Start communicating

gluadys · Jun 1, 2005

razzelflabben said:
We take scraps of wood and remake it to use the natural variations in color and texture to make quilt type designs, then make that into home decor. Thanks for asking, the show is Fri., we are expected to do exceptionally well, if I can have everything ready!

Interesting. Do you have a web-site to showcase your designs?

gluadys said:
gluadys said:

Point is when we are doing science, scientific evidence is the only sort it is legitimate to present. That is why there are no scientific theories of creation or intelligent design. They don't present scientific evidence.

Dont' know what you are trying to say here.

Click to expand...

You said that both the theory of evolution and the theory of creation and the theory of intelligent design have problems when we look only at the scientific evidence presented.

My point is that when discussing scientific method and scientific findings, the only evidence we can present is scientific evidence. Any other sort of evidence takes us into metaphysics where anything goes.

I also agree that both the theory of creation and the theory of intelligent design have big, big problems when we look only at the scientific evidence. Looking only at the scientific evidence shows us there is no scientific evidence for either of these theories. Hence the quotes around theory when referring to them. As we already established, a theory cannot be scientific unless it does have scientific evidence to support it. Since neither creation(ism) nor intelligent design have any such evidence, they are not theories at all.

Whatever problems there may be with the theory of evolution, it is the only one that really does have supportive evidence. And it has a lot of supportive evidence. So it is the only one that constitutes a genuine scientific theory.

Agian, even the scientiest that observe the tests, present on occasion problems with assuming the findings to be evidence of the toe yet when someone comes here and raise the same questions, they are told that they have no understanding of science. Get real.

Click to expand...

You get real. Objections raised by scientists are not usually about the findings being evidence of the theory of evolution, but about some detail about how the process of evolution has worked in particular cases. Extrapolating from these to suggest the theory of evolution itself is in question is a bait-and-switch creationist tactic. A question over whether modern humans originated specifically in Africa or in several regions of the world does not cast doubt on the proposition that humans evolved from a primate ancestor they share with chimpanzees. You have to look at what the scientist is actually questioning, not just label every question as Look! A scientist doubts evolution! That is almost never the case.

I can only speak for myself here, but I don't read all the creationist mumbo jumbo not the evolutionist mumbo jumbo as a general rule. The questions I raise are based on the understanding of the evidence as presented it it overlaps the arguments of the individual theories, there is a problem somewhere in the communication of the evidence or it the way it is being applied if so many people have the same problem. That is why communication is necessary.

Click to expand...

Well, you have to take some responsibility for learning more about the subject too. Most people who have a problem with evolution simply havent learned much about it. They have vague notions half-remembered from high-school or TV documentaries. What they need is a simple, systematic presentation of the theory of evolution and the evidence which supports it. That is readily available at the local library or on-line. So, if you were to go to Understanding Evolution, read through it systematically, and then come here to ask some questions about something you dont understand, you would probably be up to speed, for a lay-person, in a couple of months.

Now, another group that has more significant problems with evolution, are those who have religious objections to it. These people are not just ignorant of the theory. They are given reasons to object to it by several creationist organizations and the churches which recommend them and their resources. And those resources go out of their way to misrepresent the theory of evolution and suggest all kinds of problems with it that are not really problems at all. People who have been immersed in this sort of anti-evolution education not only need to learn about evolution, they need to unlearn a lot of gibberish they think is evolution, but is not. Obviously, in this case, communication is especially difficult.

Edx · Jun 5, 2005

[=Ed] 1. ... pretend they are qualified to comment or know what they are talking about.

[=razzelflabben] So, a degree in a scientific field is now a pretense of being qualified. I think that is the first time I have heard that one. Thanks for enlightening us. The list I presented included the acedemic creditials of each person.

And as I have already told you you only have to fit one of the criteria in order to discredit yourself.

I also said that criteria points 1 and 4 can be negotiable, its 2 and 3 that are the most important ones.

[=Ed]2. ... intentionally distort, mislead or misrepresent anyone or anything.

[=razzelflabben] You are assuming that because the list was compiled by the ICR. that all those on the ste distort or mislead. to which I said, take your pick of those not listed with the ICR, you of course refused siting me as being lazy, so here is a list for you to choose from, after you have looked them all up, we can talk about individuals and then we can see who is being lazy.--snipped links--tm add to this the list I already gave you and then get back to me. Remember my claim was individual scientists so look each one up seperately that is, if you aren't too lazy to look at the sources I presented to you.

Yes I did call you lazy. I also called you cowardly and dishonest. I refused to "take my pick", because from your own admission the only thing you would apparently accept would be a complete refutation of every single person on that list. Now you have presented me many more lists, and have told me that I must refute all of them as well in order to prove you are wrong. This is also exactly what I said you would do: "you know as well as I do that even if I did refute them all here you could just throw another list at me." . You are also basically asking me to prove a negative, since even if I really did refute every one of those people you could always claim there was a credible creationist somewhere, and hiding, presumably.

Your list is a cowardly, dishonest cop out and you know this and that your argumment isnt worth a damn if you were to actually approach it properly. Now if you disagree I ask you again; pick any 1 or 2 people you think are the best examples and present it here like you were supposed to do to begin with.

[=Ed] 3. ... ignorantly distort, mislead or misrepresent anyone or anything.

[=razzelflabben] This is not something we can know about an individual unless they tell us they are..

Its perfectly simple. If they state a falsehood knowingly they are dishonestly misrepresenting the facts. If they state a falsehood ignorently they are ignorently misrepresenting the facts.

The OP ask people for their understanding of words and terms, not a discussion about who was right and who was wrong.

Which is all fine and good, but the problem with Creationists is they regurally dont understand scientific terms or use them in an inappropriate manor. So whats the good in getting people to tell you what they thinks terms mean, and not correct their errors? Scientific terms are not subjective.

But, you aren't willing to revise your criteria, so we will assume that scientific degrees from a reputable college or university equals lack of ignorance on the topic.

Like I say above and like Ive said before, you only have to fit one critera to discredit yourself not all of them. However 2 and 3 are the most important non-negotiable parts of the criteria.

I have also said all along that I am willing to change the criteria if need be, but you refuse to make any real suggestions to make it better so thats either a lie or you just never pay attention.

[=Ed]4. ... have wild paranoid conspiracy theories."

[=razzelflabben]Haven't read one of those on the issue of our origns yet, so that would leave all these as viable. Move on.

Every time a Creationist claims or implies some kind of plot by the scientific establishment or the government, or something to that respect, to keep Creationism out of schools or mainstream science, its a conspiracy theory. Kent Hovind is of course is the master of conspiracy theories, such as the one below where he claims people that accept evolution are being decieved by Satan. I cant think of any Creationist that does not have a conspiracy theory, but nevertheless I did say this point can be negotiated.

"There is definitely a conspiracy, but I dont think that it is a human conspiracy. I dont believe there is a smoke filled room where a group of men get together and decide to teach evolution in all the schools. I believe that it is at a much higher level. I believe that it is a Satanic conspiracy. The reason these different people come to the same conclusion is not because they all met together; it is because they all work for the devil. He is their leader and they dont even know it."

-Kent Hovind, "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution"

Actually, I just made the connection that your whole point was to get arguements on your other thread. You really need a creationist to help you out there and not someone like me.

No that wasnt my "whole point". My other thread was relevant to this one, that is why I was talking about it, and you've known that since I first started talking about this credible Creationist topic since I kept giving you a link. And you have shown yourself to be a Creationist in every way: in that you dont understand science, you dont undertsand evolution, you understand virtually nothing about this topic and show you are totally unwilling to correct your misunderstandings and really learn anything. Thats pretty much like every Creationist Ive come accross. You claim you have been labeled unfairly, but you have it backwards. Its what you have been saying that makes people think you are like a Creationist.

From my research Pasteur was a creationist.

