Because those "challenges" are, at best, uninformed and, at worst, flat out lies.

You make some valid points and I admit that I am uniformed about much of the data regarding ToE. However, I'm diligently, if not flawlessly, trying to frame my 'challenges' as questions.

You have demonstrated that many of YOUR "challenges" are merely regurgitations of "creationist" talking points, and are, therefore, of the latter. 

Regardless of creationists' views on the origin of life, their questions are valid. They should be answered seriously. Whether the answers are accepted or not isn't really important. Off handed dismissal of the question soley because you don't agree with the questioner is disingenuous. From my perspective, creationism and evolutionism are full of zealots making the same, unsupported arguments from opposite ends of the spectrum.

BTW, in the ten+ years that I have been involved in the SCIENCE vs. creationism "debates" there have been LOTS of people coming on to these "debate" boards claiming that they "don't have a dog in this fight". I

Which puts me in the rare position of being able to alienate everyone. Most of my christian friends believe I'm hell-bound for blasphemy and heresy. Some are convinced I'm hell-born!

Mar 29, 2012 -- 10:20AM, watcher59 wrote:

I'm curious why anyone, creationist or skeptic, doesn't have the right to challenge the conclusions of science?

Because not everyone has the knowledge, training, and expertise. The right to challenge must be earned.

"I'm curious why anyone, creationist or skeptic, doesn't have the right to challenge the conclusions of science? Is there some scientific papacy whose edicts are beyond question?"

Anyone has the "right" to challenge scientific conclusions. Silly-assed, ignorant challenges are still nothing more than that.

Just as I would have the "right" to challenge Eric Clapton to a guitar face-off, with full knowledge that I would get my ass kicked to a humiliating degree.

Kinda like creationists do here every day.............

Mar 29, 2012 -- 11:57AM, d_p_m wrote:

Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:53AM, watcher59 wrote:

Why don't you read those university biology textbooks you've been avoiding?

Are you saying that university biology textbooks prove evolution?

`

The facts in the peer reviewed science prove evolution. The biology textbooks organize and present some of those facts in a fashion more accessible to the non-expert, and they explain what evolution, and the Theory of Evolution really are. If you just read creationist sites, you won't even really know what you are arguing against. I have never seen a creationist site that accurately and honestly describes evolution, the evidence for evolution, the science behind evolution, or the ToE.

I want to throw this in there: NO scientific theory is EVER proven. As I was just saying in another thread, all of science is based on inductive reasoning. An inductively reasoned theory can always be disproven by the future introduction of contradictory evidence. This is just as true of the Theory of Gravity, or Atomic Theory, or the Germ Theory of Disease. All we can present for ANY scientific theory is evidence that supports the theory as highly explanatory, predictive, and consistent with available evidence. Any 101 level Evolutionary Biology textbook ought to do that for the Theory of Evolution, because it has been shown to be highly explanatory and predictive, and consistent with available evidence.

Now, that's the THEORY of Evolution, which proposes specific mechanisms and claims about life's history. We need to distinguish it from simply "evolution." Because evolution, which is simply the change of heritable characteristics in a population over successive generations, is not a theory, it is an observable fact, seen both in nature and in the lab.

Mar 29, 2012 -- 1:28PM, Oncomintrain wrote:

Mar 29, 2012 -- 11:57AM, d_p_m wrote:

Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:53AM, watcher59 wrote:

Why don't you read those university biology textbooks you've been avoiding?

Are you saying that university biology textbooks prove evolution?

`

DPM: The facts in the peer reviewed science prove evolution. The biology textbooks organize and present some of those facts in a fashion more accessible to the non-expert, and they explain what evolution, and the Theory of Evolution really are. If you just read creationist sites, you won't even really know what you are arguing against. I have never seen a creationist site that accurately and honestly describes evolution, the evidence for evolution, the science behind evolution, or the ToE.

OCT: I want to throw this in there: NO scientific theory is EVER proven. As I was just saying in another thread, all of science is based on inductive reasoning. An inductively reasoned theory can always be disproven by the future introduction of contradictory evidence. This is just as true of the Theory of Gravity, or Atomic Theory, or the Germ Theory of Disease. All we can present for ANY scientific theory is evidence that supports the theory as highly explanatory, predictive, and consistent with available evidence. Any 101 level Evolutionary Biology textbook ought to do that for the Theory of Evolution, because it has been shown to be highly explanatory and predictive, and consistent with available evidence.

Now, that's the THEORY of Evolution, which proposes specific mechanisms and claims about life's history. We need to distinguish it from simply "evolution." Because evolution, which is simply the change of heritable characteristics in a population over successive generations, is not a theory, it is an observable fact, seen both in nature and in the lab.

DPM: I was ambiguous. Mea culpa. Oncomintrain is completely right. Scientific theories are not proven, they simply become so well validated and supported that it is intellectually perverse to deny their essential correctnes - but they are always subject to testing and revision.

When I said the biology textbooks prove evolution, I really should have said that biology textbooks prove the FACT of evolution - that evolution does happen and is observed. The ToE, which explains those facts is as OCT described, a different kind of thing - an explanation, that operates under different stringent rules for validation.