Replies

It's even more confusing when you have the scientifically illiterate reading very short press releases about something that possibly took a decade of work and likely resulted in a 20 page detailed article in a scientific journal.

It's impossible to summarize these things and the work done by the scientists in these brief press releases, but there's a lot of people who have never read an actual scientific paper in their lives and get the impression that this is all there is.

But yet you feel comfortable summarizing a persons entire life, and their accumulated knowledge therein, by one or two posts on this thread.

I've read plenty of scientific papers, and if in this case, all you can squeeze out of those years or decades of intensive research are mere speculations, then there can't be much substance to the work itself.

Could be that is exactly what these so called illiterates are opining about.

But where are my manners. I've injected myself in a conversation that is clearly outside of my class. My apologies, and please do carry on...

I've watched you make your semantic argument about 'speculations' for some time. I will admit that, as far as semantic arguments go, it is a good one.

Yes, you are correct that since it is not possible (yet) to actually travel back in time and observe and test ancient phenomenon occurring, any conclusions about those phenomenon can only ultimately be 'speculations' as to the exact nature of said events.

However, this word which you cling to: 'speculation', has a huge range of meaning into which you semantically insert yourself, implying through your wording that any and all speculations are the same and have the same potential to be correct or incorrect.

Science uses two methods to determine if a given hypotheses is correct. One involves repeated testing and variable manipulation. This is good for small to medium sized hypotheses; eg, The Earth is Round. When dealing with very large and complex hypotheses a different approach is in order. In cases such as the Theory of Evolution, what happens is that the theory makes predictions which can be observed and tested. These predictions would include things like the presence of uncountable millions of species which no longer exist, evidence of extensive time in which evolution can happen, and the observable processes of natural selection.

That not all of the predictions of the Theory of Evolution have been observed, such as the presence of intermediate forms, DOES NOT INVALIDATE the theory. If someone were to make a discovery, or design an experiment which showed that it is impossible for evolution to occur, or better yet, to show that it has not occurred, that would invalidate the theory.

As more and more evidence, observations, and experiments are performed, the probable accuracy of the 'speculations' you are so derisive of becomes more and more precise. Professional scientists are not in the business of making wild guesses.

I have to respect the semantic skill you display when you make your argument against 'speculation'. Just remember, since we can't travel back in time to prove they occurred, God's responsibility for life, the Fall of Man, and the Resurrection, are all (according to your argument) speculations as well, with no better chance of being correct.