Of course I don't deny that we have the ability to observe what appears to be an attraction of mass toward mass but what I deny -- and what you thus far have failed to grasp -- is that it is absolutely certain that this apparent attraction is 'caused' by gravitational fields or that you can prove absolutely that it is.[/i]

gravitational field 

Physics. 1. the attractive effect, considered as extending throughout space, of matter on other matter.

Gravitational field is the term we have assigned to the factual measurable phenomenon of the attraction.  You just accused me of failing to grasp that the definition of the phenomenon may or may not have caused the phenomenon itself.[/b]  You must be more tired than I am.  The theories are what we use to describe the cause and implications of the term used to describe the factual, measurable phenomenon.  A gravitational field is not a theory.  It is the name of the phenomenon.  There might be a theory about angels in regards to said phenomenon.  I'll consider its existence hypothetically.  It wouldn't fall under the same category as the factual, measurable phenomenon.  Likewise, the theory of evolution does not fall under the same category as the factual, measurable phenomenon of dead things existing in sedementary rock layers worldwide.  Creation also does not fall under the same category as the factual, measurable phenomenon of dead things existing in sedementary rock layers worldwide.  Evolutionism and creationism occupy the same plane - that of explaining the existence (rightly or wrongly) of the factual data left behind.  The question between them is "Which one best fits the evidence and can accurately predict future phenomenon of this sort?"  The fact of gravity and the existence of gravitational fields are not on the same plane with evolution and creation (or with ID which sometimes combines the two, if you feel like throwing that in).

You deserved the eyeroll.  It is obvious to readers that the fact of gravity and the theory of evolution do not enjoy anything like the same level of evidence.  The angels are the source of gravitational fields comment shouldn't have been worth response, though I addressed it above with more than it deserved.

Now, since my tiny son has finally stopped crying (having been struck with a bout of midnight wakefulness due to a cold), I will finally crawl into my bed, snuggle into my numerous blankets (being typical-female cold blooded and the beneficiary of below freezing temperatures where I live), close my eyes, and dream pleasant dreams.  Goodnight.

Gravitational field is the term we have assigned to the factual measurable phenomenon of the attraction.

This is simply incorrect. 'Gravitational fields' are part of a theory that purports to explain the FACT that mass attracts mass. 'Gravity,' not 'gravitational field,' is the term that we have assigned to the fact that mass attracts mass, which is what we are talking about here.

We see things fall to earth. We give the fact that 'things fall' or 'the attraction of mass to mass' the name of 'gravity.'
Well, what then explains 'gravity'? To try to explain 'gravity' we theorize things like 'gravitons,' 'gravitational fields,' etc.

But a 'gravitational field' is NOT the fact of gravity.

To recap:

'Gravity,' at a basic level, is no more than the fact that things fall, that mass attracts mass. How do we explain this fact? We do so with theories that propose such things as 'gravitational fields.'

Evolution, at a basic level, is the fact that creatures who roam the earth today did not roam the earth in the distant geologic past and that creatures who did roam the earth in the distant geologic past do not roam the earth today.

How do we explain this fact? We explain it -- and explain it quite nicely -- with the theory of evolution.

More to come, but this is all I have time for right now.

So, I did a little more researching gravitational fields and gravitation.  I'm spot on in regards to these.  Neither of those terms refers in any way to a theory, both refer to a phenomenon (the attractive influence).  The phenomenon is measurable (with the proper instrumentation, which does exist).  Certainly both of those terms are used in theories as they attempt to account for the phenomenon.

"gravity" specifically refers to a force which all massive objects are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation. - from wiki

I came across this when looking.  Wiki equates gravity and gravitation in some places and not in others.  This definition would say that my explanation of what I meant by gravity (and what some of the definitions present as gravity) was not really gravity, but gravitation.  I'm still looking to see if this is more accurate than the other definitions (and the other places in wiki).  Knowing properly what the terms mean is important to the discussion.  Care to share any definitions of gravity and your source(s) to help get on the same page?  Seriously.

To recap:

'Gravity,' at a basic level, is no more than the fact that things fall, that mass attracts mass. How do we explain this fact? We do so with theories that propose such things as 'gravitational fields.'

