps (not step 7 specifically), that aren't corroborated in their 4 steps, aren't supported by the source (and similarly, arguments you have that rely on any unsupported steps, are also unsupported by the source. Not, of course, to imply that the source is a 'big deal' as far as sources go. Any of them, for that matter.

They just consolidated My: Step 1, Step 3, and Step 4.... into 4 Steps. As I clearly explained, the rest are logistical in nature and not the focus of the link. Are you suggesting Scientists don't "Report Their Results"?

It would be far more prudent to provide their steps directly than your interpretation. If you believe some of your steps are implied, you can argue about that when the relevant opposing claims come in. Doing it now only serves to (literally) obfuscate the original source, and leads to two different versions that are either (in this context) unnecessary or unsupported.

Moreover, The link and the "Quote" I posted was to Highlight what is an Actual Hypothesis and a Scientific Theory......NOT the Specific Steps in the Scientific Method.

The scientific method has four steps [4 steps]

The Scientific Method... [7 steps]

Leaving out information to alter the context and implications of the quote can be reasonably conceived as quote mining. Quoting "The scientific method requires X unless Y" and leaving out the exceptional circumstance when it is most relevant, is an example.

Ahhh Sir, I didn't leave out anything in the "Quote". The "Quote" I posted wasn't referencing "The Steps of The Scientific Method", ya see....

I don't see how "the steps" are relevant to this point.

"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."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html

You see where the Quote Stops and the link? That means "End Quote". Then I wrote....

I'm aware; your reference was your support for the steps as well as the source for the quote. The same source also clearly indicates

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

(which is clearly relevant to the situation)

The Scientific Method...

[7 steps]

This is from ME...not the link.

I wasn't talking about the steps.

This wouldn't be a straw man, and some support for 'you can't even get to the first step ... ' would be nice.

Well possibly, it may be closer to a Red Herring. Yes, well the First Step of the Scientific Method is "Observe a Phenomenon" so unless you have a "TIME" Machine...your outta luck.

The source clearly doesn't agree with you, from the relevant quote (that was argued about).

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation.

Regardless, you can observe evolution in the present, you can observe evolution since antiquity, and you can observe evolution for the past billion years or more. Your claim is like saying that you can't observe bacteria, you can only observe a microscope. Fossils, atmosphere composition and current life on Earth all provide data that have been observed.

Disagreeing with your interpretation of a quote is not ipse dixit. Danmark quotes an article based on a lecture Mayr gave, in which evolutionary biology is described as a "historical science".

It is an Ipse Dixit and a Baseless Assertion (Fallacy) because that's NOT what Professor Mayr said. Please post the Quote in your next response and show me where anything in that quote ='s even remotely says or implies: "Obviously, we do not get a "do over" with another 4.5 billion year experiment."

The fact that we cannot do a 4.5 billion year isolated and controlled experiment should be immediately clear anyway,

Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.

(Mayr indicating that we can't practically perform this kind of experiment when it comes to evolution over billions of years. Also see "in contrast with physics and chemistry" in the original quote)

This isn't begging the question - you don't need to presuppose that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old in order to claim that a 4.5 billion year controlled test would be impractical.

Oh Brother. I said the "4.5 Billion Years" was Begging The Question. And is the BASIS of his STATEMENT. Anything downstream from it is conjecture.

A repeatable, concurrently observed experiment of the modern theory of evolutionary biology (and the evolution of all life) of Earth would be incomplete if it finished before that much time had elapsed.
(More could be added about how some supposed changes, like single to diverse multi celled life, are said to have taken billions of years)

The follow up and example doesn't seem to support you.....

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry ... theory.htm

How so....? Go ahead and post this in your next response and will scrutinize it together.

It's an example of historical science in which the results left behind are observed as opposed to observing the event in real time.

And an explanation of what is meant by tested (same source ofc):
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_06
Or more concisely, the website's right margin references evolutionary theory (without any tone of sarcasm in 'theory' or any mention of it being a quote).

Now, for our original quote's author, we have an aforementioned source that doesn't address the matter, and two other sources that explicitly support the idea that evolution is a theory. For testing, the author alludes once to the big bang theory:

I really don't care what it "says". Provide Scientific Evidence of evolution or the big bang.....?

Then why did you bother quoting it? I'm mostly just objecting to your counter arguments. I wouldn't need to believe in or support evolution or the big bang to do so. (though I do)

Observation -> the author can, at best, observe results (i.e. expansion of the Universe... or analogously, fossils/diversity/etc)
Testing -> the author can, at best, test results that are already there to be found - like checking the relationship between a trait and the species' survival and reproduction rates.

