Creationists and research

[Apollo Rhetor]

Supporters of Walt Brown might ask themselves why he has never even tried to publish his mega goofy hydroplate model in creationist pseudo peer reviewed journals. Could it be because he knows the model is so silly that even YEC publications would reject it and he wouldn't have the excuse of evolutionist bias? The only way he could get it published is to publish it himself. Walt doesn't want to have to defend the worldwide flood because he knows it can't be defended. He just wants to attack evolution and keep selling books and videotapes to the terminally gullible.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

What a great business model, to put your book online for all to read for free. I sure haven't given Walt a cent.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Meert has been posting here for quite some time - your thread had nothing to do with it. If you notice he has 225 posts on CF - more than you.

I had noticed after my initial question, and assumed that would be why. But when he didn't answer, I wondered if it was the case that he just happened across it.

 

[Jet Black]

What a great business model, to put your book online for all to read for free. I sure haven't given Walt a cent.

's called marketing.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

JM: Actually, I gave you the specific post later in my answer. Apparently, option 'A' was purely superfluous on your part. If you don't want to be misread, don't add 'options' that have no meaning.

I have no clue what you are saying. I never said "option" A. I said there were two common uses of the word evolution which had different meanings. I listed those two meanings. What's this about options?

JM: You need to read responses. At least one answer was given on here with a link. If you want to close your eyes and pretend no one has answered, what course of action might I have? If you are not willing to read anything outside of that you can access on the net, then what else can I do for you? If you want to learn and understand the science, then go to the source and do the work yourself. Whining about your access problems does not help your argument. If you want to learn more, then read Gould's Structure of Evolutionary theory. Oops, you'd have to spend some money or drive to the library. Or you can wait until someone posts it on the net.

You are so clever, with your jabs at my unwillingness to spend money on evolutionary material. Would you dare speak a word against the many atheists on this forum who restrict themselves to debate of material they can find online for free?
You say links were already given. Were you referring to

Sigh. Here is the theory much modified since it was originally published. Here is the application of the Scientific Method to said theory including each evidences prediction, confirmation and potential falsification.

Why do people not investigate more before they make assertions like "{there's no} scientific theory of evolution?"

Ok, let's play the link game:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
Wasn't that fun? Still doesn't make it science. Why don't you tell me the scientific theory of common descent?

JM: Sounds familiar.

You mean others besides me have noticed this about you and pointed it out?

JM: You need to learn a little bit more about science then. Science is both, it's not either/or. If science were solely inductive, then science would never progress. If you want to argue a silly premise, find someone else.

Science is inductive! If you want to show me otherwise, be my guest. I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong if I am. But my current understanding is that science is inductive. This does not mean that scientists do not find themselves engaged in deductive tasks. It's so simple to understand. The scientific method itself is inductive, but scientists themselves, like every other human on this planet, will find themselves at times using deduction.
And I'd like to point out that I didn't find you, you found me. I was talking to others before you decided to step in - that was *your* choice, not mine. If you don't want to argue what you see as a silly premise, feel free to keep your mouth shut. If you want to be specific about why science is deductive also, then tell me.

JM: Do you think if you keep repeating this mantra, it will make it true?

You have done nothing to show me otherwise about my statement. Am I supposed to trust these words, just because it comes from the mouth of Joe Meert?

JM: Then you're arguments will be poor. If you want to neglect primary sources and research, what's the point of discussion?

Because I'm talking about something very precise, which you have come and hijacked the conversation away from. I never intended to talk about the fossil record or whatever else we are straying on to. My discussion was primarily about whether evolution A is science or not. My challenge was for someone to produce a scientific theory of common descent - a falsifiable, observable, repeatable test to prove common descent.

If I was talking to you about whales or other things, then sure I would need to go look at primary resources and research. But that's not the topic of discussion!

JM: It's also full of junk.

