I read all of your lengthy post but it raises a lot of false implications and assumptions about me or others.
Incorrect. Evolution, like the rest of science, is largely deductive.
Infact, quite correct actually. Theories work from prediction and confirmation. They can use deduction within the framework, but deductive logic wouldn't allow for paradigm shifts. That is what I mean. Generally, theories are tentative. There is some deducing within, but it is not a solid knowledge like a deductive syllogism from KNOWN premisses.
And yet, evolution is precisely that: It is a fact. You can watch it happen right in front of your very eyes.
You are equivocating with the term "evolution". If you mean natural selection and speciation is a fact - then I agree. Otherwise define, "fact".
Some? = All? I think not. This is the "gap" where people make personal choices whether to believe big evolution happened, and it is where many people think that the "gaps" in the fossil record are woefully huge, therefore they don't need to bake a macro-cake. Just a personal choice.
If you wish to make a leap of faith and declare that there is some evidence somewhere that we don't have which would change everything, then you are perfectly free to insist that it was magic. But you will understand if the rest of us who insist upon evidence don't quite come along for the ride
I never asked anybody to.
Because creationists don't even have a theory. In science, a theory is not simply wishful thinking.
It means you have a presupposition that the bible is "wishful thinking". It's exactly why I don't listen to people like you, but infact listen to logic, that doesn't require that I see the bible or any theory of the bible as wishful thinking based on another person's subjective views. (see your own post for examples of your own biblical subjective views).
Do you KNOW it is wishful thinking? No - it's not a knowledge, it's an argument, which is why I don't have to believe your argument, as logic shows me.
Any claim that explains everything actually explains nothing.
HAHAHA. Or it explains everything because it's the truth. You don't know but it was amusing to see you pretend you do know.
Do you seriously not see the problem with this? How very telling that you're trying to frame this as a "freedom of conscience" issue as if creationism were akin to not eating meat on Friday. The problem is that you are insisting that we lie to people with regard to the way things work...and not regarding something innocuous but rather something basic and fundamental.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Just how do you expect there to be any progress in biology if you are going to insist that every fanciful opinion is just as good as any other? We are on the verge of genetic breakthroughs with regard to the treatment of disease and you want us to ignore the underlying biology that makes it possible in the first place?
I said none of that.
I said that it is the creationists right to not believe in a theory.
But what is gravity? How does it work? What causes it? That's where the theory part comes in. It is only after a great deal of experimentation and testing do we come up with F = Gm1m2/r2. That's the theory of gravity.
And it turns out, it's wrong. The Pioneer spacecraft are leaving the solar system and they're moving at a rate that isn't consistent with our current understanding of gravitational theory.
A good example of why we don't place faith in men's theories, as we think God, if he exists, if he is the bible God, is omniscient, and - does know.
Gettier it?
The point? You can't have a theory without a fact to back it up. A theory is an analysis of a set of facts. Just as gravity is both a fact and a theory, so is evolution. If you aren't going to complain about all the other theories in science, why are you picking on evolution?
I said I see all theories as not being fact, but infact the facts that they deal with are facts.
In fact, evolution is more solidly grounded than our theories of gravity: We have a mechanism.
Science is tentative, and theories aren't deductive or gravity wouldn't be negotiable. Even deductions within a theory can be deduced FROM inductive theories which are also deducing from other assumptions.
If you don't like what a theory says, then you need to find new data that the theory cannot be reconciled with. Note that this does not make creationism "true" just because our current theory of evolution is false. Again, the fact of evolution is still there: When we watch organisms over time, they change and that change is called "evolution." While the theories about the mechanism of evolution might change, evolution itself will always be the case.
Excellent. I agree completely. But people don't believe in big evolution, because they believe that macro-evolution is not knowable at this stage. The actual small scale biological insights are true, but they don't believe in big change.
I only ask that we don't insist they believe in it, as afterall, we don't insist that they believe in any other theories such as gravity etc....
I find it very odd, that these gargantuan rants exist. If creationism is bunkem and god knows nothing, then why worry?
)
™ Version 4.2