[HarleyD]

Numbers and raw data do not lie. People can lie. You have suggested that "bias" is the reason for your skepticism, but you have offered no evidence of bais.

People don't even have to lie. All they have to do is adjust their research to give them the results they're looking for. Do you think the scientists that get their funding from Greenpeace is going to tell Greenpeace anything they don't wish to hear? You make scientists sound so noble. They're not.

You recall incorrectly. No scientific theory is "conclusively proven".

In one case you tell me that the theory of evolution is an established fact and now you tell me no scientific theory is conclusive. If that is the case then you can't say the "theory" of intelligent design is wrong and evolution is correct. Fifty years from now you might be proven wrong. The best you can say is you're not certain but you THINK this might be right.

You will need to show that events that you are suggesting [people have agendas] have actually occured,

With all due respect, don't you think that is a rather stupid statement. All people have agendas be it collecting a paycheck, proving a point, or wishing recognition. You would have to show me one person who doesn't have some type of agenda.

Every fossil find or genome sequencing is a test for the theory of evolution. Thus far the fossil record has appeared as has been expected by common descent. A find such as a Precambrian rabbit fossil woud falsify established lines of descent, but thus far no such discovery has been made.

Just because it hasn't been discovered yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. At best all you can say is that you don't know.

Whether or not a fertilized egg should be considered a "human being" is not a question that science can address.

Above you tell me that no scientific theory is conclusive. So why can't science determine what constitutes life? How can they say they are looking for "life" on Mars if they can't define life? It isn't that science can't address it. Rather it is science doesn't wish to address it.

You have alleged that there existed scientists who knew what Galileo knew or had access to the information but either refused to accept his conclusions

History speaks to that. Do you see anywhere in history anyone rushing to Galileo's rescue? Do you see anywhere, where someone else wrote papers to support Galileo. I answered that the silence of history is support enough. It is up to you to provide evidence that there were scientists that rushed to Galileo's side.

[Dimensio]

People don't even have to lie. All they have to do is adjust their research to give them the results they're looking for. Do you think the scientists that get their funding from Greenpeace is going to tell Greenpeace anything they don't wish to hear? You make scientists sound so noble. They're not.

You have again provided no evidence that the theory of evolution is the result of personal bias.

In one case you tell me that the theory of evolution is an established fact and now you tell me no scientific theory is conclusive

When did I claim that the theory of evolution is "established fact"?

If that is the case then you can't say the "theory" of intelligent design is wrong and evolution is correct.

Intelligent design is not a "theory". It does not meet the criteria required for an explanation to be termed "theory".

Fifty years from now you might be proven wrong.

This is true of all scientific theories.

The best you can say is you're not certain but you THINK this might be right.

This is true of all scientific theories. Thus far, however, there exists absolutely no reason to believe that "intelligent design" is a credible explanation.

With all due respect, don't you think that is a rather stupid statement. All people have agendas be it collecting a paycheck, proving a point, or wishing recognition. You would have to show me one person who doesn't have some type of agenda.

I was referring to your statement "There is nothing to say that true papers could be published and discarded.", not your claim that people have agendas.

Above you tell me that no scientific theory is conclusive.

That is true, and wholly unrelated.

So why can't science determine what constitutes life?

Science does have a definition of "life", though the definition is not concrete.

How can they say they are looking for "life" on Mars if they can't define life?

There does exist a point at which science can state that a collection of molecules is "life". This has nothing to do with your previous statements.

It isn't that science can't address it. Rather it is science doesn't wish to address it.

I did not state that science does not attempt to define "life". I stated that science does not define whether a collection of living cells is "a human being" or "a collection of living cells". You are attempting to exchange definitions of a term. That is a logical fallacy.

History speaks to that. Do you see anywhere in history anyone rushing to Galileo's rescue? Do you see anywhere, where someone else wrote papers to support Galileo. I answered that the silence of history is support enough. It is up to you to provide evidence that there were scientists that rushed to Galileo's side.

You have provided no evidence to show that there existed scientists who could have "rushed" to Galileo's side.

[Coyoteman]

In one case you tell me that the theory of evolution is an established fact and now you tell me no scientific theory is conclusive. If that is the case then you can't say the "theory" of intelligent design is wrong and evolution is correct. Fifty years from now you might be proven wrong. The best you can say is you're not certain but you THINK this might be right.

You have some severe problems with "theory," "fact," and the place of intelligent design in science.

Take a look at these definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread). I think they might help you frame your arguments:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.

Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.

Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.

Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[Last revised 8/27/06]