Yes, but it also has a lot of gold. What's your point?
I'm not going to look up those articles you painstakingly referenced. It's got nothing to do with the topic at hand. You keep trying to change the conversation to your pet arguments, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I was talking with others about common descent, then you jump in and start rambling on about creation scientists not publishing in mainstream journals, and repeating how scientific evolution is, like a mantra. Completely off what the discussion was about.

JM: I'm talking about the arguments put forth in Gingerich and Thweissen in their scientific articles. You've already stated you're not willing to read them if they are not free and insist that your internet sources are reliable. University libraries have open access. You can go there, get out the journals and read the articles at no cost.

If it was the topic at hand, and I had involved myself in the discussion, then I would be very motivated to get my hands on these articles. But right now I couldn't care less.

JM: Learn what science is and isn't.

Where do you suggest I learn that from? From all I can read people call science the inductive method. They likewise say that scientists sometimes engage in deductive tasks, but primarily science is inductive. Where is your scientific theory of common descent? Observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable. If you hold the creation model up to these standards, then hold your own fortress up to the same ones. if you want to drop any of these as a definition of a scientific theory, then don't cry when creationists call something without that science as well.

JM: You had (A) and (B). I'm glad you've accepted the correct definition. I see no point in belaboring this now that you've cleared up your position.

My position was always clear!!! I said right from the start the same thing I said now, and no-one else said I was confusing. Why are you the only one who couldn't read what I'd said??

JM: Three that I can think of right off the bat. The first is taking an oath that predetermines the conclusions. AIG and ICR both acknowledge that all their science must harmonize with the bible. If the science and the bible are at odds, it is the science that is wrong. Any scientist who has ever done the most simple of experiments understands why this oath precludes sound science at the outset.

As opposed to scientists making a naturalistic oath, and rejecting all supernatural theories on that premise? Or rejecting all young earth ages on the premise that any dating method must reaffirm old ages?
I'm not convinced.

The second mistake that ye-creationists make is mostly refusing to submit their work to scientific journals for criticism and future testing.

If I tried to jump over a gap, and three times I fell in and broke my leg, why would I try a fourth time? But, lest we forget, this is your pet argument against creation. Well, you've sure persuaded me.

All other scientists do this because they know that science advances only when ideas are presented in an open forum.

Coincidently these scientists affirm orthodoxy of evolution and old earth. Big surprise.

Thirdly, there is the problem of inventing data and misrepresenting science to make a point. Humphreys work on the magnetic field is an excellent example of someone willing to misrepresent science and invent data in order to get the conclusions to spin his way.

How specific your objections are. Don't be offended if I don't just take your word for it.

JM: I've answered. I am following Walt's rules. Is that so hard for you to grasp?

The fact that you'd complain about a debate limitted strictly to science. I just can't get my head around that.

JM: No, I want to debate. That's why I've signed the agreement and agreed to abide by the rules in Walt's challenge. Apparently, this is very difficult for you to grasp.

Yes, it is difficult for me to grasp. You are not acting in the way I'd imagine someone would. It looks like you grasped at the easiest way to "win" the argument.

JM: I'll ask you this question again. If the bible claimed the earth was destroyed by a meteorite and God commanded Noah to build a spaceship, would there be a hydroplate hypothesis?

You can ask this question all you want, it changes nothing about what I said. It's irrelevant. The theory would not exist, but the earth would also be different, so it's a stupid question.

JM: Yes it was. Walt admitted the conspiracy and you did not check your facts before mouthing off about it. When confronted with the obvious conspiracy theory verbiage, you tried to cover up by insisting that because the word 'conspiracy' was not used, a conspiracy was not implied. Your argument that one must use the word 'conspiracy' is specious.

Conspiracy: "A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot." (Websters, 1913)

Where did Walt ever say anything that indicated something like a conspiracy? Conspiracy was not even implied.

 

[Jet Black]

Where is your scientific theory of common descent? Observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable. If you hold the creation model up to these standards, then hold your own fortress up to the same ones.

