****You make points here that I’ve already answered many times, but the answers don’t seem to be sinking in, do they?****
You have go to be kidding. You know, I can say the exact same thing about you.
****Do you not understand the difference between a personal opinion or religious faith (i.e., “I believe in God”), and a scientific finding (i.e., “the earth rotates in about 24 hours”)? The latter involves physics the former metaphysics.****
Yes...I’m aware of that. Here’s something I’ve told you about a dozen times as well.....
Macroevolutionary theory is not science. It violates the scientific method which was put in place to remove bias from the process. Oh goodness, I’m repeating myself again.
Macroevolution is not observable, it is not testable or repeatable and it sure isn’t falsifiable.
I know....scientists say that macroevolution can be extrapolated from microevolution....to this I say Hogwash and if you even think about it for a millisecond instead of swallowing that bilge you’d realize it as well.
A finch species having larger beaks during dry periods and smaller beaks during wet periods cannot be PROVEN (your word) to be anything but a finch with variable beak sizes.
An examination of fossils by someone who will interpret them in a way to match his worldview has a bias....which is exactly what the scientific method aims to eliminate.
On Richard Von Sternberg.....could you please stop using Wikipedia as a reference. Or better yet, wait until tomorrow and I’ll go in and change a bunch of stuff tonight so that it meets my point of view.
Sternberg got hosed. There are two sides to the story, why don’t you try to find out his.
****Do you want to explain just who, exactly, is preventing precisely whom from scientifically “investigating” the idea of Intelligent Design?****
No one is preventing anybody from investigating...they are preventing people from publishing. I seem to recall you saying over and over again how something has to be published to be taken seriously.
I can’t speak for IDers because in a strict sense, I am not an IDer, I would probably be categorized as part of a “subset” of ID....., I’ll say this...there are so many camps that fall under the heading of ID (Young earthers, old earthers, Bible literalists, etc.) that making predictions with so many camps would be difficult.
CREATIONISTS...of which I am one, make predictions all the time.
By the way....there was another thread on FR not long ago that referred to an article calling out many of the FAILED predictions of Evolutionists. It can be found at www.darwinspredictions.com ....It’s pretty heavy lifting and 60 pages long, are you up to it?
"Macroevolution is not observable, it is not testable or repeatable and it sure isn’t falsifiable.
"I know....scientists say that macroevolution can be extrapolated from microevolution....to this I say Hogwash and if you even think about it for a millisecond instead of swallowing that bilge you’d realize it as well."
Do you not see your most basic problem here? "Macroevolution" is not only not science, it's not even a real word. It's just made-up, by creationists, as a straw man to be shot down. It's a theological term intended to identify the point at which evolution violates the biblical concept of "kinds."
Real scientists never use the term "macroevolution" -- not that I've ever seen. That's because they don't recognize the biblical idea of "kinds." For science, there's only one term: evolution, and it refers to any and all changes, small, medium or large.
Of course, science recognizes the word "species," but that word itself is a convenient construct, for categorization purposes. Any number of examples can be cited where it's not certain if we are talking about one species or two.
And consider this: what exactly is the "scientific" definition of the biblical word "kind"? Is it synonymous with "species" or is it something else?
Take the example of deers. In the Bible, deers would be one "kind," right? But in science there are 34 different species of deer, and who-knows-how-many sub-species, which may or may not successfully interbreed? Add to that the fossil record of extinct species of deer, and we are now talking about dozens and dozens of different species.
Well, scientifically, how many "kinds" is that, and which ones of those were biblically "created," versus those which arose through ID-acceptable MICRO-evolution?
Here's the bottom line: real science does not play those games, only religiously motivated Creationists / Intelligent Designers do.
I'm sorry to say this, but I seriously think (;-)) there must be a school somewhere for half-wits -- that is to say a school for otherwise normal people who wish to become half-witted. And the first thing they teach at this special needs school is: reject anything and everything found on Wikipedia!
Well, I don't agree. I think Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable for the vast majority of inquiries where you need a quick and simple definition.
I'd further say, if you specifically disagree with something quoted from Wikipedia, then you must yourself supply us with a more authoritative & reliable source.
So, let's see now... what source did you cite?
Did you ever consider the example of Darwin himself? What scientific journal did he publish in? Who at the time peer-reviewed his work? Answers: none and no one. But his book was quickly bought-out and accepted by many scientists, and along with much debate, many peer-reviewed scientific articles have been published on the subject ever since.
No one is stopping Creationists / Intelligent Designers from publishing their own peer reviewed articles in their own publications. Indeed, I'd hazard to guess, there are whole library shelves full of Creationist - ID literature, with mass distributions to thousands of churches & religious schools. So you can't pretend your ideas are somehow being suppressed.
But if you want published in real scientific journals, then you'll have to meet the standards of those journals, and so far, you haven't done that, have you?