The "research" you showed me? What you actually have is one highly questionable source that didnt give a reference, but you ignored that and the quote I gave from his biography because it didnt fit your argument. Now we cant know for sure if he was a Creationist or not, but like I keep saying it wouldnt matter anyway.

In addition, you were given an oppertunity to specify and you refused.

How many times did I tell you there were real scientists that were Creationits in the past? So you cite one of them that I had already acknoledged and you claimed you proved me wrong. No, sorry.

None the less, I gave you Pasteur and added a list of modern scientists to which you called me lazy because I gave you the right to pick and choose which you wanted to look at so as to not bind up your exceptions and thus keep the discussing to a miminum to which you continue you with this nonesence and personal attacks.

I called you lazy because you said I must discredit each and every one of those individuals, and even if I did that you could just throw another list at me, and just like I predicted that is exactly what you did do above. And how exactly did you think doing all that anyway would "keep the discussion to a minumum"? You knew of course that it couldnt if I really did do all that, thats why you said this at all, because you know I wouldnt be that stupid to actually try and refute each and every one of them.

Now what would be honest, and really "keep the discussion to a minumum" would be for you to do what I asked of you in the first place and pick 1 or 2 individuals who you think are the best examples and we will discuss them.

. I have been honest and upright with you and whether or not your believe me is not my burden but yours.

No you have been anything but honest and upright in this discussion.

Actually, I used their list because I found it convenient.

Well of course you did.

You were lazy enough to throw a list a me without doing any leg work yourself. You were lazy for claiming I had to discredit all of them in order to prove you wrong, and you are lazy in that you wont pick any 1 or 2 of who you consider the best examples and present them here like I kept asking for you to do. Yes, you chose the list because it was "convenient", because you are too lazy and cowardly to approach the argument in an honest way.

[=Ed] "I never claimed a credible source, ... I claimed a credible scientist". Now it was probably due to your own ineptitude through not paying attention that you had actually cited Pasteur in a direct responce to the posts about the 'credible scientific Creationist source challenge', but then instead of admitting that when it must have became apparent, you instead argued through it blaming it all on me claiming I wasnt listening to you."

[=razzelflabben] Already addressed move on

No you didnt.

Addressed above.

No you didnt. See above.

I don't even know what your point here is. What I did was like a list of scientists that have creditials that believe in creation rather than evolution. Which covers my claims.

No it doesnt. You even said, "I claimed a credible scientist". Key word: "credible". You arent really going to make me explain all this again are you...?

And btw I said," it was probably due to your own ineptitude through not paying attention that you had actually cited Pasteur in a direct responce to the posts about the 'credible scientific Creationist source challenge"

[=Ed] told you to pick 1 or 2 of those individuals who you feel are the best examples and present them here along with a link to something they have written. I told you that twice which was totally ignored both times..".

[=razzelflabben]Covered so many times now I am beginning to wonder what your point really is, if you are just one of those people who can't accept when he is wrong or his challenges are met.

How did you "cover it"? I keep telling you and you keep ignoring it.

I gave you a whole list of people of whom you have the freedom to choose from the entire list whom you would like to look at closer.

That was only after I told you that you couldnt cite Pasteur, then you got lazy.

And what can you mean by 'I have the freedom to choose'? You keep telling me I have to discredit each and every one of them, in order to prove you wrong. Even then, youve shown in this very post that you will just throw another list at me anyway. So wheres this "freedom" to choose? I dont think even you understand yourself anymore.

Well, lets break it down a bit, you were the first to bring up the courtroom,but that is not the issue,

No dear, I was not the first to bring up the courtroom. I was talkng about the scientific method comparing it to a criminal investigation to demonstrate neither faith or supernatural explanations can or should be used, and how the police investigations also use the scientific method. You then brought up judges, court rooms, lawyers and juries and each time you did I said you were wrong to equate science to a court room and how it was not relevant in any way.

I wonder if you will admit your error and retract this, for once.

Edx · Jun 5, 2005

just please keep the discussion and your comments straight. Second, I presented my findings from this thread to my peers for review, so why don't you believe what I found? Maybe because the peers that I presented it to were biased! If the peer review is biased, the results will be biased as well.

Oh man you cant be seriously comparing peer review to this forum? Sadly though, I think you are... I also wonder what "findings" you actually are talking about.

Note the first sentence in the "HOw it works" section of the above reference, only one or two people are required to review. If all of those people are biased to accept the results as evidence of evolution, what do you think will happen? That is why we have minds of our own and the capacity to think and reason for ourselves.

Im going to quote Aron Nelson since he knows better and puts it better than I could. I want to you retract your claims that peer review is anything like a jury, and that science isnt anything like a court room.

"Peer review definitely doesn't mean, 'review by your friends'. It means critical analysis. The whole purpose of peer review is to give experts, (and anyone else) an opportunity to find, and prove, the flaws in your idea. The expected bias is that everyone believes you're wrong, and they're all trying to prove that.

Now once someone does post a critical review bashing every mistake you made, and everything wrong with what you would rather believe, that criticism then must also endure peer-review, wherein everyone who cares to -adopts the bias that the original claim might not be as bad as the critics say, and now the review of it is what must be wrong.

Now if someone can post proof that you're wrong, and others review and test the proof with the same conclusion, then you're wrong, and if you're a creationist, you'll grab your toys and storm, and doubtless not learn or accept anything from it. But if someone posts a claim of proof which itself proves inaccurate, or inconclusive, then your critics have failed to discredit your claim. If what you propose is at all important, and if no one can find anything demonstrably or verifiably wrong with that concept, then you've probably got a substantial financial reward on the way"

"If you publish a paper to any peer-reviewed journal, the original paper can never be retracted, but it can be cited forever by critics whatever that paper proposes. Much like an online debate, you'e supposed to be able to sate critical analysis in future follow-up publications, and your reputation as a scientist is on the line each time. Creationists and IDiots can't witstand any critical inquiry since they're entirely faith-based and counter-evident, so they rarely even try to publish.

However, there have been one or two occasions where one of these people did try to publish their claims, but those attempted submissions were refused by the journal editors themselves on the grounds that they didn't want their publications to appear to support such indefensible hooey. That shouldn't happen, because it would be better to let crackpots have their soapbox if it means seeing every reason why these loonies are wrong, presented in the inevitable onslought to follow. Some journals just didn't want their reputations reduced by giving these twits the time of day as if they were legitimate."

-Aron Nelson

Whatever.

No, dont just brush this aside. If this behaviour of yours isnt intentional, why do you think you get into these arguments every single time and with every single person? Why is it that it always everyone elses fault that they cant communicate with you?

Actually, my claim has always been that credible is a relative term and therefore is not a sound discriptions of anything scientific.

Well if credible is so subjective in one moment it can merely mean someone "believable" and another moment has to be someone "without bias", then it has become meaningless. Its so amusing watch you subjectify words to the point where they can mean whatever you want at any given moment.

let's look at it honestly for a moment okay?

The claim was made that the theory of creation borrows from the theory of evolution. I pointed out to you that if either theory borrowed from the other it would have to be the other way arond in that the theory of evolution did not exist when the theory of creation was put forth in the Gen account of the bible.

Yes that is what you said. And what I said was this, which you ignored totally:

"...You comparing Evolution to Genesis is like me comparing Heliocentricity to the Hebrews idea of a flat earth saying that since their idea came first, scientists borrowed from them. In other words you cant possibly borrow from Genesis because there is simply nothing scientific about it to borrow from, its a completely erroneous comparison. If we were to look at Genesis from a scientific perspective its wrong in every way, and you cant learn any science from it. However you can kind of make things fit by twisting it after the fact." [page26,post255]

This is simple time frame understanding and doesn't require a science degree to determine that my children are descendants of me and me of them. Come now, do try to understand something, even the simplist things. It would be to your credit.

