Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

I'm sorry John, but the good Dr is quite right and you are completely wrong. The term "theory", when used in science, does not mean what you seem to think it does. The confusion usually stems from the use of "theory" for some principles and the use of "law" for others. Whilst "law" might seem more solid, in science the two terms are interchangeable. In fact, scientists no longer use the term "law", since it gives a misleading impression of total certainty, whereas in science, all knowledge is held tentatively."Theory" is the highest accolade that a modern scientist can give to an idea. It will only be used when there is a wealth of evidence to support the idea (although "theory" is used in a looser sense within physics). An idea with no supporting evidence is, at best, a hypothesis. Scientist do not use the term theory in the way that you or I might in everyday conversation. If you still doubt this, take a look at this link; Theory - WikipediaOr here's this, from creationist site AnswersinGenesis, specifically from a page called Arguments we think creationists should not use ;

quote:

---

“Evolution is just a theory.”

​

What people usually mean when they say this is “Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.” Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word “theory” in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hckel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

---

Whilst I'm here, I notice that you aren't using the quote boxes, such as can be seen at the top of this post. Using these boxes makes your post much easier to read and helps prevent confusion about who is saying what.

quote:

---

Or you can use this style if you prefer.

---

Also, if you want to quote Bible passages, I recommend that you put short passages right here on the page, instead of forcing others to look them up, because I guarantee that most people won't bother to look them up.

---

Mutate and Survive

Well then, why don't you provide some citations from mainstream scientific sources that back up your argument? Simply saying "I disagree" isn't much use to anyone. Close, but no cigar. As Nosy has pointed out above, "proof" is part of mathematics. Scientists deal in evidence. Yeah, I thought you might. Look, even AiG acknowledge that "evolution is only a theory" is a spectacularly bad argument. For once, you should listen to them, since they are trying to save you from the embarrassment of making such poor arguments. Huh? You want them to not bother looking up your quotes and go in complete ignorance of your point? I assure you, giving the quote on the page, where it requires no effort to read it is going to have far more impact than forcing people to go looking for it, because most simple will not bother to go looking. I advise you to do your own homework, because others are not going to do it for you. That really is a waste of your time.

---

Mutate and Survive

Are you suggesting that past events cannot be studied scientifically? I would hope that you would not be so foolish. No.Two reasons. Firstly, that is not the purpose of this topic. This topic is about whether ID qualifies as science, not the evidence for the ToE. This forum is quite strict about staying on topic.Secondly, if you want to examine the evidence for evolution from start to finish I suggest that you sign up at a university for an evolutionary biology course. What you are asking for would take years. Indeed, one could spend a lifetime studying evolution and still not be familiar with all the evidence. If you have any specific questions about evolution I suggest that you start a thread (where they would be on topic) and I'm sure that people would be only too happy to help.

---

Mutate and Survive

OK, I'll bite. If endogenous retroviruses are the legacy of Adam and Eve, why are the very same ERV's present in chimps? Um, what are you suggesting here? That saved Christians do not display these ERV's? That really would be something and very easy to test as well. Care to back it up with some data? Otherwise, perhaps you would care to clarify what you actually mean by this strange statement.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hey, you've got your catchphrase, I've got mine. I think mine's snappier. This is extremely vague. What exactly are you trying to say here? Did you watch the video in Message 94?ERV's occur when retrovirus DNA is copied into sperm or egg cells which then go on to produce adult organisms. The process can only take place like this in those cells, not in fully adult organisms. Since Adam and Eve presumably never existed as sperm or egg cells (no parents), how did they receive their ERV's? Did God magically insert them at the fall? If so, why?Why make them look exactly like the retrovirus damage that can be experimentally observed today?Most importantly of all, why gives chimps some of the exact same ERV's as humans, especially since not all creatures share these particular ERV's. You say that "all God's creatures" were affected, yet, clearly, they were not all affected in the same way, with different species displaying different ERV's. So why make human and chimp ERV's so similar?Why would God make things look so very much as though they had evolved?Why would a supposedly loving God lie to us?

---

Mutate and Survive

What, is that it? Is that all you have to say?I'm sorry, but that's pathetic. Let's try again.Why do humans and chimps share endogenous retroviruses, if we did not evolve from a common ancestor?Why we anyone imagine that God planted these ERV's in Adam and Eve when ERV's only attach to sperm and egg cells?Why would God place such apparently misleading evidence? Remember Titus 1:2 (KJV)
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began".Look, if you don't have answers for these questions, that's OK. You don't have to be able to answer every question. However, if you have no answers it would seem only reasonable to admit to that and approach this whole topic with a slightly less know-it-all attitude. If you reply to this message, please either address the issue properly or just admit that you have no answers in the face of the evidence.

---

Mutate and Survive

The bottom line is this: There are a number of truths and absolutes in this world, but scientists are sensible enough to realise that they are mere fallible human beings who are prone to making mistakes, even when the scientific method is specifically designed to eliminate error, so they do not make absolute statements, preferring instead to hold all scientific knowledge as tentative.Do you believe that you are impervious to error?You seem to want to live in a world where you have unfettered access to ultimate truth. That's not the kind of world we live in, regardless of whether God created it or not.

---

Mutate and Survive

You certainly aren't, and you have confirmed it by misspelling 'impervious'.If you are fallible, then we may assume that everybody else is fallible as well. Thus, all science must contain an element of doubt, that we call tentativity. Thus, nothing can ever be absolutely proven and your absurd "true science" model falls apart.You wont accept this of course, you'll just post a trite response, consisting of couple of lines, repeating the same wrong-headed nonsense you have been championing throughout this thread. Let me tell you; that is not debate.What you are doing is answering detailed posts, written by people who are (for the most part) politely trying to help you correct some of the misunderstandings you have about science in general and evolution in particular, with cursory two or three line answers that amount to nothing more than "Nuh-uh!" over and over again, studded with the occasional Bible reference. That is not debate. That is more like a Monty Python sketch, where you counter everything I say with "No it isn't."You have proven yourself unwilling or unable of engaging in adult debate.You have proved yourself unwilling or unable of making any attempt to learn anything or address the many mistakes in your thinking, even when many people have earnestly tried to help you, including your fellow Christians.You have proved yourself unwilling or unable (my guess is unable) to answer my questions about your ridiculous "ERV's + Adam and Eve" theory, preferring instead to ignore them (the debate equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la-I'm-not-listening).Let's face it my friend; you are out of your depth. I suggest that you take a deep breath and go away and actually learn something about science before you attempt to debate it, because right now you are making yourself look really, really dumb.I can only concur with Subbie;

---

Mutate and Survive