Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

quote:
Big difference between proving fission in the 1930's and proving evolution has occurred over billion of years.Why? What part of the fossil record are you having trouble with? What part of the molecular phylogenetic tree are you having trouble with?

Oh, by the way: We can even create what you demand from scratch: Self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve.

In order to make a debate out of this, you now have to provide evidence to show that there is a difference between proving fission and proving evolution, or at least show how my evidence is faulty.

Those 72 Nobel Prize winning scientists I quoted --- do they know what "true science" is?

Intelligent design is simply the belief/knowledge that our creator God, before anything was created, proceeded to intelligently design (and create) the universe and all life therein from the start to the finish.So ... does it not rule out evolution? Only that definition would include a deity who incorporated evolution, the Big Bang, et cetera into his plan: in other words a real God who made the universe we actually live in.

"Things that can never be proven" include the theory of gravity, germ theory, and all other scientific theories.

The ToE has been "proven" to a high degree of accuracy, which makes it a "fact" by your own standard.

Now than, have I proven anything by following your model? Do my predictions correspond with my evidence? yes, so there is no need to incorpurate my theory into anyone elses and we are back to a earth cented solar system. Come on now this isn't science. This is at most a method to develop a best guess.

Actually, you are the one who doesn't "get it," if "it" is understanding the meaning of scientific theories. In fact, scientific theories do not magically turn into laws or absolutes no matter how well they explain the data. So to say as you did that "we finally agree that the ToE is a theory and not a fact" shows that you do not "get it." Sorry, but that is my opinion that I suspect most here would agree with.

Yes, it does rule out evolution as you have defined evolution. The Creator we creationists know created every creature after their own kind, and did not step back and seemingly let this process happen by randomness.This thread is in the Science Forums section.Document what you have claimed above. Specifically show scientific documentation for "kinds."Not creation "science," but real science please. And don't bother quoting scripture or revelation, as that is not science (quite the opposite, in fact).

I'm saying that, in order for your theory of nuclear fission to be proven true, you must be able to see an atomic nucleus fragment into two pieces.Since you have never seen an actual nucleus, your theory of atomic fission is off-limits to true scientific research.

Let's try again. You start with things as they are. You make predictions as to how things came to be as they are. You PROVE to a high degree of accuracy your predictions were correct. At this point there is no need to fold them back into more theories, and start over again. Your predictions that are proven to a high degree of accuracy are no longer theories but are facts, even laws or absolutes, and can be relied upon by scientists, engineers, doctors, etc. to create many other things for the good of mankind.
Now do you get it?You've got it completely turned around.Facts are the observations of phenomena in the physical universe, raw data. Theories are the conceptual models used to explain those facts and to predict where and how to look for new facts (this being one way of testing a theory).Theories never become facts, but rather theories explain facts. Your delusion that theories somehow get promoted to the rank of Fact is a blazingly clear indication that you simply don't know what you're talking about. Learn! I've already suggested that reading up on the philosophy of science might be a good place to start.

Until they do perhaps you could document what you have claimed above. Specifically show scientific documentation for "kinds."

You claimed "kinds" were all there is, so lets see some scientific documentation.So far you have ducked this challenge twice. I think you have no scientific basis for "kinds" and that it is purely a religious term but you are unwilling to admit it.

I didn't make myself clear. The guppies actually speciated into two new species. They underwent reproductive isolation and, after a number of generations, were not able to breed. This defines speciation, because now, genetic information cannot be shared between the two populations, and evolution can only occur on the population level.