John P

Uh, hate to tell you this, folks, but declaring well-known scientific facts to be true is not the same as declaring the Bible to be true

Maybe not but, to those who are not committed to either side of the argument, they sound pretty much the same. As you have said, there is no point in arguing with Pete and Iona. They aren't listening. The target audience is those who might be taken in by their nonsense. To do that you have to show WHY science gives better results. Setting "Evolution is true" against "The Bible is true" doesn't achieve that.

Part of the problem is distinguishing between the thing itself and the theory. Mrrzy said "I tried to explain that gravity was a theory ". Er, no it isn't. The Theory of Gravity is a theory. Gravity, as you so eloquently described, is an aspect of reality that we can all observe. So are light, heat, the Moon.... Try "Light is absolutely true", "Heat is absolutely true", "The Moon is absolutely true". Sorry, doesn't work for me. Yes, they exist but that isn't the same thing as being true.

My case is that the natural phenomenon itself is not capable of possessing the property "true" and that, as even Steve Shaw agrees, scientific theories should not be described as true.

Throwing around words like True and Believe plays into the hands of the creationists who would like to establish an equivalence between Creationism and Evolutionism(sic).