I gave you a bunch of methods for testing. Common descent is very falsifiable, since there are a whole bunch of things you would not see if common descent is the case.

 

[USincognito]

Ok, let's play the link game:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp
Wasn't that fun? Still doesn't make it science. Why don't you tell me the scientific theory of common descent?

Are you sure you're up for it?.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

The scientific thoery of common descent is stated quite elegantly by Dr. Theobald to start his essay.

Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale, and each modern organism is the genetic descendant of one original species.

In order to for a theory to be scientific it will have evidence supporting various predictions (genetic similarity, morphological similarities for ex.) and the ability to be falsified (wildly divergent genes in similar species, birds with fish scales and whales with gills for ex.). The current theory of evolution has mountains of evidence supporting it's predictions and as yet have not falsified them.

Evolution is science and scientific and has been for over 150 years.

 

[JGMEERT]

I have no clue what you are saying. I never said "option" A. I said there were two common uses of the word evolution which had different meanings. I listed those two meanings. What's this about options?

JM: I thanked you for clearing up your position. It was not clear from your post whether you accepted A or B. It is now.

You are so clever, with your jabs at my unwillingness to spend money on evolutionary material.

JM: I gave you article references and told you that University libraries have free browsing access. You could go to the library and do the same for Gould's book. My jabs are aimed at your unwillingness to learn about the subject you are so intent on criticising.

Would you dare speak a word against the many atheists on this forum who restrict themselves to debate of material they can find online for free?

JM: Yes, if they were criticising a topic that they knew nothing about and they refused to consult the scientific literature on the subjects. I've not seen too much of that, but occasionally an atheist will make a silly claim about science. For the most part, I've found that people are willing to correct their mistakes.

Wasn't that fun? Still doesn't make it science. Why don't you tell me the scientific theory of common descent?

JM: A link with an answer to your question and a book with an answer to your question were both given. I have no idea why you construe that to be a linking game.

Science is inductive! If you want to show me otherwise, be my guest. I'm man enough to admit I'm wrong if I am.

JM: If you repeat this mantra three more times, while turning on your heels, you will end up back in Oz.

If you want to be specific about why science is deductive also, then tell me.

JM: Have you ever done any science? If so, the answer to your question is obvious.

You have done nothing to show me otherwise about my statement. Am I supposed to trust these words, just because it comes from the mouth of Joe Meert?

JM: Just as you've done nothing to show me that your statement is valid. Am I supposed to trust these words, just because it comes from your mouth?

Because I'm talking about something very precise, which you have come and hijacked the conversation away from.

JM: YOu chose to respond. If you don't like what I have to say, you can choose not to respond. Placing the blame on me for your own woes is quite a weak tactic.

. My discussion was primarily about whether evolution A is science or not. My challenge was for someone to produce a scientific theory of common descent - a falsifiable, observable, repeatable test to prove common descent.

JM: People gave you references. You whined about not being able to find an internet site with all your answers. People gave you book and journal articles, told you how to access them for free and still you whine.

If I was talking to you about whales or other things, then sure I would need to go look at primary resources and research. But that's not the topic of discussion!

JM: I brought it into the discussion and you responded with a request for references. I gave them to you and now you whine about the change of topic. If you thought whales were off topic, then why respond?

I'm not going to look up those articles you painstakingly referenced.

JM: Duh! No one expected that you would. You do the same as any other creationist. Hide behind a wall of self-induced ignorance. Your choice.

It's got nothing to do with the topic at hand.

JM: Then why did you ask for the references? I suppose you're not going to read Gould either, are you?

If it was the topic at hand, and I had involved myself in the discussion, then I would be very motivated to get my hands on these articles.

JM: THen why did you ask about them? Your argument would be so much more convincing if your previous posts would disappear. Do you remember the following (a page or so back?):

I have already seen some talk of whale transitionals, I wanted to know exactly what you referring to.

