<1000 times yes. Why do you and <YouRang> keep attributing the claim to the contrary to me? >

You know, I was wondering why you hit me twice for not disagreeing with <whatthefat>'s claim that the theory of evolution was solid as the theory of gravity.

Maybe your comment above explains it. :-)

I think you are confusing the "theory of gravity" with the "fact of gravity". (Either that, or you are overestimating the theory of gravity).

The fact of gravity is simply the observation of it: that apples fall; that planets orbit the sun, etc.

The *theory* of gravity is much more difficult, and deals with how to explain the facts (observations) of gravity.

Newton and Kepler went a long way to understanding the relationship between the facts of gravity and mass, and they developed mathematical formulas that describe that behavior. But that's still not understanding the mechanism by which it works. I think it was quite an impressive insight to realise that falling apples and orbiting planets are instances of the same phenomena.

Einstein proposed that mass actually causes the fabric of space-time to bend, and the observation of gravity is just objects traveling along those curved lines. He came up with his General Theory of Relativity that describes this, but it still doesn't explain everything. However, it seems to be the best theory of gravity we have so far.

<OCF: That is correct, but they are used to establish facts.>

Then I suspect that you and I have different ideas of what constitutes a "fact". See below regarding different classes of evidence.

<So you understand experiments on evolutionary change in nature to are as reproducible as experiments proving gravity exists?>

I'm not sure quite what you're asking here. Laboratory experiments are by their very nature repeatable. Assessments of physical specimens such as fossils are also repeatable - you in fact raised a very good example with Archeoraptor, which upon repeated observations from other investigators was revealed to be a fraud.

Also, let's be clear that it is not possible to "prove" any scientific theory.

<"Your Honor, the eyewitness testimony of my client's guilt is not reported in any contemporaneous historical account besides the trial record." >

Comparing legal evidence to scientific evidence is not a valid approach. The legal system has very different standards in reaching a verdict and applying the concept of "reasonable doubt". In a court of law, an eye witness is assumed to be telling the truth unless proven otherwise. This is necessary for the justice system to operate at all, lest most cases simply be thrown out for lack of evidence. But in science, this is fine. A theory can be held in limbo for as long as it takes sufficient evidence to be acquired, and in some cases the theory may simply be deemed untestable.

<But they are admissible as historical evidence. If they are not, you have simply cast aside the field of history.>

Okay, but are we at least clear that these are three distinct classes of evidence: scientific, legal, and historical? You cannot use them interchangeably.

<Why do you and <YouRang> keep attributing the claim to the contrary to me?>

not to all the people, but to us,

the witnesses chosen by God in advance,

<whatthefat: Then I suspect that you and I have different ideas of what constitutes a "fact". See below regarding different classes of evidence.>

I don't like to, but I'm going to drop a link. I don't think there's anything there the average person can't follow. http://www.apologeticspress.org/art...

<You've cited a bunch of cases, and you claim that these are embarrassments for scientists. I'm not sure exactly why you believe that.

Perhaps you think these are deliberate frauds carried out by scientists in order to support the lie of evolution?>

Some of them yes. At a bare minimum, the overhype of the original finds are indicative of the mindset.

<Or maybe you think that the theory of evolution depends on these questionable cases?>

No. Truth is truth, regardless if someone distorts it. That is the case for both sides.

<Or maybe you think creationists are to be thanked for correcting the mistakes (to the chagrin of scientists)?>

No, but the Creationists were quick to predict the inevitable backtracking.

<For the cases I've read up on, you would be wrong on all counts. Some of these cases represent deliberate hoaxes. In those cases the motive was probably greed (either acclaim or money). Some of the other cases were mistaken classifications. Mistakes do happen at times.>

Repeated observations?! Right, it took others thousands of hours of research and billions of dollars in funds to figure out that something GLUED together was a fraud.>

Right, in that particular case it essentially only took one qualified observer to expose the fraud. But it took the widespread agreement between independent scientists to establish it as scientific fact.

<A 1000 times yes. I was about to ask you the same question.>

Okay, well if we're still on the same wavelength thus far, then I'm confused. How is it that you feel scientists need to take the word of the Bible as scientific fact? You say: <I don't think that, nor have I claimed or even implied it.> Yet earlier in this discussion you said:

<But because they [scientists] *are* aware of the Biblical account AND because they specifically do not want to agree with the Bible, the majority of scientists deliberately suppress these theories and propose other theories (e.g. big bang, evolution) that they know to be false.>

But you acknowledged already (1000 times, in fact) that historical accounts alone do not constitute scientific evidence.

< Here's an analogy. A shooting happens. There are 50 eyewitnesses. There are 2 Suspects, both of them in the vicinity of the shooting. All 50 identify Suspect A as the shooter. The CSI team comes on the scene and says "Based on our scientific research of the trajectory of the shots from Suspect A and Suspect B's location, and the blood splatters, we think Suspect B is more likely the shooter by a margin of 51-49%. The eyewitness testimony carries no weight whatsoever, so that we can ignore that and offer our final conclusion Suspect B is the most likely to have committed the crime.">

5:34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

<OhioChessFan: <YouRang: Because you are the one who seems to think that science is biased for refusing to accept miraculous explanations.>

I don't think that, nor have I claimed or even implied it.>

~~~~~

-- <OhioChessFan: <Playground: To rule out miracles a priori, or to insist that there is no such thing as the supernatural, seems to me a barrier to understanding. >

I agree and think such is rampant. It's one thing to say those are outside one's realm. It's another thing to say since those are outside one's realm, they can't exist.>

-- <I can't get away from the fact they [scientists] are rejecting a record of history [i.e. religious account of miraculous creation] yet pursuing historical truths in the name of science which supposedly is outside their realm.>

-- <I want them [scientists] to accept that the evidence they insist proves their case can just as well prove the [miraculous] Creationist case. They won't do that. Their self serving set of assumptions is their Bible. But time is against them.>

-- <I simply don't agree. I think they [scientists] studiously avoid any suggestion the Creationists [i.e. miraculous account of creation] are right, and the new and improved ideas will a priori assume they are not right, just like the newly discarded proposals did.>

-- <<because [scientists] *are* aware of the [miraculous] Biblical account AND because they specifically do not want to agree with the [miraculous account of creation in the] Bible, the majority of scientists deliberately suppress these theories and propose other theories (e.g. big bang, evolution) that they know to be false.".

You agreed that this was your belief. >

Yes. >

-- <I think they [scientists] reject the Biblical view [i.e. miracles] and run their observations through an Anti-Bible Filter. Of course not all, but I might go so far as to say most.>