It would be wise to stow your misplaced arrogance before replying in this way again. It really does only make you look bad.

Actually, I accepted your reasons for not liking Pasteur to meet the criteria though it was not specified in the criteria given and I gave you further scientists that were "creationsist" so hummm, I wonder where I was wrong and how I didn't accept your claims????

You accepted my reasons for not accepting Pasteur? You havent even done so in this post let alone the others.. However if you are saying you ignored my reasons for not accepting Pasteur, it actually took you at least 3 replies before you totally ignored the issue all together. You have never admitted any of your errors, as we see below.

As for your further citation of the ICR list, I have told you what to do with it if you really believe ICR to be a reliable source. But you wont becuase from your own admission you only used that list because it was convienet, and you were too lazy to approach this properly.

Humm, the site I thought I referenced you to was all about Pasteur, I wonder what site got in the post instead.

Yes, it was all about Pasteur, however like I told you in my reply originally not only does that link not "hint at the opposite" to what I said it says nothing about Evolution nor even Darwin. It does not support your position in any way. Unless you would like to show me where exactly it "hints at the opposite" of what I said.

Me: Yes. Pasteur didnt write much on the subject, however like most french scientists at the time Pasteur didnt deny evolution but didnt accept natural selection as the cause. Creationists werent the anti-science variety we find today, anyway.
"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely" - Pasteur

You: this site hints as the opposite http://ambafrance-ca.org/HYPERLAB/PEOPLE/_pasteur.html

>page24,post235

Well, you were the first to bring up the courtroom, I simply was working with the example you brought up, if you remember, (if not look it up)

See end of post 1. And I did look it up. Now unless you can find an earlier comment by me, you first started the whole court room nonsence by saying: "Do you have "faith" "belief" that the police who investigate the crime know more about the actual crime than the judge does". You were the first to bring up court room proceedings, which I then told you on many occasions it is not relevant at all.

my original reference was the difference between who knew more about a crime, the police investigating or the judge hearing the case. My point is that if it is a biased review, it is not unbiased and does not necessarily equal fact.

Since science does not work like a court room, and there is no ultimate judge, and peer review does not work like a jury its a totally false comparision.

However my point that you twised was that faith has no use in science or in criminal investigations. This is a valid comparison. Nothing where we want to really know something has any use for faith, since the scientific method is the best way to really know things.

Actually, I thought there was a communication problem and that we could communicate to clarify but you had no interest in understanding the question and by the way, the last time I checked, the comment, "why is it important enough to even teach in schools?" does not mean why are we teaching evolution but rather why is our origins so important that it must be taught in school.

I already told you why. Because it is good to teach science in science classes.

What does our origins have to offer us and is more important than our present or our futures at least when talking about science. But that's okay, you misunsers6tood the question and have no interest in understanding the intent of the question but I am expected to appologize.

My answer was a logical understanding of what you wrote, but instead of just saying you yourself didnt phrase it better you decided to rudely make some totally irrelevant remark about your sons personal experience at school which anyone could see I obviously wasnt talking about.. Now I dont believe you are that slow, but that you did this on purpose. Why are origins such a hot topic? Because Creationists want it taught in schools, thats why. If we didnt have Creationists getting all hot and bothered about evolution it wouldnt be a "hot topic".

That is the same kind of nonesence that has prevaded the discussion from the start and is exactly why I asked for communication rather than "teaching" on the issues presented. Sorry, I won't appologize for your stuborness, because quite simply, I don't have any control over your behavior.

My "stuborness"?.. my my. . :yawn:

..Sorry, but these statements contradict each other:
"the question was not ...directed at what is taught in school."...."The question was totally unrealated to school".
...Verses ... "why is it important enough to even teach in schools? That was the original idea behind the question" .
So, was it related to schools or not?

Bring them on, I'd like to see how you have twisted my words to assume what it not there and refuse to communicate, proves interesting and more evidence for the predictions I have made and tested here.

I have been trying to communicate but you just flat out refuse. You use scientific terms in inappropriate ways, and fail to even attempt to understand evolution or science or anything relevant.

And whats the point in showing every other place you were wrong, when you wont even admit the simplest of errors? I havent got the time to go back and search for all of them, and it would take a while as there are so many. But I will mention one. You said I never told you the definition of evolution, except I have told you several times throughout this. Lazyness? Intentionally obtuse? Just not paying attention? I have no idea.

Ed

razzelflabben · Jun 6, 2005

JohnR7 said:
To be a little bit more accurate, it is not that we do not care. It is only that there is so much time in the day and we are limited in our resources to be able to help people. We care about the people who are perishing in sin and ignorance, but we are limited in how much we can do to help them.

John, this is not true either, as pointed out, there is much education out there from both sides, the problem is that neither side is willing to listen long enough to hear what is being said because they assume themselves to be correct and no amount of "education" will change their minds. It works on both sides of the issue this way, (and is very much so human nature to not like to be wrong,) which is why I was hopeful to get some actual communication going but alas it appears that most are too indoctrinated in their beliefs to have an honest look at the evidence or the theories much less the disagreements between the two.

razzelflabben · Jun 6, 2005

Humanista said:
If someone asks a question, and woven into the question is an assumption that is wrong,

Example: How do you explain the evidence of demons in the bloodstream?

should the person answering (1)address the wrong assumption,(and be scolded for making judgments)

There is no evidence of demons in the bloodstream.

(2) pretend it's true,(and be dishonest about their own position)

The devil must have put them there.

or (3)ignore the question and refuse to respond? (and be accused of failing to respond)

Looks like a no-win way of "communicating".

Is there another thread you would like someone to address, or is this just nonsense rambling? John was already told he was off a bit in what he said, don't see how starting a different topic is helpful to our discussion about evolution.

razzelflabben · Jun 6, 2005

gluadys said:
Interesting. Do you have a web-site to showcase your designs?

Not yet, we are working on it, but I am afraid it is a couple of month away, right now the best we can do (long distance) is emailed pictures, we resently go a permanent booth around here are a working on getting into a couple of stores.

You said that both the theory of evolution and the theory of creation and the theory of intelligent design have problems when we look only at the scientific evidence presented.

My point is that when discussing scientific method and scientific findings, the only evidence we can present is scientific evidence. Any other sort of evidence takes us into metaphysics where anything goes.

I agree if we are talking only about the theories. However, if we are talking about origins in general, there are many more avenues that can come into the discussion.

I also agree that both the theory of creation and the theory of intelligent design have big, big problems when we look only at the scientific evidence. Looking only at the scientific evidence shows us there is no scientific evidence for either of these theories. Hence the quotes around theory when referring to them. As we already established, a theory cannot be scientific unless it does have scientific evidence to support it. Since neither creation(ism) nor intelligent design have any such evidence, they are not theories at all.

Whatever problems there may be with the theory of evolution, it is the only one that really does have supportive evidence. And it has a lot of supportive evidence. So it is the only one that constitutes a genuine scientific theory.

Your opinion, cool, you won't mind then that my opinion includes the toe, based on the scientific evidences that have been presented. Being that we are talking about understandings of evidence and not trying to "teach" or "convince" anyone on this particular thread.

You get real. Objections raised by scientists are not usually about the findings being evidence of the theory of evolution, but about some detail about how the process of evolution has worked in particular cases. Extrapolating from these to suggest the theory of evolution itself is in question is a bait-and-switch creationist tactic. A question over whether modern humans originated specifically in Africa or in several regions of the world does not cast doubt on the proposition that humans evolved from a primate ancestor they share with chimpanzees. You have to look at what the scientist is actually questioning, not just label every question as Look! A scientist doubts evolution! That is almost never the case.