Where do you suggest I learn that from? From all I can read people call science the inductive method. They likewise say that scientists sometimes engage in deductive tasks, but primarily science is inductive.

JM: Is this how you argue? Insist that it's only inductive and then change to 'primarily inductive'? I'm glad you've come around, I suppose we can now drop this 'science is only inductive' nonsense. Are you man enough to admit that science is both or are you going to twist your way out of your own words?

Where is your scientific theory of common descent? Observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable.

JM: YOu've been given the references. Read them, take notes and then come back and tell me it does not exist.

If you hold the creation model up to these standards,

JM: There is no creation model from which to demand standards.

As opposed to scientists making a naturalistic oath,

JM: I never took such an oath.

and rejecting all supernatural theories on that premise?

JM: Don't lie to make a point.

Or rejecting all young earth ages on the premise that any dating method must reaffirm old ages?

JM: Don't lie to make a point.

I'm not convinced.

JM: From the looks of things, you're not well-read either.

If I tried to jump over a gap, and three times I fell in and broke my leg, why would I try a fourth time?

JM: Off topic

Coincidently these scientists affirm orthodoxy of evolution and old earth. Big surprise.

JM: Don't lie to make a point.

You can ask this question all you want, it changes nothing about what I said. It's irrelevant. The theory would not exist, but the earth would also be different, so it's a stupid question.

JM: So, if the biblical story changes, the earth changes with it. Interesting.

Where did Walt ever say anything that indicated something like a conspiracy? Conspiracy was not even implied.

JM: In your mind, I suspect that's true. Walt's own words tell us otherwise.

What are your specific objections to Humphreys magnetic field

JM: He faked data and invented reversals where none exist.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Physics_guy]

If you honestly believe that, then you should write a careful rebuttel directly to him, and publish it elsewhere at the same time. Even if he avoids the problems, at least you will have an answer for others to point them to.
He's responded to other critics, so I can't see why he'd avoid you.

I have seen him make ad hominem rebuttals but nothing of substance to many refutations of his "work."

Here is the gist of why he is wrong:

1. He provides no spacetime for his event horizon to exist in.

2. We observe no relativistic effects on distant starlight that would be required if his model were true.

3. His model cannot explain and in fact predicts the opposite of the redults shown by Perlmutter et al. in 1998 that distant supernovae show an accelerating expansion of the Universe.

As for a more detailed rebuttal, well, that would just take too much time to be interesting. Physicists have no vested interest in the Theory of Evolution, so wouldn't you think that his model, if it had any merit whatsoever might raised at least a few eyebrows? Instead it is used as comedy to the few physicists who have even seen it!

 

[toff]

As opposed to scientists making a naturalistic oath, and rejecting all supernatural theories on that premise? Or rejecting all young earth ages on the premise that any dating method must reaffirm old ages?

This is a blatant lie. Scientists do not make any sort of "naturalistic oath". Creationists, on the other hand, have a conclusion to which all data must be made to fit. This is precisely why creationism is not any sort of science.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I had decided before you wrote your reply that I would stop talking with you if this continued on in the same way. So I'm going to follow your advice:

JM: YOu chose to respond. If you don't like what I have to say, you can choose not to respond. Placing the blame on me for your own woes is quite a weak tactic.

But first a couple of smaller comments, rather than a full response, to wind down.

JM: Then why did you ask for the references? I suppose you're not going to read Gould either, are you?

Because you made a vague reference to something you said was relevent. I wanted to know what on earth you were talking about so I could see if it was on topic. I never asked for reams of references - I wanted you to summarise what the argument was. How am I supposed to comment on something that hasn't been described, or even referenced?
As for Gould, I may read him. I have no reason not to. It could be an interesting read.

JM: Is this how you argue? Insist that it's only inductive and then change to 'primarily inductive'? I'm glad you've come around, I suppose we can now drop this 'science is only inductive' nonsense. Are you man enough to admit that science is both or are you going to twist your way out of your own words?

