Replies

I've watched you make your semantic argument about 'speculations' for some time. I will admit that, as far as semantic arguments go, it is a good one.

Yes, you are correct that since it is not possible (yet) to actually travel back in time and observe and test ancient phenomenon occurring, any conclusions about those phenomenon can only ultimately be 'speculations' as to the exact nature of said events.

However, this word which you cling to: 'speculation', has a huge range of meaning into which you semantically insert yourself, implying through your wording that any and all speculations are the same and have the same potential to be correct or incorrect.

Science uses two methods to determine if a given hypotheses is correct. One involves repeated testing and variable manipulation. This is good for small to medium sized hypotheses; eg, The Earth is Round. When dealing with very large and complex hypotheses a different approach is in order. In cases such as the Theory of Evolution, what happens is that the theory makes predictions which can be observed and tested. These predictions would include things like the presence of uncountable millions of species which no longer exist, evidence of extensive time in which evolution can happen, and the observable processes of natural selection.

That not all of the predictions of the Theory of Evolution have been observed, such as the presence of intermediate forms, DOES NOT INVALIDATE the theory. If someone were to make a discovery, or design an experiment which showed that it is impossible for evolution to occur, or better yet, to show that it has not occurred, that would invalidate the theory.

As more and more evidence, observations, and experiments are performed, the probable accuracy of the 'speculations' you are so derisive of becomes more and more precise. Professional scientists are not in the business of making wild guesses.

I have to respect the semantic skill you display when you make your argument against 'speculation'. Just remember, since we can't travel back in time to prove they occurred, God's responsibility for life, the Fall of Man, and the Resurrection, are all (according to your argument) speculations as well, with no better chance of being correct.

I've watched you make your semantic argument about 'speculations' for some time...However, this word which you cling to: 'speculation'..."

Thank you for a lengthly response, the time and attention you have afforded me, and the compliments...but I think you have me confused with someone else.

To my recollection, I don't use that term very often, and only when necessary...although, I don't disagree with those that do frame their argument around it, consistently. I like to approach argumentation slightly different than most people, and those who might know me here, can attest to that. I like to work from principles, and argue accordingly.