This is not what I said nor what I was referrring to, so I'm not sure what your point is. I have read many papers from scientists doing the research that say things like, it should be understood that this is not evidence for common decent but rather.... then when somone comes on the forum and says the exact same thing, they are told they don't understand science, scientific method, and the evidence. I perpose to you that if that is the case, then neither does the scientist that you are referenceing, I guess, that would mean that the "lay scientists" on the forum are the only reputable scientists out there huh? Sorry if I choose to not accept those lay scientists as the authority on our origins, I will stick to the real scientists thank you!

Well, you have to take some responsibility for learning more about the subject too. Most people who have a problem with evolution simply havent learned much about it. They have vague notions half-remembered from high-school or TV documentaries. What they need is a simple, systematic presentation of the theory of evolution and the evidence which supports it. That is readily available at the local library or on-line. So, if you were to go to Understanding Evolution, read through it systematically, and then come here to ask some questions about something you dont understand, you would probably be up to speed, for a lay-person, in a couple of months.

Now, another group that has more significant problems with evolution, are those who have religious objections to it. These people are not just ignorant of the theory. They are given reasons to object to it by several creationist organizations and the churches which recommend them and their resources. And those resources go out of their way to misrepresent the theory of evolution and suggest all kinds of problems with it that are not really problems at all. People who have been immersed in this sort of anti-evolution education not only need to learn about evolution, they need to unlearn a lot of gibberish they think is evolution, but is not. Obviously, in this case, communication is especially difficult.

I take full responsibility for what I know and don't know about the topic I even ask lots of questions when I am not sure what is being said or how it is being meant, only to be labeled and attacked as if I were stupid and unlearned, which is a common response of people who have been indoctrinated in thier "beliefs" and not simply educated in the facts. I wonder if that equals fact, evidence, assumptions, or just coincidence? It would be worth further exporation wouldn't it?

Physics_guy · Jun 6, 2005

Sorry if I choose to not accept those lay scientists as the authority on our origins, I will stick to the real scientists thank you!

Really? The real scientists out there seem to accept Common Descent and Theory of Evolution virtually unanimously. Even the Intelligent Design guys support Common Descent.

razzelflabben · Jun 6, 2005

Edx said:
[/i]

Boy you must have a lot of time on your hands. Okay, let's try this again and this time please do try to hear my words and thoughts and not assume what is not there.

And as I have already told you you only have to fit one of the criteria in order to discredit yourself.

I fit none, so does that make me, so what does that make me?

I also said that criteria points 1 and 4 can be negotiable, its 2 and 3 that are the most important ones.

[/i]

Yes I did call you lazy. I also called you cowardly and dishonest. I refused to "take my pick", because from your own admission the only thing you would apparently accept would be a complete refutation of every single person on that list. Now you have presented me many more lists, and have told me that I must refute all of them as well in order to prove you are wrong. This is also exactly what I said you would do: "you know as well as I do that even if I did refute them all here you could just throw another list at me." . You are also basically asking me to prove a negative, since even if I really did refute every one of those people you could always claim there was a credible creationist somewhere, and hiding, presumably.

What are you going on about anyway. We asked me for a reputable creationist. I give you a list to choose from because there are many more than just one, but instead of cutting to the chase, you attack my character because I answered your unfair challenge and raised you more than one. I really think it's time for you to face the fact that I met the challenge. If you don't like the way it was met, that's cool, but the challenge was met and exceeded. Get over it, admit you were wrong and move on.

Your list is a cowardly, dishonest cop out and you know this and that your argumment isnt worth a damn if you were to actually approach it properly. Now if you disagree I ask you again; pick any 1 or 2 people you think are the best examples and present it here like you were supposed to do to begin with.

My lists reflect the amount of time I have to spend on the forum dealing with unfair accusations and challenges. That is why you were asked to choose whom you wanted to from the list, because I have no time for your petty nonsense, especially when you refuse to listen to what is being said and instead rely on your assumptions to tell you "truth". If you met truth square in the eyes, you would ignore it and claim your understanding as truth, but wait.... isn't that what you have been accusing the creationist of doing, ignoring the truth when they see it face to face. HUMMMMMMMMM I wonder then if you are just like them, including to proud to admit it when you are wrong. Curious, very curious, maybe we should test your ideas a bit more. HUmmmmm! Naaww, I'll let you off this time as it goes against the heart of the OP. Hope to chat with you again sometime on a thread where we can delve into how indoctrinated you really are.

Its perfectly simple. If they state a falsehood knowingly they are dishonestly misrepresenting the facts. If they state a falsehood ignorently they are ignorently misrepresenting the facts.

Which is all fine and good, but the problem with Creationists is they regurally dont understand scientific terms or use them in an inappropriate manor. So whats the good in getting people to tell you what they thinks terms mean, and not correct their errors? Scientific terms are not subjective.

The point of the OP was to determine where the terms were not being understood equally and then take that knowledge to other discussions so as to be able to understand what one another was saying. But since you don't seem to be interested in gaining knowledge, just asserting that you know, this thread wasz not intended for you and I wouldn't expect you to understand it, or the value of it. Thanks for contributing though.

Like I say above and like Ive said before, you only have to fit one critera to discredit yourself not all of them. However 2 and 3 are the most important non-negotiable parts of the criteria.

I have also said all along that I am willing to change the criteria if need be, but you refuse to make any real suggestions to make it better so thats either a lie or you just never pay attention.

Every time a Creationist claims or implies some kind of plot by the scientific establishment or the government, or something to that respect, to keep Creationism out of schools or mainstream science, its a conspiracy theory. Kent Hovind is of course is the master of conspiracy theories, such as the one below where he claims people that accept evolution are being decieved by Satan. I cant think of any Creationist that does not have a conspiracy theory, but nevertheless I did say this point can be negotiated.

"There is definitely a conspiracy, but I dont think that it is a human conspiracy. I dont believe there is a smoke filled room where a group of men get together and decide to teach evolution in all the schools. I believe that it is at a much higher level. I believe that it is a Satanic conspiracy. The reason these different people come to the same conclusion is not because they all met together; it is because they all work for the devil. He is their leader and they dont even know it."

-Kent Hovind, "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution"

Sorry, never heard that one, I have heard hints of them existing but never actually read them or heard anyone asserting such.

No that wasnt my "whole point". My other thread was relevant to this one, that is why I was talking about it, and you've known that since I first started talking about this credible Creationist topic since I kept giving you a link. And you have shown yourself to be a Creationist in every way: in that you dont understand science, you dont undertsand evolution, you understand virtually nothing about this topic and show you are totally unwilling to correct your misunderstandings and really learn anything. Thats pretty much like every Creationist Ive come accross. You claim you have been labeled unfairly, but you have it backwards. Its what you have been saying that makes people think you are like a Creationist.

Again you assurt to know more about what I believe and think that I know. How do you justify this assumption? What strange powers give you the ability to know more about a person than they know about themselves. The christian generally believes that power is reserved for God, are you claiming to be God?

The "research" you showed me? What you actually have is one highly questionable source that didnt give a reference, but you ignored that and the quote I gave from his biography because it didnt fit your argument. Now we cant know for sure if he was a Creationist or not, but like I keep saying it wouldnt matter anyway.

Actually, if you read the reference I gave you, it refered to the information coming from the organization that has studies Pasteur and established a "legalally accepted" history of pastuers life. But then again, your interest was in proving me wrong not in learning anything, and I gave you Pastuer even though you are wrong on the way you represented the discussion.

How many times did I tell you there were real scientists that were Creationits in the past? So you cite one of them that I had already acknoledged and you claimed you proved me wrong. No, sorry.

I called you lazy because you said I must discredit each and every one of those individuals, and even if I did that you could just throw another list at me, and just like I predicted that is exactly what you did do above. And how exactly did you think doing all that anyway would "keep the discussion to a minumum"? You knew of course that it couldnt if I really did do all that, thats why you said this at all, because you know I wouldnt be that stupid to actually try and refute each and every one of them.

