Q writes here a comment on this posting.

“The reason I can't be bothered to put forward an argument because if you haven't heard the arguments before you either a simpleton or aren't interested in them. Why should I take time to write that which you will simple dismiss.

Yes. Well, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to want to hear from you the justifications of your beliefs. You are certainly getting mine, however poor you think they may be. The fact that I would like to hear from you about what you believe ought not be understood as lack of familiarity with the arguments of others. I am 41 years old. I have been a Christian for 19 years, and sceptical of evolutionary theory for far longer. You are the first person I’ve encountered who has a position contrary to my own, who recognizes no epistemic obligation to justify his beliefs. “The arguments which support my beliefs are ‘out there’, “ you say, “and it’s not my responsibility as the believer in those arguments to present them to you. It is your duty to go find them. I can’t be bothered.”

And you don’t know me, so you have no idea what I’ll simply dismiss. Those who know me well, know that I dismiss very little when it comes to such serious issues. I treat every argument as if I’m hearing it for the first time.

“YOU don't understand science at all. If you did, if you understood what "theories" are. What has been and can be tested. What those tests means. If you understood the mechanics of biology, genes, DNA, etc... then you would get of your pompous highhorse.

I do understand science. Your simply saying otherwise – again and again –
doesn’t make it so. I do understand what theories are. It is interesting to see you mention “what has been and can be tested.” In my original post I asked about the testability of statements such as that , “Big changes…came about as the result of a series of small changes” and that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form.

The only evidence you have that I don’t understand the mechanics of biology, genes, DNA and so forth is simply my scepticism of some of evolutionary theory. Don’t you think it’s a bit of overkill to say of someone who has a problem with really only one theory that for all science he understands no science?

Since you mention genes and DNA, think about the principle that “Like gives birth to like.” Applying the rules of logic normally we would think this implies both that (a) “Creatures will reproduce offspring that are (i) like them and (ii) like their own parents” and (b) “The offspring will not reproduce offspring which cannot reproduce themselves.” Evolutionary theory tells us that actually the principle that “Like gives birth to like” is true only up to a certain point. That certain point goes beyond variation. Clearly we observe variation within species. Supposedly the number of variations increases to the point at which we have an offspring which is significantly NOT like its parents, a new species. (And we’d better hope that, somehow, there are two – male and female – or that new ‘species’ won’t survive it’s first member.)

As I pointed out, the theory of gravity is testable. I just don’t see how evolutionary theory can be. And I wouldn’t be the first to point this out. Previously, I mentioned Popper’s characterization of evolution as a “metaphysical research programme”, a characterization he based on his own observation that evolution, as a theory of origins, is simply not testable. (Personally, I'm a bigger fan of Popper's student, Paul Feyerabend. For whatever that's worth.)

As for my “pompous high horse”, I have re-read my original posting (as well as the follow-up to it) and I just don’t see the pomposity. (Unless, of course, simply being skeptical of your non-theistic creation myth makes me pompous.) Note that the original posting was entitled “Intelligent Design v. Evolution: an observation”. An observation, my friend, is not identical with a decree from on high.

“All you did in your original message was the equivalent of saying that because no one has ever see a gravity particle it means that the theory of gravity is wrong.

Oh, please. This is similar to Lorin’s assertion (to which I responded here) that my position would imply that astronomy is not science because we cannot drag stars into labs and hatch supernovae.

Anyway, what I said hardly has the implication you claim it does. Gravitons are hypothetical elementary particles, by definition unseen. The ability to see them is irrelevant to either classical or quantum mechanics.

Besides, in a certain way, gravitons are incidental to the theory of gravity. (You didn’t specify which theory of [which] gravity you were talking about, so pardon my paucity of expression here.) Gravitons are supposed to mediate gravity. Whether gravitons can be seen or not, gravity appears to be mediated by something. Gravitons are postulated on the basis of what we see when experiments are performed. Whether gravitons can be seen or not, we can still make and test predictions utilizing the theory of gravity.

