TAC,
I liked your post, until I got to your last line. It seems you are suggesting that conflicting truths can exist next to each other. This is like compartmentalising truth, a bit like a left brain / right brain set up. A lot of people are happy to live with conflicting truths. But it’s not ultimately satisfactory. What’s true is true. (Although you’re probably about to find out that David has a fairly rubbery concept of truth.)

-

David,
We’ve already followed that line of discussion above with regards to Von Braun. So we are at risk of repeating ourselves. I raised the name of Von Braun in response to someone else who spoke of space exploration. You say Von Braun’s expertise in rocket science has nothing to do with evolution. I say, Von Braun aside, there are other creationists involved in all areas and at all levels of science who do not agree with you that the evidence points in favour of evolution.

In reality, ideas relevant to evolution, which touch on the nature and origin of the universe, will affect just about every area of inquiry when one tries to establish an overview or big picture of things. You’ve raised the area of astronomy. I’d have a guess and say that the world’s leading rocket scientist, the one responsible for putting people on the moon, might have known a few things about astronomy.

You ask me to cite what I said about the Vatican. If I thought it important, I might try and find out more about it. It was just something I heard from a Catholic friend who’d been there. But it makes sense. Creation ex nihilo is a pretty explicit teaching coming from the Scriptures that the Catholic Church considers as authoritative. You’d think there might be some there who might be just a little interested.

Yet you ask me for a citation without making any effort to support your own assertion. How do support your statement that creationists cannot be competent astronomers? As I said above, creationists are found in all areas of science.

But Dan, we had already sorted out the falsifiability issue...
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#120923

I hope that the above link will help jog you memory as to the falsifiability of evolution. After all, you're certainly not one to repeat discredited arguments, are you.

dan/quote..to tac<<..It seems you/are suggesting that conflicting truths..can exist next to each other.>>...my thoughts..are that they...must...if were ever going to go beyond..where we are

you and i agree/that faulsifyables...havnt been presented..but no doudt there are many areas..where our beliefs...thus that we BELIEVE/true..diverge

take/religion...all believe/basicly..on the one/good...god[of grace/mercy]..yet came to this/truth...via diveregent messengers..via divergent belief/systems...

[as jesus said....mine fathers house has many/rooms...that jesus church/[room/..in our fathers house..now has many rooms...is beyond dispute...

yet each room/knows a truth...in common...
that our fathers/house..[of many rooms]..has grace/mercy/love/light

it dosnt matter..if some..of the christs/church...think jesus/the son,..,to be the father...now...only that he sought us to live/our love/grace/mercy...now...[that ye se me do ye shall/do greater]

jesus..of course/was only doing that he saw our father/do

<<This is like compartmentalising truth,>>.thus our fathers/house...has many rooms..god dont judge...despite him knowing he is the only/truth

<<a bit like a left brain/right brain set up.>>>egsactly...a bit like heaven/hell...WE each/hold partial truths...we EACH..have eternity..to refine them....there is none...totally/wrong...there is none/TOTALLY RIGHT...but one[good/god]

we get close to god...when we dont judge others...[inevitable...by judging others...we MUST..judge ourselves..by the same measure

<<..A lot of people/..>>MOST...if not all..<<..are happy to live with conflicting truths.>>...because we are in our fathers image/look at you/look at me...and see our fathers image/ways/means..strengths/weakness...loves...

but all the time/see me/..see my father...
[see we...see me.....
ME/WE..

invert the all...
SEE the one

<<But it’s not ultimately satisfactory.>>
but such is the way...the only
revealed himself..to his others

<<What’s true is true.>>>
and the one../CERTAIN-TRUTH
certainly/true...is him..

the one/the father/the love.creator...
as reflected/true...via his creation

we are...because i am....is

by his signs may we know him
life/love/light/logic

Dan,

The laws of physics would have chirality of complex molecules to be 50:50. Life (DNA) is always right-handed. From the first living thing to the last, this is case. There has never been left-handed DNA. The discovery of the latter would confound the premise of a common ancestor. Were parents to birth to a child, where the chirality of the DNA spontaneously reversed, that would falsify one significant pillar of the modern understanding of the genetics of life.

Dear Dan,

When you back up your assertion on creationist Catholic astronomers by citing scripture you are trying to make Catholics Protestant fundamentalists. Catholics realise that scripture is not to be taken literally. They accept some miracles such as the virgin birth, but they do not in general take scripture literally.

I do not accept that any miracles ever happened. You apparently do. Now miracles have been subjected to analysis by the Catholic Church in the saint-making process they become limited to unexplained cancer remissions.

I don't believe I have insulted you in any way. I think your beliefs are rubbish, but I do not attack you personally.

It is insulting me to say I have 'a rubbery concept of truth'. I object to calling religious belief truth because no matter how sincerely you believe something it does not make it true. It is especially insulting to be accused of having 'a rubbery concept of truth' by a person who accepts ancient legends as truth.

I see no point in further discourse.

aj...seems confused...he declares...faulsifyables...have been presented...gives a specific link...

from the link...i would point out/..two contradictions

aj/quote..<<There are many/other ways to falsify evolution,>>>lol..do/tel?..rebut that one later

but contrast it..to this..[indicating...he is confused.re faulsifyables

...<<Either way,/..your claim is absurd/..considering Creationists claim..that evolution/has been falsified.>>>

clearly...us creationists/here...
are requesting fAUKLS-IFyables...BE PRESENTED...

as THEY are the TEST...of a science...in that when/they are rebutted...the theory/falls

but lets look at aj's...falsifyables..<<.. such as:..Finding fossils of more complex..and more recent..lifeforms/..buried deeper..than the primitive lifeforms;>>>

aj/score that one..for creationists

mate/stop shooting ya-self in the foot...
BUT LETS CLARIFY...is that..your faulsify-able...or ours?

WHY NOT REPRESENT>>>YOURS
you do know...what/a faulsifyable is...DONT YOU?

its...SCIENCES..PROOF>..OF THEORY..
that..IF REBUTTED/refutes..ya theory

but lets look at more....of yours?

fossils...come..in many shapes..and sizes...
its like picking up rocks...sorting them by size/colour...and claiming the little red ones...evolved..the huge blue/blood/ones...lol

<<Finding true chimeras,..such as mermaids and centaurs..>>lol...THIS IS YOUR EVI-DENSE?

<<Discovering/a mechanism..that would prevent mutations from accumulating;>>>>mate..first find one...lol..that does....lol

-<<..Observations of organisms/being created.>>meaning if you watch some seed sprout...it will reveal..its evolution...?..please validate/or confirm...how

mate/please present...some science...
EVIdense...that does any..of the abouve
THAT YOU CALL PROOF?

mate do us all a favour...
PRESENT YOUR FAULSIFYABLES

here

in your own words..
then SOME REAL SCIENCE evidence
not just reactive words/..spurilous/claims...
of having allready/..lol..done so....science/claims..repeatability

please repeat/replicate...
your faulsifyables...HERE/NOW

i would hate to quote you/..out of context..!

so cut..that you feel...is proof....
from ya link...

then...present that...again..
here....now