See, here is your problem. I did not tell you to discredit each and every one, I told you to choose from the list any non ICR scientist that you wanted to prove non credible. Please do try to listen occasionally. Thanks I know you are not programed to do so, but I really would be to your credit and help you to make your points if you put more into listening and less into proving you were right.

Now what would be honest, and really "keep the discussion to a minumum" would be for you to do what I asked of you in the first place and pick 1 or 2 individuals who you think are the best examples and we will discuss them.
No you have been anything but honest and upright in this discussion.

Wrong, but that is your problem and not mine. The burden I bear is to be as honest and upright as possible when discussing anything, on the forum and off. People who know me know this and accept it. And having said that, I will dismiss your accusations as ignorance and move on.

Well of course you did.

You were lazy enough to throw a list a me without doing any leg work yourself. You were lazy for claiming I had to discredit all of them in order to prove you wrong, and you are lazy in that you wont pick any 1 or 2 of who you consider the best examples and present them here like I kept asking for you to do. Yes, you chose the list because it was "convenient", because you are too lazy and cowardly to approach the argument in an honest way.

Actually what I was and still am is toooooo busy to nit pick with someone who has no interested in learning what others think and why and even less time to nit pick with someone who refuses to accept what it right in front of their face because it goes against what they were taught and believe. If that makes me lazy in your eyes, so be it. But what it really makes me is someone who chooses to save my time and arguements for someone willing to listen and discuss rather than someone who must prove themselves right all the time.

No you didnt.

No you didnt. See above.
No it doesnt. You even said, "I claimed a credible scientist". Key word: "credible". You arent really going to make me explain all this again are you...?

And btw I said," it was probably due to your own ineptitude through not paying attention that you had actually cited Pasteur in a direct responce to the posts about the 'credible scientific Creationist source challenge"

How did you "cover it"? I keep telling you and you keep ignoring it.

That was only after I told you that you couldnt cite Pasteur, then you got lazy.

And what can you mean by 'I have the freedom to choose'? You keep telling me I have to discredit each and every one of them, in order to prove you wrong. Even then, youve shown in this very post that you will just throw another list at me anyway. So wheres this "freedom" to choose? I dont think even you understand yourself anymore.

see above.

No dear, I was not the first to bring up the courtroom. I was talkng about the scientific method comparing it to a criminal investigation to demonstrate neither faith or supernatural explanations can or should be used, and how the police investigations also use the scientific method. You then brought up judges, court rooms, lawyers and juries and each time you did I said you were wrong to equate science to a court room and how it was not relevant in any way.

look it up dear one, you brought up juries and courtrooms, the extent of my comparison was police and judges and that only to discuss authorities and the understanding thereof. It's a matter of record. Only after to pressed the issue did I bring jurers into the equasion.

I wonder if you will admit your error and retract this, for once.

Show me my error and I will. The only thing I brought up was how we must determine which authority we trust, the police investigating the crime or the judge listening to the lawyers. To this you made the claim that I was talking about a courtroom and all kinds of other nonsense. Show me differently or admit your mistake.

Edx · Jun 6, 2005

razzelflabben said:
John, this is not true either, as pointed out, there is much education out there from both sides, the problem is that neither side is willing to listen long enough to hear what is being said because they assume themselves to be correct and no amount of "education" will change their minds. It works on both sides of the issue this way, (and is very much so human nature to not like to be wrong,) which is why I was hopeful to get some actual communication going but alas it appears that most are too indoctrinated in their beliefs to have an honest look at the evidence or the theories much less the disagreements between the two.

And you sound so sincere too.

Ed

razzelflabben · Jun 6, 2005

Edx said:
Oh man you cant be seriously comparing peer review to this forum? Sadly though, I think you are... I also wonder what "findings" you actually are talking about.

Oh how sad that you don't understand the simplist concepts and ideas presented to you. The point is, that no matter how "good" a system of peer review is, if the peers are biased, the results will reflect that bias. Now that truely is so earth shattering that you must disagree with me and go on for pages and pages and pages about how I don't understand peer review right?!?

Im going to quote Aron Nelson since he knows better and puts it better than I could. I want to you retract your claims that peer review is anything like a jury, and that science isnt anything like a court room.

"Peer review definitely doesn't mean, 'review by your friends'. It means critical analysis. The whole purpose of peer review is to give experts, (and anyone else) an opportunity to find, and prove, the flaws in your idea. The expected bias is that everyone believes you're wrong, and they're all trying to prove that.

Now once someone does post a critical review bashing every mistake you made, and everything wrong with what you would rather believe, that criticism then must also endure peer-review, wherein everyone who cares to -adopts the bias that the original claim might not be as bad as the critics say, and now the review of it is what must be wrong.

Now if someone can post proof that you're wrong, and others review and test the proof with the same conclusion, then you're wrong, and if you're a creationist, you'll grab your toys and storm, and doubtless not learn or accept anything from it. But if someone posts a claim of proof which itself proves inaccurate, or inconclusive, then your critics have failed to discredit your claim. If what you propose is at all important, and if no one can find anything demonstrably or verifiably wrong with that concept, then you've probably got a substantial financial reward on the way"

"If you publish a paper to any peer-reviewed journal, the original paper can never be retracted, but it can be cited forever by critics whatever that paper proposes. Much like an online debate, you'e supposed to be able to sate critical analysis in future follow-up publications, and your reputation as a scientist is on the line each time. Creationists and IDiots can't witstand any critical inquiry since they're entirely faith-based and counter-evident, so they rarely even try to publish.

However, there have been one or two occasions where one of these people did try to publish their claims, but those attempted submissions were refused by the journal editors themselves on the grounds that they didn't want their publications to appear to support such indefensible hooey. That shouldn't happen, because it would be better to let crackpots have their soapbox if it means seeing every reason why these loonies are wrong, presented in the inevitable onslought to follow. Some journals just didn't want their reputations reduced by giving these twits the time of day as if they were legitimate."

-Aron Nelson

You know what, I'm glad you quoted Mr. Nelson because the quote shows perfectly the point I am making, on two different levels. Level one, a discussion of what peer review is can't even present an unbiased evaluation of peer presure, it must rely on creationist bashing to make it's point (VERY UNSCIENTIFIC BY THE WAY) and secondly by admitting that when creationist scientists are right on a matter, they are banned from the journals anyway. This is what I have claimed from the start, if the peer review is biased, the results will be biased as well. An unobjective look is not a good source for knowing truth. Thanks for making my point for me. Now let's see how you twist it to say something else so you can deny responsibility for your own claims.

No, dont just brush this aside. If this behaviour of yours isnt intentional, why do you think you get into these arguments every single time and with every single person? Why is it that it always everyone elses fault that they cant communicate with you?

Problem is, I don't, sometimes, people take the time to talk to me.

Well if credible is so subjective in one moment it can merely mean someone "believable" and another moment has to be someone "without bias", then it has become meaningless. Its so amusing watch you subjectify words to the point where they can mean whatever you want at any given moment.

Look at the definitions instead of claiming what is not said, or at least misrepresenting what is said.

Yes that is what you said. And what I said was this, which you ignored totally:

"...You comparing Evolution to Genesis is like me comparing Heliocentricity to the Hebrews idea of a flat earth saying that since their idea came first, scientists borrowed from them. In other words you cant possibly borrow from Genesis because there is simply nothing scientific about it to borrow from, its a completely erroneous comparison. If we were to look at Genesis from a scientific perspective its wrong in every way, and you cant learn any science from it. However you can kind of make things fit by twisting it after the fact." [page26,post255]

Didn't ignore it, just didn't delve into your nonsense being that it was evident you weren't listening and didn't have any intent on doing so. Trying to move on and give the thread a chance to be what it was intended to be. And by the way, the toc can and does make predictions that can and are evidenced by science. And no that doesn't make it a scientfic theory however, it does paint a much more honest picture of the creation story than what you are trying to paint.

It would be wise to stow your misplaced arrogance before replying in this way again. It really does only make you look bad.

