[LibertarianSchmoe]

The basis for your argument that ToE is based on credulity seems to be that it is supported not by evidence, but by interpretation of evidence. However, ALL of science is like that. Can you give me one example of evidence sans interpretation? Can you give me one example of a science (that you believe in) that is NOT based on the interpretation of evidence? What makes evidence evidence is the interpretation.

If you think you have some contrary evidence, present it and I will demonstrate where the evidence leaves off and the interpretation starts.

Again, I see this as nothing more than a game. It is a simple matter to manufacture ANY alternative interpretation as a "refutation" to the interpretation presented. My offer to demonstrate this stands. I could walk into any science class on any campus and disagree with everything the professor presents, offering up a variety of "alternative explanations". Does that invalidate any of those classes? Of course not. For some strange reason, universities keep churning out scientists who seem to be able to get real results from all those arbitrary interpretations.

[GourmetDan]

Nope. The laws of gravity are evidence. They can be observed over and over and over again. They are totally scientific.

The 'theory of gravity' is not evidence. It is metaphysical because it attempts to explain evidence.

What makes evidence is the *observation*, NOT the 'interpretation'. That's why you guys incorrectly believe evolution is 'evidence-based', you are operating from a false definition of evidence.

It's not a game. It's deadly serious. You just can't see it.