Replies

Nothing is actually proved in the way it might be in physics or chemistry.

You seem to think that the laws and theories of physics and chemistry are more provable than those in biology. Please explain how physics or chemistry proves something. Give a specific example of such a real world proof with full analytical rigour applying to any physical or chemical law or theory of your choice......

I'll wait. I've seen your contention made many times by those who wish to deny the theory of evolution (or to by some mysterious process promote ID to being on equal status with ToE), and when I ask this question the response has been chirping crickets, every time.

There are crickets because this is a false linkage except in the mind of you guys.

When Newton observed that an apple fell to the ground on earth at 32' per/sec² that was a direct observation that he measured, not some convoluted evolving morphing thing like your evo belief is.

You dont see a gravity cult, why?

There is no need for religion nor any ID concepts to enter the battle of ideas for cosmo-evo to be a weak description, its weak on its own. The best case against it is to take a look at it and its evidence, like I did years ago.

Wolf

Give a specific example of such a real world proof with full analytical rigour applying to any physical or chemical law or theory of your choice

What we know about physics and chemistry and, yes, biology, can be used to produce reliable results that can be measured, observed and put to effective use in the world. Why in the world would you demand "an example of real world proof with full analytical rigour applying to any physical or chemical law or theory of your choice"

If the answer has been crickets, perhaps because the challenge makes no sense.

Do you still fail to understand the difference between observable facts and the inference from those facts?

Like I said, I'm a rhetorician, not a scientist. When it comes to the "science" of global warming, rampant heterosexual transmission of AIDS, the biological basis of homosexuality, the dangers of nuclear energy, the destruction of the rainforest or any other junk science, I can't keep up with the journals, the math, the proofs and all the other folderol of junk science.

It's just easier to (1) identify the agenda of the proponant , and (2) note how argument from examples is preferred to even poor enthymemes, and the complete absence of the kind of logical "rigour" you demand from others.

Here's the only reason I get interested in this debate. While I am sure everyone on Free Republic who favors the theory of evolution is simply a disiniterested scientist with no thought that the issue bears on questions of God or culture, it cannot have escaped your attention that Evolution has been used by some as an engine for destruction of religious faith.

And if you want to talk about challenges, how about this one: Please explain to me, an intelligent layman, just how a fossil of a reptile with a vestigal wing is evidence that lizards evolved into birds? In particular, I am interested in the logical steps that go into the connection between the vestigal wing and a survival benefit to that unfortunate freak. I have brought this up more than once here, and, I , too, have gotten only the sound of crickets as an answer :-)

Since I am not a scientist, I am even prepared to stipulate to any actual evidence you want to use. Let's just concentrate on the logic, shall we? The worst that could happen would be that I learn something new.

I am not a biblical literalist. I don't believe Genesis is a scientific treatise. At different times in my life I have been non-Christian and even anti-Christian. My opinion of evolution has not changed, however.