You were the one making claims that voided the basic understandings it appeared that you needed a review of the basics. You really can't understand anything about the toc much less the toe if you assume that the toc borrows from the toe in that the toc came first.

You accepted my reasons for not accepting Pasteur? You havent even done so in this post let alone the others.. However if you are saying you ignored my reasons for not accepting Pasteur, it actually took you at least 3 replies before you totally ignored the issue all together. You have never admitted any of your errors, as we see below.

You are tiring, I told you that that was not part of your criteria but...... then gave you the additional list. What do you call that??????????? I call it giving you the point even if you are wrong!!!!!

As for your further citation of the ICR list, I have told you what to do with it if you really believe ICR to be a reliable source. But you wont becuase from your own admission you only used that list because it was convienet, and you were too lazy to approach this properly.

see above post.

Yes, it was all about Pasteur, however like I told you in my reply originally not only does that link not "hint at the opposite" to what I said it says nothing about Evolution nor even Darwin. It does not support your position in any way. Unless you would like to show me where exactly it "hints at the opposite" of what I said.

Me: Yes. Pasteur didnt write much on the subject, however like most french scientists at the time Pasteur didnt deny evolution but didnt accept natural selection as the cause. Creationists werent the anti-science variety we find today, anyway.
"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely" - Pasteur

You: this site hints as the opposite http://ambafrance-ca.org/HYPERLAB/PEOPLE/_pasteur.html

>page24,post235

see above.

See end of post 1. And I did look it up. Now unless you can find an earlier comment by me, you first started the whole court room nonsence by saying: "Do you have "faith" "belief" that the police who investigate the crime know more about the actual crime than the judge does". You were the first to bring up court room proceedings, which I then told you on many occasions it is not relevant at all.

Note nothing about a courtroom! The judge listens to the lawyers, which were not even mentioned here, no mention of courtroom, jury, lawyers, criminal, etc. It is a simple question about authority of which you have twisted and manipulated and made false accusations of which I will not ask nor expect you to admit to because it is obvious your pride is a problem for you. I will give you time and space to grow and simply point out your error, leave the posts to speak for themselves.

Since science does not work like a court room, and there is no ultimate judge, and peer review does not work like a jury its a totally false comparision.

The comparison was about choosing what authority you accept, and not about science and scientific method and scientific review, I would think after so many pages of explaination, you would begin to understand that by now, but that is not pride works, it refusses to allow us to accept errors within ourselves.

However my point that you twised was that faith has no use in science or in criminal investigations. This is a valid comparison. Nothing where we want to really know something has any use for faith, since the scientific method is the best way to really know things.

I already told you why. Because it is good to teach science in science classes.

But as discussed and as pointed out in your reference on the topic, the toe is not science as a whole. IOW's our understanding of science is not based on the toe but some is based on evolution. The two not being the same thing, the question then has not been answered. Why is teaching anything about our orgins so important that we have arguements upon arguements about it. And by the way, I asked my husband to read my question, without any further explaination and he understood it perfectly well.

My answer was a logical understanding of what you wrote, but instead of just saying you yourself didnt phrase it better you decided to rudely make some totally irrelevant remark about your sons personal experience at school which anyone could see I obviously wasnt talking about.. Now I dont believe you are that slow, but that you did this on purpose. Why are origins such a hot topic? Because Creationists want it taught in schools, thats why. If we didnt have Creationists getting all hot and bothered about evolution it wouldnt be a "hot topic".

And since we are on the topic, I read your reply to my husband as well and he interpreted it the same way I did. I would have asked someone else but no one was available at the time. So don't be tooo hasty to assume that it is a logical understanding that you gave. Now, back to the question. Note in the op asking the question, there were qualifiers placed, those being that our present and our future would seem to be of more importance than our origins. Also note in that same post that the question that I specified origins (origins meaning any or all of the theories or stories of how life came about) and not specific to evolution, creation, or any other theory. Also note in the OP question that the question about our schools was about teaching origins in schools and not a specific theory thus your answer falls short. In addition, when pressed, your answer assumed that the question was talking about teaching evolution vs. creation which was no where in the question and upon even further questioning, you continues to assert that the toe is what modern science is based on while the cite you referenced clearly says evolution and the the toe and this was pointed out to you but you neither corrected your words nor offered explaination, but ignored the issues to assert that you are right and I refuse to admit I was wrong. Before I can admit I was wrong, I must understand what I was wrong about which you are unwilling to point out. If you cannot show be my error, get over it and move on.

My

Click to expand...

"stuborness"?.. my my. . ..Sorry, but these statements contradict each other:
"the question was not ...directed at what is taught in school."...."The question was totally unrealated to school".
...Verses ... "why is it important enough to even teach in schools? That was the original idea behind the question" .
So, was it related to schools or not?

see above. The issue is that our origins is not that important of a topic. In fact, it is such a minor topic that we shouldn't teach it at all in our schools, yet we do teach it and get into heated discussions about it and so, the question once again arises, why?

I have been trying to communicate but you just flat out refuse. You use scientific terms in inappropriate ways, and fail to even attempt to understand evolution or science or anything relevant.

And whats the point in showing every other place you were wrong, when you wont even admit the simplest of errors? I havent got the time to go back and search for all of them, and it would take a while as there are so many. But I will mention one. You said I never told you the definition of evolution, except I have told you several times throughout this. Lazyness? Intentionally obtuse? Just not paying attention? I have no idea.

Ed

oh please do show me what scientific terms I refuse to use appropriately, I would honestly love to know. The only one I know of at this time is the toc and I accept that you do not acknowledge the term but have also expressed to you why I accept it and how I understand it and that if any term exists it has some meaning therefore that meaning must be understood on some level. HUmmm, so again I am wrong and that means that I have no understanding of science and scientific methods. OKay then! moving on!

Humanista · Jun 6, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Is there another thread you would like someone to address, or is this just nonsense rambling? John was already told he was off a bit in what he said, don't see how starting a different topic is helpful to our discussion about evolution.

I was responding to this:

This thread is about communication, you and others have made it about who is right and who is wrong and who believes what and who is .....never listening, never learning, never communicating about the differences but always judging.

Not much of this thread is actually about evolution.

Jet Black · Jun 7, 2005

start learning.

Humanista · Jun 7, 2005

leave the posts to speak for themselves.

Yes, they certainly do! Edx and gluadys, I wish I could rep you more for your patience.

Humanista · Jun 7, 2005

I have a couple of clarification questions.

razzelflabben said:
I specified origins (origins meaning any or all of the theories or stories of how life came about) and not specific to evolution, creation, or any other theory.

So origins can be scientific explanations,or non-scientific explanation or myths from any culture, is that what you mean? Origins just means some sort of explanation of how life came to be?

Also note in the OP question that the question about our schools was about teaching origins in schools and not a specific theory thus your answer falls short.

So is it your understanding that schools in general--public and private---are currently teaching a topic called "origins" which includes all sources of explanation(scientific, non-scientific, religious, mythical, science fiction) in regard to how life came to be? Or are you saying it should or shouldn't be on the curriculum? Or do you mean if they are going to teach it, give all the hundreds of explanations equal time and respect?

In addition, when pressed, your answer assumed that the question was talking about teaching evolution vs. creation which was no where in the question

Have you ever heard of a debate or controversy on "origins" that was not about evolution and creationism? Will you at least affirm that MOST of the controversy is about evolution and ID or creationism, not just a vague umbrella term "origins"? And if you admit that evolution/creationism IS the very thing people discuss in regard to teaching in schools (How many debates are there on teaching the Raelian explanation?), then why is it so outrageous to you that anyone assume "teaching origins in schools" is about evolution and ID?

and upon even further questioning, you continues to assert that the toe is what modern science is based on

Are you sure Edx is asserting that modern science is based on ToE and not the scientific method?

