heh...it appears that Wolfblade, as I have heard from others likes to rant and then block people who disagree with him.
I will admit I like to be contrarian in that I can see more than side of an argument and it bothers me when people post assertions and all their watchers pay butt kissing service and agree with them.
He argued that essentially people who did not agree with his facts should be beaten up, thrown off the interwebs and left to die in gutters somewhere.
I responded rather nicely, not saying this view was totally wacko, but questioning the veracity of his "facts" that he holds above other people "facts"....it was never mentioned what these facts were on either side so just had to go with general principles. Basically there is no such thing as a proven beyond a shadow of a doubt truth/fact. I went on to show that historically both science and history are influenced by ideology and often ignores evidence that does not fit with their ideologies. To an extreme science can go backwards and accept disproven theories again due to ideology. I offered two extreme examples of German Science in the 1860s for 60+ years and Russian science in the 1920s for 60+ years both accepting a Lamarckian evolution, which was disproved in the early 1800s. Science went backwards rather than this idea that science continually progresses and improves (ie the science of today can not be taken to be more improved or even more correct than science of the past) there is also a misunderstanding of science that more accurate science results mean progress. A good example is the switch from Newton to Einstein in gravitational theory. Einstein is more accurate, but this not progress. It was a revolution in paradigms as to the entire cause of gravity from force at a distance to a curving of spacetime by mass and requires different math to express.
I'm really sorry, but you do not seem to understand how science works. Acknowledging a possibility makes it a hypothesis and does indeed allow it to be treated as an equal to previously "proven" "facts" and both must be weighed on their evidence, predictions, etc. Otherwise we should have stuck with Newton and thrown away Einstein's hypothesis.
Your idea that theories that are "proven" by which I assume you mean live up to their predictions and experiments show to follow their rules, do not make them a fact. They are simply lviing up to their own limited explanations. Newton was wrong for 300 years, there were no forces acting at a distance, which his contemporaries criticized btw(comparing it to magic), but his theories were very accurate, this does not make them true or fact, just consistent.
How do I know modern physics and chemistry works? They work because like Newton's laws, they are consistent, you can and I have performed experiments that produce the same results and correspond to the same formula. You don't need to be an accredited (didnt know such things existed) chemist or physicist to do these experiments.
Your assertion that people are trustworthy because you have put them through observation and tests is rather silly. You and most people assume most authority figures are trustworthy even though this is decidedly not the case. You have mentioned accredited experts are trustworthy....guess you never saw those court cases where both sides bring in experts that totally disagree. =P and authority figures? cops never lie and professors are ALWAYS open minded.
So again you think things can be solidly proven, yet I have shown history to show you wrong. Again and again solidly proven science has been shown to be wrong. It has been shown not to be progressive. In the example above, Russian science only changed because it caused the starvation of millions and still took a new generation to get rid of it. WW2 stopped german science after the death of millions because of those theories of improving the human race.
And as far as your saying current science theories of origins, which I totally disbelieve for scientific reasons and is just a modern mythology. so you believe the big bang which is solely based on red shifting of galaxies ( and ignores the fact that all matter in it would have been converted to black holes in seconds after it formed and requires faster than light expansion to remain even slightly plausible ) AND ignores that we dont even know what 80% of the energy and matter in the universe *IS* yet we throw out this myth as fact. Galaxies, just not much of a clue how they formed...how did matter concentrate in tiny pools from an explosion...solar system? well the predictions so far as we finally see others are totally wrong and have turned to migrating planets. Earth-moon...we currently believe in the one computer model based on a lot of presumptions and this model was ONE out of thousands that didnt work. So one sorta works and we declare that this must be how it happened by two planets colliding (without much disruption of our orbit- ever see 2 cue balls hit each other? oh and it hit, rebounded and hit again too, lol) wha? Then theres common descent...far too much to go into here, but yeah, also a myth. Its predictions were wrong and continue to be wrong. The actual evidence shows rapid appearance of species which tend to remain static over long periods. It also must face the fact that life evolved ONCE and only ONCE and all life according to the theory must originate in one magic cell. As a theory it either has no theory or no plausible theory for how life formed, how cells grew their DNA x10, developed a new form of reproduction to handle the larger size, then developed sex, and also suddenly came up with specific factories to do certain jobs. So can't answer how complex cells formed with a massive increase in stored information. Then these complex cells suddenly gained a whole ton of new info, and figured out not only how to work together in mass, but figured out how to organize to make some groups of cells to take over functions from the individual cells, AND then these buggers developed ALSO at the same time how to reproduce not the cells but to organize tissues to create cells with half the information to go forth and mate with another half cell to reproduce the entire group. And you say you dont believe in magic :-D So how is this more probable than other people's myths, since this is not science, has no experiments to prove it, and relies basically on anecdotal evidence to support it (which is interpreted in the context of the theory, so rather circular thinking) I really don't know how anyone who has studied anatomy can believe in evolution --has seen how much stuff can go wrong and so many little things are vital to life, and then embryology where everything occurs from one single cell and develops into a human. To believe that all came about by chance mutations with a limited correction factor getting rid of the worst faults is just frankly impossible to believe.
Just to be a lil devil....the creation myth you dont approve of, well evidence for it....both common descent and creationist believe in design of life, just one believes there was an intelligent designer and the other believes shit happens given enough time...that there is evidence that a huge bottleneck of humans and other animals occurred (tigers have been specifically mentioned) at the same time leaving a small number alive. Presuming this to be the flood, it is interesting the Bible mentioned that it did not rain before the flood and was watered by mists at night. (condensation of water vapor). The fact that most phylum body plans appeared during a very short period in the fossil record, with water creatures, as would be expected since you generally need water sedimentation to form fossils. The fact that soft tissues have been preserved in fossils supposed 60 million years old. The fact that the Bible claims that men lived to be around 900 years old and then after the flood their ages decline at a pretty clear geometric rate, which is great for the ancients to put in there considering geometric declines were first noticed in the 1600s by analytic geometry, but maybe the people who wrote Genesis were math geniuses. Add to this that the fact there is only ONE general plan of life is explained better by this, that genes and organs apparently jump around, skipping whole groups that common descent says must be inbetween (like the appendix is in rodents and apes, but not in monkeys, jumping over them and genes have been found creating the same chemicals in sharks and some mammals, but not in intermediary fish and reptiles) where this is far better explained by a designer reusing designs. The fact that the idea of vestigial organs (once numbering in the 100s, existing in organs and tissues medicine did not know the purpose of at the time, and explained degrading old or forming new organs) have been utterly decimated and almost every tissue in the body has a function, ALONG with the fact that what was called junk DNA a decade ago has also proven to have functions, some of which are vital (just like those useless organs doctors removed at will and sometimes killed people....hey who needs a thymus) both predictions of common descent have fallen flat while the prediction made by creationists that these things must be useful has proven true. MUhahahaha. The evidence seems to favor creationists with the only difference being accepted time scales, which were stretched to millions of years to accomodate evolution. Even geologists thought 200 million years would be enough to explain geological features using time scales of present phenomenon (we now know that geo features can occur extremely fast as in days that once were thought to take millions of years).