So... to recap... this is simply wrong .  Gravitational fields are factually measurable with equipment that currently exists.  The equipment measures the gravitation (a fact, not a theory), which is the attractive influence that all objects exert on eachother.

My sources disagree about whether gravity and gravitation are in essense the same.

My question was especially interested in the "observation" part of the claim.

But the assertion was that there was observational evidence for evolution just as there is for gravity.

--genes, chromosomes, DNA, RNA, etc.--fits neatly within the evolutionary paradigm. None of it has been explained or predicted by "Goddidit" approaches.

ROFL      

This sums up what I think of that.  lol, fits neatly indeed.

Well not 'all,' of course.  And the other evidence you speak of is meaningless apart from interpretation.  I would never go so far as to say, as you did, that this evidence is explained 'neatly' by my view, but much of it certainly is.

To speak specifically to the part I guffawed about, "genes, chromosomes, DNA, RNA, etc"  this fits much more 'neatly' into a creationist paradigm than an evolutionary one.  In fact, these things only fit into the 'evolutionary paradigm' at best conceptually.   Apparently you've forgotten Cogito's smug insistence that the origin of these features are not even part of the theory of evolution.  Either this is a Freudian slip admitting that in fact abiogenesis is contained within the 'evolutionary paradigm' or it is a failure to recall that Darwin himself was unaware of all of these features and that they were only uncovered by Mendel, a Christian (or at minimum, a deist), and a skeptic of evolutionary theory.  http://tomclegg.net/mendel

Far from being out of touch with the empirical realities, Mendelian genetics would force the entire theory of evolution into a revision, which you may recall is called the 'neo-darwinian' synthesis.  All Darwin did was create an explanatory filter.  He failed to apply rigorous scientific experimentation to his own theory.  He did not 'discover' even natural selection.  The real remarkable discovery made in the 19th century was genetics.  Funny how evolutionary theory had to move to make room for genetics and not the other way around.  Real science will do that.  One wonders how things would have fared if genetics would have been discovered sooner.  

Information as the foundational reality of what makes 'life.'  Before you can have selection, you've got to have something to select for or against.

As far as I know, with the exception of evolution itself, whenever information is present the most reasonable interpretation of that observation is that an intelligent agent is involved.  Evolution and/or abiogenesis is the sole exception.  

Thus, the presence of information systems and structures- genes, chromosomes, DNA, RNA, etc- really DOES fit neatly within the creationist paradigm which says there is an intelligent agent behind all this.  And even if you do not mean to speak about the origins of these elements (so as to quickly distance abiogenesis from evolution), natural selection and evolutionary theory still cannot account, not neatly, not even messily- it cannto account at all- for these features.  Like the mysterious 'neat' origin of life (somehow, God, we don't know how) as the assumption by which natural selection can work on, so too are these features assumed (they're here, we know that much) by the theory.

And anything assumed by the theory cannot also be explained by the theory.

You picked the absolute worst examples to include in your mocking 'neat' designation.

"Your focus on the word "neatly" exposes how weak your position really is. All I meant by it was that there was no alternative theory to explain those discoveries."

Oh, I see. Well, you may wish to try using words that communicate what you really mean, because there is a big difference between these two thoughts.  Thanks by backing away from 'neatly...' you must not think it is so 'neat' after all.  Good.  You can join me in the next rambunctious laugh at the person who suggests otherwise.

"It does?"

Yea it does.  So much for your quest for truth- you don't even understand the position you're mocking.  Real open minded, you are.

"The process is even self-correcting to a certain degree. "

To a very high degree, actually.  

"The theory of evolution is the bedrock of modern biology."

So they say.  Funny how little of it is usable from a practical point of view.  Genetics is the bedrock of modern biology- and it gets used all the time, doesn't it?  Question:  Do you need evolution to understand and apply genetics?  Nope.

Is genetics consistent with the view that there is an intelligent agent behind the organization of life?  You betcha.  Is genetics hard to explain via random, naturalistic processes?  Yep.  That's why YOU have to ASSUME it.

"What nonsense. You act as if theories are like religious doctrines--"

What is strikes me as nonsense is your ignorance and tainted view of history.  Sure, theories are open for tweaking.  The point is that Darwin's 'theory' only offered an interpretation of data.  It did not and still does not generate new data in a predictable way.

