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

Let's not go jumping to conclusions OK?

"I think you'll find some eerie similarities between Popper's argument and your own

I have addressed these similarities here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1176489173

"you are neither in academia nor is your argument unique, it was refuted soundly more than two decades ago

No it wasn't. Remember what I said about jumping to conclusions? How about you stick to what you can back up? Remember, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#argumentum%20ad%20populum

Oliver:

"Likewise, I see no problem in using past records to demonstrate the difference between evolution verses natural selection.

Not sure what you mean by this. Your skin colour example is natural selection.

"Predictions of short cycles were refoted. Predictions of longer cycles [20 years?] were confirmed.

Do you mean the theories were refuted?

Why does the Black Knight spring to mind once again?

freediver, where did you address the similarities between Poppers argument and your own? Most of that link looks like it's talking about Kuhn.

Can you just summarise what your position is regarding Popper? You may have covered it, but I can't be bothered to trawl through all the drivel and bloggers slagging you off for being a thickhead, and I really wouldn't want to subject that anyone else that is actually interested in this topic either.

Is Poppers argument is the same as yours? Or different?
Remember, Popper admitted he was incorrect and published a retraction. This is NOT an argument ad populum, it was thrashed out publicly in refereed journals.
Now, if your argument is different to Poppers original position, please outline how exactly, just for us bloggers in the peanut gallery.

Just out of curiosity, who are these 'opponents' of yours you mention? Are they scientists, philosophers or anonymous internet bloggers?

Why evolution? Why not! Its the only thing that makes any sense. Proving it, is another story. These debates can go on until the cows come in, and too think that one being made it all, well, that just might be just a fact.( easy daivd). We all know that we cant be the only planet with life on it, and UFO'S and much more that has been seen or heard about, can not be put out of the acquisition. Personally, I think this planet is a zoo or a bank. Think about it! Why do we worship the skies. Why do we look to the above. Why life just happened all of a sudden. 6.5 billion years, is a haft way point, and when with our greatest thoughts and mathematical level of development, 13 billion point something the universe has been here, much more has light years on us. So why cant this be plausible?

I don't usually pour water on a drowning man, but a little more self-awareness might actually be good for you, freediver.

>>I've never heard of any such convention<<

That is blindingly obvious.

>>In circumstance where people do, for example in academia, self referencing is common.<<

Do you have any evidence of this? Apart from your saying it is true, of course.

>>The correct word is elaboration, not regurgitation<<

Nope. Regurgitation it is.

>>The latter is argumentum ad populum.<<

You are confusing my assertion, that academics tend to refer to the work of other academics, with the statement "everyone thinks so".

>>but I give ample justification for my choice of definitions<<

Regrettably, this is not true. Even more regrettably, you believe that it is. To me, you "justify" your position by merely referring to a longer, more convoluted, but equally incomprehensible entry in your blog. This may give you immense feelings of self-justification - not to mention self-importance - but the reality is that they advance the argument not one jot or tittle.

>>Which is why the evolutionists are ahving such trouble beating down the creationists.<<

Since when?

It seems to me that only argument in your locker is that evolution and creationism are equally valid philosophical propositions, because there is nothing "scientific" about either.

That is an argument that is only sustainable as long as you ignore all the work that has been undertaken over centuries, by other people.

So long as you remain self-referential, your position is untouchable.

Which, I guess, is why you put so much energy into it.

Actually, when religious belief comes with a healthy dose of common sense, I really don't have any clashes with it.

For all these debates, I really don't see why evolution and the Christian god have to be at loggerheads. As boaz pointed out, the '6 days' tale can be interpreted in any manner of ways. I don't see why it can't be interpreted through an evolutionary mindset, nor do I see why some Christians feel the need to cling to this idea that the world is only 5 or 6 thousand years old.

That, I'm afraid, is just plain stupidity and denies a great deal of scientific knowledge that mankind has painstakingly put forward.

As I understand it, the aramaic words for time were fairly vague, and could represent a vast period, when the creation myth was explained. None of this 'six days' foolishness, or very brief histories of the world.

Despite the protestations of atheist, I don't think there's compelling evidence to rule out the existence of a deity, even noting the 'teacup' proposition put forward by Dawkins.

It's the idea of a specific deity who's nature has been pinned down in some book of myths that really seems a bit bizarre, but provided these myths don't interfere with logic and common sense, I see no reason why they can't co-exist peacefully.

It's just the hardcore literalists who can't see that they're striving to return mankind to the dark age, who make problems.

And with that thought, I leave you with this comic gem:

http://xkcd.com/154/