AJ,
<<We can change the breathing air of rats and observe what happens to them>>

That is exactly what I was saying: you can conduct this kind of experiments in natural science (when studying e.g. rats) but not when dealing with historical phenomena (concerning e.g. the role of Christianity in shaping the cultural West).

Dan,

You've lost every other one of your arguments, so here you are now, going back to your main point because you think you've pulled a trump card with it.

<<...it is impossible to prove or test a theory of history, as history cannot be replicated.>>

Another deceptive Creationist tactic: Attempting to re-define science.

Firstly, if science was such a narrow field of study, then our progress would be slowed significantly.

Secondly, science requires that OBSERVATIONS can be replicated (not just experiments), and we have observed speciation and microevolution. Scientists can even replicate these with experiments!

Ahhh... that's right... No one's observed one species completely evolving into another.

Firstly, there isn't much at all that can be proven with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. So it's odd that evolution is the only field of science that you reject for this reason.

Secondly, if we had directly observed one species evolving into another, then this would be good evidence AGAINST evolution.

And thirdly, taking advantage of the fact that we don't live long enough to witness a total change in a species is slack, frivolous and futile.

Considering all the evidence we have for evolution, and what we have witnessed, your main argument against evolution is like suggesting that, while the theory of gravity works here and now, it possibly didn't work somewhere else in the world millions of years ago, because there was no one there to see it and the experiment cannot be repeated.

Now there's another example of your lack-of-logic (You see? It's not hard give examples of it).

<<Since evolution (as well as creation) is an historical explanation of how we all got here, it has not and cannot be proven.>>

So then, why believe in creationism and mock evolution, when there is no proof for creationism, unlike evolution? Do you you translate the Bible literally? ...There's my point about fundamentalism again.

It's ridiculous to claim that there is no logic in my arguments, when they all interlock so beautifully. Your arguments, on the other hand, seem very scrambled, sneaky and misinformed.

Davidf brings up scientists who speak outside their area of expertise; a common trait of the evolution/creation debate. Must we undergo the contemplations of Dawkins (the atheist) discussing theology, or Plimer (the geologist) discussing biochemistry? Problem is, it’s hard finding a true expert on ‘the origins of life, the universe, everything’. Most universities don’t have a ‘department of evolution’ (perhaps none), as evolution is such an all pervading philosophy.

AJ,
I’m happy to use dictionary definitions. Unfortunately ‘scientific fundamentalism’ wasn’t an entry in my scientific or theological dictionary. So thanks for your ‘good cop, bad cop’ type definitions:

Good Scientist:
“Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?”

Bad Scientist:
“Here’s our conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?”

Then you ascribe creationists to one category and evolutionists to the other, for no apparent reason.

In fact, scientists do fall into two categories: male and female. As humans, they’re subject to biases, social conditioning, funding pressures, etc.

Here are some quotes from some real scientists:

“It is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.” -Boyce Rensberger (evolutionist)

“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” -Biologist, Professor D.M.S. Watson.

We all have biases. This professor was revealing his.

AJ,
You tickle me when you say all of my arguments are lost and I’m losing the debate. When did OLO appoint you as their official adjudicator? But, please, feel free and keep making such pronouncements whenever you like.

However, I’m not in this discussion to ‘win’ anything, if that means I must first persuade those who are already hard-boiled in their views. I enter OLO discussions because I enjoy the interaction of ideas from people of differing opinions.

I never attempted to ‘mock’ evolution, as you accuse, but I aim to respect those who hold differing beliefs to mine. I always admired the ex-trade union leader, John Halfpenny, who, despite being the most hated person in our state, always spoke to everyone calmly, politely, and respectfully.

You tried to summarise what I said about historical investigations, again comparing evolution to gravity. If this is the best summary you can arrive at for my argument, then either you have terribly misunderstood, or I’ve been terrible at explaining it to you,

“While the theory of gravity works here and now, it possibly didn't work somewhere else in the world millions of years ago, because there was no one there to see it and the experiment cannot be repeated.”

No. I’ll try and put it in my own words. As distinct from things that we can test and observe occurring in the present (e.g. gravity), we cannot test an explanation for what happened in the past (evolution). We don’t see evolution happening in the present, and don’t have any good reason to presume it happened in the distant past (given we have no preference for a materialistic or atheistic type explanation).

Evolution is simply the disappearance of species and the appearance of new species. The fossil record supports this. Men before Charles Darwin such as Erasmus Darwin were aware of this. It is obvious from the fossil record that the earth was populated by different species at different times. Methods such as radio active dating tell the times the new species appear, and the old ones become extinct. There are gaps since special conditions are necessary for fossilisation and not fossils have been found. Evolution is a fact.

Darwin provided a theory to explain the fact of evolution. If Darwinian theory were to be disproved the fact of evolution would remain.

Dan,

This is becoming pointless. I'm just repeating myself now, and you can't bring anything I say into question at all. Most of your arguments rely on tactical trickery.

<<I’m happy to use dictionary definitions. Unfortunately ‘scientific fundamentalism’ wasn’t an entry in my scientific or theological dictionary.>>

Do you have a really bad short-term memory, or is this just more Creationist trickery?

I clearly proved my point and you couldn't confute it.

<<In fact, scientists do fall into two categories: male and female. As humans, they’re subject to biases, social conditioning, funding pressures, etc.>>

You don't seem to realise just how much evidence there is for evolution; evidence that's open and out there for all to see. Most of the evidence for evolution is not disputed by anyone – not even Creationists.

Considering how much evidence there is, your argument here means absolutely nothing. Why is it that no one can even start to come up with any other theory? Why is it that there is no evidence that brings evolution into question? Why is it that all the pieces fit perfectly together?

I liked your quotes though. They're good examples of another deceitful Creationist tactic: Quote mining.

For example, the second quote was said in 1929. Considering we didn't have as much evidence, or know anywhere near as much about evolution back then as we do now, your quote doesn't mean much.

Here's a little light reading on why your quotes don't mean anything at all:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

<<...When did OLO appoint you as their official adjudicator?...>>

There doesn't need to be an adjudicator. You're refuting my arguments, but have not yet confuted any of them. That speaks for itself.

So, my point still stands.

<<...I enter OLO discussions because I enjoy the interaction of ideas from people of differing opinions.>>

Fair enough. But I don't think your use of the word “opinion” is very accurate in this situation, because an opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. This is not just some Left vs Right issue we're talking about here.

Continued...