"Religion attempts to jump to ultimate truth (through revelation) without doing the hard work of finding a path through reality."

Well this is worth talking about, but I don't really think you're very credible.  You've derived your knowledge of 'religion' from fairly disreputable sources.  For example, you fail to realize that if you've got authorative revelation, then it makes perfect sense to use it.  After all, you also depend on revelation- only the people you trust are scientists.  This is revelation even if you don't call it that.  Its not the fallacy of authority if the authority is trustworthy, right?  Its the same thing.

"It means that serendipitous environmental changes"

Another fine quote.  :)  Ah yes, evolution is observationally the same as gravity.  Absolutely.  Yep.

"No conscious agent is needed to build new designs to anticipate changes."

As I pointed out, 'evolution' is the only example where anything close to being called a 'design' is given the latitude of being considered derived from non-agency.  You'll forgive me if I think that whatever appears to be designed is best explained by inferring a designer.  I don't make rational rules that only apply to my pet theories.  Thus, if I feel I reliably am in the presence of design, I'll infer a designer.   And no abuse from you will change that.

"Abiogenesis might be explained by an evolutionary process, but it is definitely not a necessary part of the theory of evolution. You continue to deny this, but that's a fact."

Well you're really not getting the point.  I don't really care if its a necessary part of the theory of evolution, per se.  I haven't been shy on my real point in bringing up this false dichotomy between the two things.

"But what do you mean by "with the exception of evolution itself". Aren't you just saying that intelligent design explains what evolution cannot (a la "God of Gaps" reasoning)?"

No, I'm saying that however well evolution might conceivably 'explain it' its always going to be by the use of myriads of epicycles, virtually none of them verifiable in any robust sense, and always because non-natural explanations are excluded by default, a priori.  Thus, it would be my argument that ID explains it BETTER, with less ad hoc insertions, and by taking the data as it is observed NOW.  Thus, rather than a 'God of the Gaps' reasoning at all, it would be positive evidence for the existence of a very powerful intellect.  My guess is that intellect is God.  It need not be specified.

If that is 'God of the Gaps' then so is finding the Microsoft OS on a disc and inferring a designer... only that would be "Gates of the Gaps" I suppose.  

"The problem is that we know of no cases where biological designs can be explained by agents other than ordinary human beings."

Human beings are agents.

"Evolution theory makes God unnecessary as an explanation of how biological organisms on earth came to be the way they are. You just can't live with that observation, can you?"

Its not really an observation, is it?  lol.  That's your whole point in trying to talk about gravitational 'theory' in comparison to evolutionary 'theory.'  However, your fallacy stinks.  Evolution cannot be considered a viable 'replacement' for God or any kind of agent if agents are not even allowed on the table for consideration!  The best and most you can say is, "Deliberately excluding non-natural and agency explanations, the best explanation we can come up with is 'X."

Thus, I do not feel threatened one bit by evolution, since by fiat it excludes other possible explanations from even being considered.

"That's your argument?  You have failed to name a single biological design that had to have been invented by an intelligent agent."

I don't need to.  I only need to think that in the presence of design, the best explanation is to infer a designer.  

I'm sure I can create a convoluted natural mechanism for how Windows XP was created, too, and maybe get it to work, but I hardly think that if I did I will have really done anything very impressive.  Except show how creative we can be.  :)   I don't have to show how something could NOT have been designed before I infer a designer.  That said, I know that the ID scientists have a much more stringent criteria where they do say that in order for something to be considered SCIENTIFICALLY established as being designed, this criteria should be met.  But that is a different discussion.

"Do a google search on 'RNA world', if you would like a reasonable hypothesis of how life could have arisen by evolutionary means."

Say no more.  :)


"It isn't that evolution disproves God's existence. It merely makes God an unnecessary hypothesis."

No it doesn't.  It doesn't even do that.  It excludes God or any agent from the very beginning.  I should like that people would be more upfront about such thigns, because then they wouldn't feel threatened at all by evolutionary theory.  If its excluded from the beginning and in fact the presupposition from the start is deliberately non-agency, non-natural, etc, then it may be you come up with some convoluted the process (which you call 'neat') that works (a million epicycles, but heliocentrism is excluded a priori, right?), but I am unaffected if I happen to think that an agency explanation is the BEST explanation.