Tell us if you think that this description of the scientific method is accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I don't believe I have changed my stance at all. The method of science itself is inductive. Forming of predictions or other peripheral parts may involve deduction, but the actual process of science is itself inductive. Earlier I was not so clear that deduction was a part of the creation of predictions, but it seems obvious now. But I see no need to recant, because science is called the inductive method, precisely because it is inductive.
It changes nothing about what I've been saying.

JM: I never took such an oath.

It was a play on words. It would be a real conspiracy if you took such an oath in secret. But today people say that any scientific theory must be naturalistic. Iirc, such has been said in this thread. Unless you disagree? And if naturalism is presupposed, then I was not lying when I said "rejecting all supernatural theories on that premise".

Anyway, that's enough of you for me. I'll respond to the others in time, but I don't have unlimitted amounts of it. It is very unlikely I will respond to you again.

 

[JGMEERT]

I had decided before you wrote your reply that I would stop talking with you if this continued on in the same way. So I'm going to follow your advice:

JM: BUt of course, you could not resist one last attempt at a jibe.

But first a couple of smaller comments, rather than a full response, to wind down.

JM: Did you get wound up somewhere?

Because you made a vague reference to something you said was relevent. I wanted to know what on earth you were talking about so I could see if it was on topic. I never asked for reams of references - I wanted you to summarise what the argument was.

JM: Re-read the thread. If you thought whales were off topic, then you should not have responded at all.

How am I supposed to comment on something that hasn't been described, or even referenced?

JM: Well, most people debating the subject know about whale evolution and where to find the material relating to whale evolution.

As for Gould, I may read him. I have no reason not to. It could be an interesting read.

JM: It would be a very good thing for you to do. It might help clear up your misunderstandings of science and evolution.

Tell us if you think that this description of the scientific method is accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I don't believe I have changed my stance at all. The method of science itself is inductive. Forming of predictions or other peripheral parts may involve deduction, but the actual process of science is itself inductive. Earlier I was not so clear that deduction was a part of the creation of predictions, but it seems obvious now. But I see no need to recant, because science is called the inductive method, precisely because it is inductive.

JM: I think it is an interesting piece and not wholly accurate, but not bad either. The 'idealized method' does not exist except in middle and high school classes. Your attempt to minimize the importance of deductive reasoning in science is laughable. Without deductive reasoning, scientists would be nothing more than engineers .

It changes nothing about what I've been saying.

JM: It makes your earlier assertions that science is only inductive look silly. I wonder if you truly read through the link particularly the part at the bottom where it is noted:

Despite these philosophical problems the hypothetico-deductive method remains perhaps the most popular and best understood theory of scientific method.

It was a play on words.

JM: It was a false statement.

It would be a real conspiracy if you took such an oath in secret.

JM: It would also be a lie.

But today people say that any scientific theory must be naturalistic. Iirc, such has been said in this thread. Unless you disagree? And if naturalism is presupposed, then I was not lying when I said "rejecting all supernatural theories on that premise".

JM: You make the statement that 'naturalism is presupposed'. I think this is a clever misrepresentation, but perhaps you might explain your meaning for me (if you decide I am worthy of your valuable time). For all your discussion about science it seems you missed one of the key ideas. Basically, you're whining that science should include 'supernatural theories'. Such 'theories' do not exist. Can you provide me with a 'supernatural theory' that science can test? However, the argument you are trying to make is specious. You are basically whining about the fact that science is not willing to explore the possibility that your God did everything in the bible. If you require scientific confirmation of the Bible, what's the point of faith?

Anyway, that's enough of you for me. I'll respond to the others in time, but I don't have unlimitted amounts of it. It is very unlikely I will respond to you again.