The issue is that our origins is not that important of a topic. In fact, it is such a minor topic that we shouldn't teach it at all in our schools, yet we do teach it and get into heated discussions about it and so, the question once again arises, why?

Click to expand...

If you don't want the term " origins" to refer to evolution or ID or creationism, what is it that is being taught in the schools? I don't understand why you object to anyone interpreting origins to mean evolution/ID in the context of what is taught in schools, if evolution/ID is the only sort of origins that IS being taught or debated.

You say origins--meaning any explanation of where life came from--is unimportant and not worthy of education attention. Yet you admit science is important and evolutionary theory is science and that it is also part of "origins". Why would a huge scientific subject matter not be taught, or called unimportant? Perhaps the narrow subtopic of abiogenesis is not a critical topic, but how life changes over time is. And people do not go crazy over the teaching of abiogenesis.

razzelflabben · Jun 7, 2005

Physics_guy said:
Really? The real scientists out there seem to accept Common Descent and Theory of Evolution virtually unanimously. Even the Intelligent Design guys support Common Descent.

The only problem I have with common descent is finding the actual evidence (not assumptions of the evidence) to show common descent as fact. That would seem to make me a skeptic rather than an creationist, but oh well, you people are so very much smarter than anyone else, that I'm sure that I am a creationist because you tell me I am, I wonder how many creationists could accept common descent if actual evidence was shown and not assumptions. Oh that's right, none, that is why someonw willing to accept it is a creationist, you people truely do have dizzying intellects, that is why your arguements always go in circles. Thanks for clarifying what a creationist is for all of us. I'm sure that will help our communication on the issue.

razzelflabben · Jun 7, 2005

Humanista said:
I have a couple of clarification questions.

So origins can be scientific explanations,or non-scientific explanation or myths from any culture, is that what you mean? Origins just means some sort of explanation of how life came to be?

Origins is the discussion of how life came to being. I don't think that has been a big secret during this entire discussion. The question was why are our origins so important and not why is the toe or the toc so important. Two different topics. is that why you didn't understand the question?

So is it your understanding that schools in general--public and private---are currently teaching a topic called "origins" which includes all sources of explanation(scientific, non-scientific, religious, mythical, science fiction) in regard to how life came to be? Or are you saying it should or shouldn't be on the curriculum? Or do you mean if they are going to teach it, give all the hundreds of explanations equal time and respect?

The question is not about what the schools are or are not teaching the question is why the schools feel compelled to teach anything about our origins. That is the question, not should schools teach the toe, the toc, the to spontaneous combustion, but why should the schools feels compelled to teach anything about our origins.

Have you ever heard of a debate or controversy on "origins" that was not about evolution and creationism? Will you at least affirm that MOST of the controversy is about evolution and ID or creationism, not just a vague umbrella term "origins"? And if you admit that evolution/creationism IS the very thing people discuss in regard to teaching in schools (How many debates are there on teaching the Raelian explanation?), then why is it so outrageous to you that anyone assume "teaching origins in schools" is about evolution and ID?

Right, debates are usually about the toe or the toc, but the question is not about which theory should be taught, it is about why the schools should be compelled to teach anything about our origins, much less why should anyone get so distrot about our origins that it turns into an arguement. That is the question, asked about a hundred different times now.

Are you sure Edx is asserting that modern science is based on ToE and not the scientific method?

Well, when I asked him to clarify, he didn't say anything that would change the understanding of the original words, that the toe is our basis for modern biology. Note the words toe were specified as a problem and there was no denying of the words.

If you don't want the term " origins" to refer to evolution or ID or creationism, what is it that is being taught in the schools? I don't understand why you object to anyone interpreting origins to mean evolution/ID in the context of what is taught in schools, if evolution/ID is the only sort of origins that IS being taught or debated.

I intended the term origins to mean what it means, the origins of life. I did not say why is the debate over evolution or creation so hot an issue, but rather our origins, how life began.

You say origins--meaning any explanation of where life came from--is unimportant and not worthy of education attention. Yet you admit science is important and evolutionary theory is science and that it is also part of "origins". Why would a huge scientific subject matter not be taught, or called unimportant? Perhaps the narrow subtopic of abiogenesis is not a critical topic, but how life changes over time is. And people do not go crazy over the teaching of abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

I have not problem with teaching science in schools, nor even abiogenesis, but there are many things and aspects of science that are not covered in the public schools, largely because of the amount of time teachers have to cover topics, so why is the issue of our origins so important (note origins not debate) that it must have a reserved spot in our education, aren't there many many many many more important parts of science that could take the place of a discussion of our origins in our classrooms? That is the question, I think I have said it about 1000 different times now, at least it feels like about 10000 times. Thanks for listening and trying to keep up.

Edx · Jun 7, 2005

I will respond to the other post when I have time, but I couldnt let this go...

razzelflabben said:
Well, when I asked him to clarify, he didn't say anything that would change the understanding of the original words, that the toe is our basis for modern biology. Note the words toe were specified as a problem and there was no denying of the words.

Like I told you before, the theory of evolution is the single unifying theory that ties modern biology together. I really have no idea how you managed to twist that into , "you continues to assert that the toe is what modern science is based on".

It would be lovelly if you could stop misrepresenting me and discuss what Im actually saying. Everytime you reply, I am truly taken aback at how you manage to distort everything so everytime Im accused of saying something unbelievably stupid.

I have not problem with teaching science in schools, nor even abiogenesis, but there are many things and aspects of science that are not covered in the public schools, largely because of the amount of time teachers have to cover topics, so why is the issue of our origins so important (note origins not debate) that it must have a reserved spot in our education, aren't there many many many many more important parts of science that could take the place of a discussion of our origins in our classrooms? That is the question, I think I have said it about 1000 different times now, at least it feels like about 10000 times. Thanks for listening and trying to keep up.

Well Im going to answer you, again. Abiogenesis is science, and evolution is science. It is important to teach science in schools. We should teach kids about Evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang for the same reason we should teach them about geology, germ theory, gravity and aerodynamics. Science should be taught in science classes' so that is why its there and should be there. It doesnt matter if you personally think one part of science doesnt really matter.

Abiogenesis is also nothing to do with the theory of evolution except in the loose sence. Evolution is the change in alle frequencies over time, so when you have no alles you have no evolution. To clarify Evolution is not about "how life started", thats abiogenesis and a seperate theory. Neither of which requires the other in order to be valid. Various comments show you dont really understand this. Ive already given you Arons clear definitions of both Evolution and abiogenesis so I really suggest you go back and read them, or click here.

Ed

razzelflabben · Jun 7, 2005

Oh Boy this is going to be fun!

Edx said:
I will respond to the other post when I have time, but I couldnt let this go...

Like I told you before, the theory of evolution is the single unifying theory that ties modern biology together. I really have no idea how you managed to twist that into , "you continues to assert that the toe is what modern science is based on".

Post 285 page. 29 Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that actually thinks science education in schools is actually good, so thats a education issue.
I suggest you read this:
http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/NABTstatmnt.html

Now before we delve into the question I ask of you on this statement, let's look at a quote from the reference you provided us with.

[font=Arial, sans-serif]As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." This often-quoted assertion accurately illuminates the central, unifying role of evolution in nature, and therefore in biology. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically-honest manner requires classroom discussions and laboratory experiences on evolution.[/font]

To which I asked you if you were saying that the toe is the framework, or that evolution was as is stated in the reference you gave to us. You gave no clear answer, so I pushed you to give us your definition for toe and you got all upset. Your words said, TOE, and when you were asked to clarify you refused, so we then must assume that you intended to say the toe and that you believe that the toe is the framework of modern biology and to that I say, you are wrong and to that your reference says to you you are wrong. So I guess that means that your reference, The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), is no more knowledgable of science, scientific method, or the toe than I am, I wonder why you even used this cite as a reference if it doesn't support what you are saying? HUMMM?????? That dizzying intellect is back.