In my original post, I mentioned, among other things, the problems posed by so-called transitional forms. I asserted, first, that any talk of any fossil being the remains of a ‘transitional form’ is question-begging. It assumes the theory itself is true. Especially is this the case when the putative ‘transitional form’ is used as evidence for evolution. I also claimed that talk about ‘tansitional forms’ was meaningless because since ‘big changes’ are simply accumulations of ‘little changes’ then every member of every species is quite possibly a ‘transitional form’. This means, I also said, that there are no transitional forms, for any practical purposes.

Note another difference between evolutionary theory and gravitational theory. An assertion about the evolution of a wave function can be tested. The assertion that a species S₁ evolved over millions of years from a member of another species S₂ is not testable. The assertion that some number of variations accumulated over millions of years will result in a new species is not testable. That Archaeopteryx is representative of the transition from reptile to bird is not testable. Whether or not gravitons exist theories of quantum mechanics are testable in ways that evolutionary theory is not.

Finally, on this matter, I didn’t say evolutionary theory was wrong. I said I was skecptical of the scientific credentials of any theory of origins. In case you just hadn’t thought of it before: there’s a vast difference between saying that a theory is wrong, and saying that you are skeptical of it.

“You show time and time again that you have no understanding of true science, scientific methods nor even the prinicple of deducing trends let alone facts from data provided.

You want to talk about deducing trends. Fine. You can ‘deduce’ a trend and make a prediction based on an observed trend. If the prediction bears itself out, then fine. And here’s a difference between evolutionary theory and a theory of gravity. With a theory of gravity you might predict the location of a particular body at a particular time, based upon the observance of a ‘trend.’ You can then experiment and see whether the body is at the predicted location at the predicted time.

Evolutionary theory doesn’t quite work that way, does it? It doesn’t make predictions about future states of affairs (or at least not future states of affairs that any of us will be able to observe); it offers speculation about the past and no way of testing those speculations.

And as for deducing facts from data provided, do you mean like when scientists deduce a transitional form from a fossil, rather than simply a feathered reptile, or a reptile whose fossilized remains give the appearance of having been feathered?

“... you have no prob' with Brussels Journal's Paul Belien.Not even although his wife is member of a party that is infamous for it's Nazi roots. Not even when the top people of that party have a neo-nazi past.Not even when Paul himself only has a problem with that party when they are to soft, on certain issues, to his liking.Not even when Paul got in trouble with putting up a text that was cleary hate-mongering and racist. No....you love the guy. Your defence ? If he was facist/racist he would be anti-jew and seeing as that Jezus was a jew and he is pro Christianity you are sure that they are no such thing.*cough*stupid*cough*

Q, you just cannot be paying attention to my replies to you. I never said I had no problem with Paul Belien; I don’t know the man. I have indicated a willingness to stipulate with you that he is a Nazi, pending your provision of the requisite evidence. But I have also maintained, on strictly logical grounds, that his being a Nazi just does not falsify any claim he made in the article to which I linked (in this posting) and about which you have been so exercised.

This insistence of yours that something objectionable about an opponent somehow refutes his assertions continues to surprise me, coming as it does from someone with your maturity of mind.

And I most certainly did not employ this ridiculous reasoning (attributed by you to me): “If he [Paul Belien] was facist/racist he would be anti-jew and seeing as that Jezus was a jew and he is pro Christianity you are sure that they are no such thing.” What I said was that the reason their being Nazis would be objectionable to me is precisely that I am a Christian. I didn’t say anything in defense of Paul Belien. I certainly have nothing that can be interpreted as love for him; and I most certainly said nothing about his being “pro Christianity.” I really don’t see how you failed to grasp that.“

Are you a deviant? Recalling your confession about how you mistreated your siblings in a bullyish manner I'm sure you are.

I have already responded to this (here) and won’t do so again.

“Are you a sholar? Perhaps you are. The US is famous for having colleges that are a joke.”

Does telling people that sort of thing make you feel like a staggering intellect? Let’s take a look at what we have here: a tacit assertion about a college you don’t know, attended by a man you don’t know, which assertion is based not on any facts you have at hand, but on the basis of a bigotted stereotype.

If that is what you take for maturity of mind, then I shall take it as a compliment that you think I haven’t got it.