JM: Well, that will certainly ruin my life. I think I'll go commit suicide now since you were my purpose for living.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Despite these philosophical problems the hypothetico-deductive method remains perhaps the most popular and best understood theory of scientific method

.

I had, in fact, read this earlier, but I wonder if you did. The hypothetico-deductive method is "a theory about scientific method".

If you want to talk about what I think faith means, you are welcome to read my thread on atheism in the philosophy&morality board.

 

[JGMEERT]

I had, in fact, read this earlier, but I wonder if you did. The hypothetico-deductive method is "a theory about scientific method".

JM: INdeed, I did. The whole article pretty much forces you to admit that science includes and, in fact, requires deduction. You've circled the wagons all around but managed never to come straight out and say so. Science is both deductive and inductive. One wonders if you've ever done any science. Is it so hard for you to admit that science is both.

If you want to talk about what I think faith means, you are welcome to read my thread on atheism in the philosophy&morality board.

JM: I did not ask you what faith means. I asked what is the point of faith if you require scientific confirmation?

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Physics_guy]

Hate to break this to you Tyreth, but the scientific method is not as easily defined as many would like. The methods involved in astroonmy are very different fromt eh methods involved in chemistry for example. And though testing and predictions are important parts of science, all this really means is the testing of data - explanations are not always testable and may only be extrapolated from the data (for example in stellar spectroscopy we cannot test the stars themselves, but we can test the light coming off it).

To say that the Theory of Evolution and more the Theory of Common Descent are not science requires a laughably simplistic view of science. This method of argumentation used by creationists is devoid of value and can be summed up as nothing more than a distraction: "if the science is against us, then say the opponent isn't science either!"

Creationism is ridiculous religious fanaticism trying to pretend it is scientific by using ad hoc explanations that ignore their own problems and are only capable of convincing the already convinced laymen (for example: Humphrey's laughable butchering of General Relativity).

You would be far better off if you simply said like Kurt Wise that you believe in a literal Genesis because of your faith and despite the fact that the evidence is against you. At least such a position is honest and really beyond debate.

 

[tracker1875]

I've been lurking for a week or two, but boy have you got some very strange ideas about what is and is not science. I've been doing science professionally for a number of years now and I can't say that I've *ever* heard anyone say that deductive reasoning isn't part of science before. The statement, well, boggles the mind. To illustrate, USC has at their science education glossary project (do a google search for deductive reasoning science and you'll get it, I didn't realize this place censored outside links--I'll probably quit looking at this website because of that.) the following for deductive reasoning:

"Deductive reasoning

Method of attaining knowledge commonly used in science. Deductive processes involve using an accepted premise or generalization to predict observations and facts. For instance, a chemist might use deductive methods in order to predict whether two substances will react, based on chemical laws previously established. (Richards, 1977; Wallace, 1971; Hempel, 1966)."

On the flip side, we have this for inductive reasoning (note how similar the language is!):

"Inductive reasoning

Method of attaining knowledge commonly used in science. Inductive processes involve making empirical generalizations based on large numbers of observations or facts. For instance, a paleontologist might use induction to draw a conclusion based on the evidence he/she has managed to collect. Inductive reasoning inherently involves making an educated "guess". (Richards, 1977; Wallace, 1971; Hempel, 1966)."

Son, science works both ways! You're only making yourself and our fellow christians look foolish by continuing this absurdity!

 

[Timo]

I didn't realize this place censored outside links--I'll probably quit looking at this website because of that.

It only censors outside links if you've got less than a certain number (20?) of posts - I think it's to stop people coming on, posting a load of rubbish (with links) and then going away without bothering to read people's responses.

Oh, and welcome to the board!

 

[JGMEERT]

I've been lurking for a week or two, but boy have you got some very strange ideas about what is and is not science.

JM: It doesn't seem to be sinking in though does it?

Son, science works both ways! You're only making yourself and our fellow christians look foolish by continuing this absurdity!