It is clear that the author's quote doesn't support you.

It's quite clear that the author doesn't know what "Science" or the Scientific Method Is. Ya Ready....

You're objecting to the sources of your own quotes.

"These quotes show what the scientific method is"
>those quotes, in context, disagree with you
"The authors of these quotes don't know what the scientific method is"

Please show the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE of each and every TEST you wheel out here and let's get to scrutinizing!
MATH is not a "TEST".....MATH is IMMATERIAL and Abstract. @ Best Mathematics "Describes" it "Explains" exactly ZERO.

I don't recall reading any of this in any of the quotes you gave, do you take them back?

Regardless, independent and dependant examples are for controlled experiments.
But if you're interested, try the sources for this section of this Wikipedia article, I'm sure you'll find scientific papers. (If not, google 'experimental evolution')

Not all science is controlled and experimental. Tests can still be performed and hypotheses checked in the absence of controlled experimentation.

Either a misunderstanding of what is meant by 'test', or (alternatively) quote mining. I'm more inclined to the former.

Of course you left out "Your" definition of a TEST/Experiment, eh?
Start here: (Dependent Variable, Independent Variable, Control Variable)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_study

You don't always need parameters to be under your control.

And the Endless "Quote Mining" Last Port in the Storm.

Then maybe you should rescind every reference and every source you've just given.

Care to elaborate why....? Or just leave this "Opinion" hanging here?

Because of every time you've disagreed with the quotes?
This was a response to a statement you made that flat out contradicts the spirit of the quotes you gave to support you. This "opinion" is supported by what was said earlier in the post. Now it's supported by things in this post too, for instance:

It's quite clear that the author doesn't know what "Science" or the Scientific Method Is.

(see earlier)

Natural selection very obviously conveys particular concepts, and isn't a tautology beyond any other definition. Are you arguing that it might be too vaguely defined?

I'm arguing that it's a mere "concept" it's Inanimate. If you disagree then post the Chemical Structure and where it resides....?

What is this supposed to mean? You haven't explained what you meant at all, and you've given a follow up (presumably rhetorical) question with absurd implications - namely that everything that doesn't have a chemical structure and a location is a tautology, 'a mere concept' and inanimate. (What is actually meant by those is itself unclear)

If having the url was all that mattered, why bother quoting at all?
Clearly which content you quote is important, even if you give the full source.
I assume that the claim he's making is that if you were compared against the full source, that there would be obvious quote mining. Without the full source, nobody could (easily) tell anyway.

Have you ever heard of a "Works CITED" page or Bibliography? I do give the SOURCE, each and every time. It's a common practice from 5th Grade through and Including the Supreme Court. It's Quite COMMON in Scientific Literature.

I just don't post "LINKS". On most "Science" forums just posting a "link" is a Banning Offense...it speaks to Intellectual Laziness @ BEST. If I post something, it's in SUPPORT of a Topic or CLAIM I'm making and I can SPEAK to it.

I'll restate what I said in more detail.
"If having the url was all that mattered, why bother quoting at all?"
You were saying that you weren't 'leaving stuff out' because you gave the url.

I provided the URL the last time and you said that I conspicuously left stuff out lol. Did you mean left stuff out of the url?

Obviously giving the url is better than not giving the url, but the point of this question is that what you quote is still important. You can still quote mine and misrepresent someone even if you give a link to the full source.

"Clearly which content you quote is important, even if you give the full source." (see above)

You've misrepresented at least one quote in this post. A quote that explicitly calls evolution science and claims it 'introduced historicity' (which I'd call dubious - other fields like archaeology and some forms of geology can be based on historical data) is used to attempt to show why evolution isn't science.

1. I haven't in the least and you haven't shown where I Have.

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

(emphasis yours, without the same bbcode tagging)

You use this quote to attempt to show that evolution isn't scientific, in spite of the quote and the author's meaning.

2. Archaeology and Geology aren't "science" either because they don't follow the Scientific Method. If you care to refute, then Go Ahead and post any of their "Theories" and will scrutinize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology ('an Earth science') - 67 references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_science - 4 references

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geology_theories
(not all of these are actual scientific theories unfortunately)

(for reference, I said the idea that evolution "introduced historicity to science" was dubious, the implication being that both of these fields have put historicity into science (and, not implied but also the case, put science into historicity))

If you're going to doubt that geology is science, we may as well stop using the word science completely and just address what the actual issue is.