Well Im going to answer you, again. Abiogenesis is science, and evolution is science. It is important to teach science in schools. We should teach kids about Evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang for the same reason we should teach them about geology, germ theory, gravity and aerodynamics. Science should be taught in science classes' so that is why its there and should be there. It doesnt matter if you personally think one part of science doesnt really matter.

Okay, I see you will never answer the question, sorry that you feel it is beneath you to answer the questions asked of you but that is your problem and not mine. If you care, the question is related to the question, why shouldn't we focus on more important scientific questions and discoveries than that of our origins. But that is okay, ignor the question and pages and pages later we can claim that you won because you hid from the reality of the discussion, hiding behind you twisted claims and arrogant additudes, attacking the person and not the arguements. It is a well used tactic by those who are endoctinated, and one in which I refuse to take personnally. Thanks for showing your real colors. That is sure to help in future discussions.

Abiogenesis is also nothing to do with the theory of evolution except in the loose sence. Evolution is the change in alle frequencies over time, so when you have no alles you have no evolution. To clarify Evolution is not about "how life started", thats abiogenesis and a seperate theory neither requiring the other in order to be valid. Various comments show you dont really understand this. Ive already given you Arons clear definitions of both Evolution and abiogenesis so I really suggest you go back and read them, or click here.

Ed

And yet you claim that it is the toe that is the I'll try to find the time to look up the exact quote used in page. 30 post 295 tomorrow, it was a direct quote because I found you claim odd after reading page 29 post 285, but then maybe I shouldn't have found it odd, since very little of what you say is consistant.

Humanista · Jun 7, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Origins is the discussion of how life came to being. I don't think that has been a big secret during this entire discussion. The question was why are our origins so important and not why is the toe or the toc so important. Two different topics. is that why you didn't understand the question?

Thank you for attempting to clarify. Who do you think is of the opinion that origins (not evolution or creationism) is important?

The question is not about what the schools are or are not teaching the question is why the schools feel compelled to teach anything about our origins. That is the question, not should schools teach the toe, the toc, the to spontaneous combustion, but why should the schools feels compelled to teach anything about our origins.

And it has been answered.

Right, debates are usually about the toe or the toc, but the question is not about which theory should be taught, it is about why the schools should be compelled to teach anything about our origins, much less why should anyone get so distrot [sic)about our origins that it turns into an arguement(sic). That is the question, asked about a hundred different times now.

No one is getting distraught about origins, because origins (as in not toc or toe) isn't being taught at all.

Well, when I asked him to clarify, he didn't say anything that would change the understanding of the original words, that the toe is our basis for modern biology. Note the words toe were specified as a problem and there was no denying of the words.

Note that biology and science are not the same. Evolutionary theory is the basis for modern biology. This is not the same as saying it(evolutionary theory) is the basis or modern science. There is no denying these words.

I intended the term origins to mean what it means, the origins of life. I did not say why is the debate over evolution or creation so hot an issue, but rather our origins, how life began.

I don't think origins is a hot, debatable topic to very many people.

I have not problem with teaching science in schools, nor even abiogenesis, but there are many things and aspects of science that are not covered in the public schools, largely because of the amount of time teachers have to cover topics, so why is the issue of our origins so important (note origins not debate) that it must have a reserved spot in our education, aren't there many many many many more important parts of science that could take the place of a discussion of our origins in our classrooms?

Note that the other aspects of origins (outside evolution) are not scientific, so why would science teachers cover them? Why would science teachers explain say, Navajo myth stories of creation? Origins (used as the all-encompassing defintion you give it) does NOT have a reserved spot in education, science does. And evolution is an important aspect of science, so time is devoted to it, just as it is to other scientific areas.

That is the question, I think I have said it about 1000 different times now, at least it feels like about 10000 times. Thanks for listening and trying to keep up.

Humblest apologies for my abjectly inferior mental capabilities. I know it must sorely try the patience of such an intellectual giant as yourself and I plead with you to forgive my pathetic efforts to "keep up". Remember we little people with compassion, I hear it's the Christian way.

Edx · Jun 7, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Post 285 page. 29 Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that actually thinks science education in schools is actually good, so thats a education issue.
I suggest you read this:
http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/NABTstatmnt.html

Now before we delve into the question I ask of you on this statement, let's look at a quote from the reference you provided us with.

[font=Arial, sans-serif]As stated in The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." This often-quoted assertion accurately illuminates the central, unifying role of evolution in nature, and therefore in biology. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically-honest manner requires classroom discussions and laboratory experiences on evolution.[/font]

All good so far.

To which I asked you if you were saying that the toe is the framework, or that evolution was as is stated in the reference you gave to us. You gave no clear answer,

Oh really? I dont actually remember that at all. I remember telling you exactly what Ive told you here. Yes, it is the framework of modern biology, the single unifying theory. But that isnt in anyway saying that modern science is based on the theory of evolution. Why would I say something so ridiculous? I really cant understand how you could have manged to twist it so badly, unless it was intentional.

so I pushed you to give us your definition for toe and you got all upset.

What are you talking about? You've asked me many times and Ive answered you many times. Yet in post 291 on page 30 you still actually claim I never gave you any answer at all. Just how many times do you want me to do it?

Your words said, TOE, and when you were asked to clarify you refused,

Refused? I would like you to actually show me where you are talking about because I have answered you every time. The theory of evolution is a biological theory, Im not talking about the evolution as used in commen vernacular to simply mean "change". Ive told you all this before, Im not sure how else I can say it.

so we then must assume that you intended to say the toe and that you believe that the toe is the framework of modern biology and to that I say, you are wrong and to that your reference says to you you are wrong.

So I guess that means that your reference, The American Biology Teacher by the eminent scientist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), is no more knowledgable of science, scientific method, or the toe than I am, I wonder why you even used this cite as a reference if it doesn't support what you are saying? HUMMM?????? That dizzying intellect is back

You still havent told me how me saying this:

"Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together"

means this... "the toe is what modern science is based"

Okay, I see you will never answer the question, sorry that you feel it is beneath you to answer the questions asked of you but that is your problem and not mine. If you care, the question is related to the question, why shouldn't we focus on more important scientific questions and discoveries than that of our origins.

I did answer the question, and as clearly as I could. I'll even try it again.

Why shouldnt we focus on more important scientific questions? Because just because you deem one aspect of science to not be important enough to teach, it is nevertheless science and the cornerstone of modern biology so what could really be more important than teaching that?

Just because you dont like the answer, to continually claim I am not answering the question is just downright dishonest.

But that is okay, ignor the question and pages and pages later we can claim that you won because you hid from the reality of the discussion, hiding behind you twisted claims and arrogant additudes, attacking the person and not the arguements. It is a well used tactic by those who are endoctinated, and one in which I refuse to take personnally. Thanks for showing your real colors. That is sure to help in future discussions.

Attacking the person? Could you be any more hypocritical please? I have been continually frustrated with you, yes. I have been hard on you when you twist and turn from one position to the next, rendering words meaningless when it suits you and when you misrepresent my position. I havent however done anything like what you have done to myself and others where you patronisingly claim superiority with a boat load of arrogance at every opportunity even though you show your knowledge of the subjects you are discussing is (to put it mildly) quite lacking.

And yet you claim that it is the toe that is the I'll try to find the time to look up the exact quote used in page. 30 post 295 tomorrow, it was a direct quote because I found you claim odd after reading page 29 post 285, but then maybe I shouldn't have found it odd, since very little of what you say is consistant.

I cant possibily imagine what you are talking about, so Im sure we'll all look forward to that one... :yawn:

And I have been totally consistent, btw.

Ed

Start communicating

Legend

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Empirically Speaking

Jet Black

Guest

Empirically Speaking

Empirically Speaking

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Empirically Speaking

Senior Veteran

Similar threads