JM: He's slowly coming around. I suspect pride is preventing him from admitting he erred. By the way, you can post links after making relatively few posts. As someone else mentioned, it's to help prevent hit-and-run spam. Welcome to the board!

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Hate to break this to you Tyreth, but the scientific method is not as easily defined as many would like. The methods involved in astroonmy are very different fromt eh methods involved in chemistry for example. And though testing and predictions are important parts of science, all this really means is the testing of data - explanations are not always testable and may only be extrapolated from the data (for example in stellar spectroscopy we cannot test the stars themselves, but we can test the light coming off it).

To say that the Theory of Evolution and more the Theory of Common Descent are not science requires a laughably simplistic view of science. This method of argumentation used by creationists is devoid of value and can be summed up as nothing more than a distraction: "if the science is against us, then say the opponent isn't science either!"

Why does it require a simplistic view of science? I am aware that there is no consensus of what science is, but it seems to me that most accept, at the very least, that a scientific theory is falsifiable, observable, testable, and wherever possible repeatable (if it is not repeatable then it is weak, since other scientists cannot verify the claims).

Creationism is ridiculous religious fanaticism trying to pretend it is scientific by using ad hoc explanations that ignore their own problems and are only capable of convincing the already convinced laymen (for example: Humphrey's laughable butchering of General Relativity).

Well, I can't trust you on that until you've explained why Humphreys butchered General Relativity.

You would be far better off if you simply said like Kurt Wise that you believe in a literal Genesis because of your faith and despite the fact that the evidence is against you. At least such a position is honest and really beyond debate.

I do not believe my position is beyond debate, so why would I say that?

 

[Jet Black]

Well, I can't trust you on that until you've explained why Humphreys butchered General Relativity.

Primarily his argument rests on argueing that the copernican principle is invalid i.e. on large scales the universe is smooth, and that there is no preferred direction. He argues that in order for standard cosmology to be valid, this principle is always assumed. Firstly this is not the case, this principle does not have to be assumed for standard cosmologies - for example the inflationary cosmology does not assume it at all. He misrepresents Physicists in saying that they believe that this is the case, when it well known that many current cosmologies do not assume that the universe is flat and uniform on large scales. Secondly, the imposition of a spherical boundary has absolutely no effect whatsoever on in the gravitational and temporal properties inside the boundary.

He also assumes that imposing a boundary to the universe, beyond which there is only vacuum, alters the gravitational and timekeeping properties. Again, this in wrong.

 

[Physics_guy]

Well, I can't trust you on that until you've explained why Humphreys butchered General Relativity.

Jet Black does a great job above, but additionally, Humphrey's "model" rests entirely on the idea that the cosmological constant is zero, but since 1998 and Perlmutter's work on distant supernova, it has been shown again and again that the CC is actually positive.

I'm sorry, but you are putting your faith in bad physics.

Why does it require a simplistic view of science? I am aware that there is no consensus of what science is, but it seems to me that most accept, at the very least, that a scientific theory is falsifiable, observable, testable, and wherever possible repeatable (if it is not repeatable then it is weak, since other scientists cannot verify the claims).

But the Theory of Evolution and its corollary Common Decent are:
1. potentially falsifiable
2. observable (we observe the mechanism of evolution in action today in both teh wild and the lab resulting in new species further teh fossil record provides an observable record of the history of life on Earth)
3. testable (we can test predictions of relatedness against fossils found and against DNA evidence).
4. repeatable (at least in a meaningful sense - the tests performed against predictions can all be repeated - this is exactly analgous to supernova, which of course are not individually repeatable, but they are observable by multiple scientists so that others can verify the test).

I think you need to learn a little more about the Theory of Evolution and science in general if you think the ToE is not science.

I do not believe my position is beyond debate, so why would I say that?

Well that at least puts you a few feet up the rationality spectrum from your friends at AiG and ICR who are all required to sign a statement of faith that no evidence can by definition contradict their beliefs in YEC.