"Matter evolves too with heavier elements being created intergenerationally between a series of stars.

I don't think evolution is the correct term to use there.

"I thought I had explained in an earlier post, how proto-humans evolved by not adapting to savannah and the Topi antelope did survive there by natural selection? That is, evolution verses natural selection. Both predictable.

That's an explanation, not a prediction.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

freediver, it may come as a surprise and shock to you, but most people here respect the convention that when they include external references to support their argument, these references are to material produced by others.

Yours, I notice, simply refer the reader to more of your own work, which in turn simply regurgitates the arguments you put forward on this thread. This leads to the impression that your position can be stated as "it's true because I say it's true", as opposed to "look, all these other people think the same way that I do"

Do you spot the difference?

And Boaz, even on a topic as simple as this, you are displaying your ability to i) cherry-pick and ii) shift seamlessly from fact to metaphor, as it suits you.

>>"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" *kaaaaaBOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM*<<

I presume from the *kaaaaaBOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM* that you would like us to take this verse literally?

The two entities are "the heavens" and "earth", and we have a word-picture of a formless earth, with some of it covered in water.

Very picturesque. But not much of the vasty universe encompassed in all that, is there?

So where exactly do we depart from the literal, Boaz, and dive into the metaphorical.

Because, as you yourself point out

>>jeepers creepers...this was revealed/made known to people at a time when they had no clue whatsoever about astrophysics<<

Well of course they didn't. So isn't it just possible - or even extremely likely - that they simply conjured up this God person to provide a credible explanation.

Something you don't understand? "It was God wot dun it".

You are in danger of overbalancing with this gem, Boaz:

>>Isn't it possible that God made it known in a comprehensible way?<<

But that's precisely the point - it isn't comprehensible in its present form.

It requires translation, supposition, imagination, invention.

If there were a God, and he had some interest in letting people know, wouldn't it have been a bit smarter to provide a more complete story?

The clash between the Charles Darwin followers and the Christians will go on probably right up until Jesus Christ gets back.
Closed minds will remain closed.
There will be enlightening for some as huge christian revival breaks out across the world as things darken towards that Day...but not all will come in to that enlightening...i.e. that the Holy Bible is the truth.
It might be better if the worldly folk took at look at what is really happening right before their eyes.
Some subjects you could look at are...Luke chapter 21, Revelation 13:16-18, 2 Timothy 3, etc.
What we see is a time, right now today, when wars are on the increase, as are earthquakes, famines, diseases...there is a slow move by the new world order to get a microchip on either the right hand or forehead for everyone (the mark of the beast, the mark/chip of the final dictator, we christian call it)... a great explosion of crime in the last days as people become selfish and brutal and rebellious. Its all on The Word and its all happening.
The Bible is the path into the future and to experience its greatest work we need to submit to God and receive His Saviour, Jesus Christ for that is what the Book is all about.

"but most people here respect the convention that when they include external references to support their argument, these references are to material produced by others

I've never heard of any such convention. Are you just making it up? Perhaps you are confusing the tendency to do something with an agreement to do it. It's just that in most cases people don't have a reference by themselves. In circumstance where people do, for example in academia, self referencing is common.

"which in turn simply regurgitates the arguments you put forward on this thread

The correct word is elaboration, not regurgitation. There is no way I could fit the entire argument in the tiny amount of space I am given here.

"This leads to the impression that your position can be stated as "it's true because I say it's true", as opposed to "look, all these other people think the same way that I do"

The former is a definitional identity (or close to it). The latter is argumentum ad populum. My argument is neither. It does hinge partly on semantics, but I give ample justification for my choice of definitions - something none of my opponenets are capable of. In fact, they can't even provide alternative definitions.

"Something you don't understand? "It was God wot dun it".

Sounds very similar to "it was evolution wot dun it." From a scientific perspective, neither have any value. Which is why the evolutionists are ahving such trouble beating down the creationists. They created the problem in the first place by opening the door for themselves, without realising others would inevitably follow their false lead.

No references freediver? Well, let me provide some for you. You mustn't have looked too hard through any literature.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-121645986.html

I think you'll find some eerie similarities between Popper's argument and your own(apart from the fact that Popper admitted he was wrong). That you do not even make a cursory examination of previous scientific literature or philosophy on your blog (or anywhere else that I can tell) is rather odd and certainly entertains your critics.

Oh, and self-referencing is occasionally done 'in academia' but it is never done to the exclusion of others work, that is seriously frowned upon and it will ensure non-publication in any reputable forum. In case you haven't noticed also: you are neither in academia nor is your argument unique, it was refuted soundly more than two decades ago. Science has moved on, but it appears some culture warriors just cannot.

Freediver,

" 'I thought I had explained in an earlier post, how proto-humans evolved by not adapting to savannah and the Topi antelope did survive there by natural selection? That is, evolution verses natural selection. Both predictable.' That's an explanation, not a prediction." - above

In the 1980s, I was a systems analyst developing a credit scoring system for a bank. I developed about twenty criteria using populations of records. Later, using data from "past" loans with outcomes blind to be I was a about to predict [bet you going substitute this word] with better than 90% accuracy those loans that became unproductive. It was also falisiable one could look at the total population that remained productive despite the risky traits being evident.

Likewise, I see no problem in using past records to demonstrate the difference between evolution verses natural selection. Albeit, the Scientist should first formulate the hypotheses to be confirmed or refuted and cross-test with null hypotheses.

Forget the dinosaurs. Let us consider skin colour. Current science would predict that if a large number of generations from "stem" black people lived in Iceland their skin would lighten to absorb vitamin "D". The hypothesis is likely to state a number of generations or a shade of skin gradient. Hence, is falsiable. If after fifty generations say there is a change towards lighter skin the hypothesis confirmed. If not, the hypothesis refuted. If an experimenter looking at the results in 2500 CE sees no change and extends the time required; this would not mean the original hypothesis was not falsifiable.

Moving the parameter is okay; actually that is what happened with studies into the cycles of high sun spot activity. Predictions of short cycles were refoted. Predictions of longer cycles [20 years?] were confirmed.