Start communicating

razzelflabben · Jun 8, 2005

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

Oh, so you are saying that origins makes no difference. if I ask you to discuss our origins, you would be less defensive and hostile than you are during this discussion? Right? Oh boy, I can't wait to discuss origins with you and do away with all the hostility and anger that will truely be an good discussion. But until that discussion takes place, I wonder why you assumed that origins meant only evolution and creation and not origins? That sounds to me like someone not willing to discuss origins and therefore, is a bigger issue than you are making it out to be.

And it has been answered.

The only answer I recall dealt with the toe and the toc, not origins, maybe you could point me to the post that answers that question, the one I asked about our origins.

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

Huh???

The schools teach origins all the time. The last time I checked, there were a lot of more important topics (scientific in nature) that are not being taught at all because of lack of time. Why is it then that we teach origins, I understand why the evolutionist doesn't want creation taught, and why the creationist doesn't want evolution taught, that is way tooooo easy of a question, the question is however, why origins must be taught, thus taking the place of more important scientific discussions and discoveries? And yes, walk into any science classroom and you will see a section devoted to our origins.

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.

The problem was the apparent controdiction of statements of which I don't have time today to look up but referenced the quote in my post. First, we see ed saying that evolution is the basis of modern biology, then he switched to say that the basis of modern biology is the theory of evolution. I read the statement about a dozen times to make sure that I was reading it correctly. So I ask for clarity, was he talking about evolution or the theory of evolution. But since I am not smart enough to understand the meanings of the words being used, my asking for clarity was a show of my ignorance of science right? I did get your claim right didn't I? Now clarification was made other than to say that I misrepersented his words. So you run to his defense instead of asking him to simply clarify his view for all to understand. It must be nice to be on the forum with such loyal buddies that one is not held accountable for what appears to be a contridiction and when asked for clarity, we can play the game that the other person is ignorant and take no responsibility for our own actions and words. How cool is that, that you have such awesome friends on the forum that you require no responsibility from them for what they do or say. That is really cool, I hope I never have friends like that because I would never learn to grow and never learn in general.

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

Seems to me that at least a part of the topic is important enough to spark debate or we wouldn't have pages and pages of acusations and nonesense circular arguements.

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.

The question is not why would a science teacher teach creation or some other theory, the question is why should a teacher, science or otherwise have to be compelled to teach origins. (evolution or otherwise) What makes our origins so important that we must teach origins in the classroom. Doesn't matter which theory (scientific or non) you are teaching, the question does not change and therefore was constructed to avoid the issue of which to teach evolution or creation.

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.

Oh, no worries, I know you are being sarcastic, and I know you were wrong, and I have no issue with people who make mistakes and then allow themselves to be corrected, that is the nature of being human, to make mistakes. So with the same sarcasim in which you wrote the words, let me say this, I gracefully and politely accept your humble appologizes and hope that my superior intellect will someday rub off on you. Thanks for presenting an oppertunity to joke a bit, helps the thread.

razzelflabben · Jun 8, 2005

Edx said:
All good so far.

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.

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?

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.

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"

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.

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.

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

And I have been totally consistent, btw.

Ed

I'm short on time at the moment, so let's dispense with all the banter and cut to the chase. I referenced two posts yesterday, one was yours, one was a post of mine in which I quoted you and that quote I read about 10 times to make sure I read it correctly. That should suffice for the moment, I'll try to find the time to look up the post I quoted, but I don't have it at the moment. Anyway, the problem I have had with your claims is and has been this, one place you say that evolution is the basis/foundation, the other place you say the theory of evolution. See my posts quote for the exact wording until I have time to look up your post using those words. The two statements appear to contridict one another and this surprises me a great deal just as Gluady's statement about a theory needing to be evidenced to be considered a theory surprised me a great deal. I expect more than this from people like yourself who have shown some knowledge of the topic in discussion. So in order to identify which you meant to say, I ask you to clarify. You did not such thing. Sorry, you can claim you did from now till the cows come home but you did not clarify your words, but rather acted like I was a fool for questioning you. To my memory, you still have not clarified which you think is the foundation of modern biology, the theory of evolution or evolution, you have quoted others, and made bold accusations, but you have failed to clarify what you intended to say. Now I can assume from your comments what you intended but we have been shown many times on this thread how assumptions are poor means of determining truth/fact, so we must rely on the poster to clarify his/her own words and not on the assumptions of the reader. When asked to clarify, parroting anothers words shows no understanding of the topic or understanding of the original problem and thus shows an unwillingness to communicate and admit when one is wrong. All the things you accuse the creationist of doing, you have demonstrated within yourself, to my great disappointment. All that is required is a bit of clarify but you are not willing to provide that, and in exchange you offer attacks and accusations. Communication is not an exact science as it were, which in turn means that sometimes, we need to clarify what we intended to say, and not just simply assurt that is should have been interpreted correctly.

caravelair · Jun 8, 2005

razzelflabben said:
The question is not why would a science teacher teach creation or some other theory, the question is why should a teacher, science or otherwise have to be compelled to teach origins.

if it is a teacher's job to teach science, why shouldn't (s)he be expected to do so? and if you are going to teach science, obviously you will include biology, since it is one of the major fields of study. if you talk about biology, you really can't avoid talking about evolution, as it is the most important theory in biology.

gluadys · Jun 8, 2005

razzelflabben said:
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.

I'll look forward to seeing it when it is up.

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.

Well, in a science class we would only talk about the theories. Other origin stories would be discussed in literature and/or religion classes.

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.

Not an opinion. A conclusion. There is no scientific evidence of creation. You already said so yourself in the other thread. There is no scientific evidence of intelligent design. If you disagree with this, you can offer some. There is evidence for evolution. If you disagree with this, we can discuss it.

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.

Usually the lay-person is not saying the exact same thing because they are over-generalizing from the paper. But to move forward on this line of thought we would have to look at how you or someone else has cited specific papers.

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?

Good. So you take full responsibility for the fact that you know zilch about the theory of evolution. Ready to learn?

Humanista · Jun 8, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Oh, so you are saying that origins makes no difference.

No.That is not what I'm saying.

You said :

The question was why are our origins so important and not why is the toe or the toc so important.

and I replied:

Who do you think is of the opinion that origins (not evolution or creationism) is important?

To which you responded "Oh so now you are saying origins makes no difference."

My question was --look at it it's right above!--- who are you referring to when you question why "origins" is so important?

You must think that SOMEONE thinks "origins" is important, or you wouldn't have asked WHY it is important.

Stay with me now.....
I'm asking who, in YOUR opinion, DOES think "origins" is important?
And you have made it clear that "origins" is NOT in reference to evolutionary theory or creationism. So apparently SOMEONE SOMEWHERE (not you, not me) thinks "origins" is important, or else why would you ask WHY it IS important.

You get angry if anyone references the evolution/creation debate to answer your question, but you never tell us who these people are who are so concerned with "origins" in a way that DOESN'T refer to Toe/Creatonism.

I can't make it any more plain than that.

Part of the problem is you use the word "origins" in a very specialized way and subtley change it to suit your arguments. Sometimes it includes ToE and ID, sometimes it doesn't. It's no wonder other people can't keep track of which definition you are using at the moment.

I wonder why you assumed that origins meant only evolution and creation and not origins? That sounds to me like someone not willing to discuss origins and therefore, is a bigger issue than you are making it out to be.

I'm just trying to keep up with the wild and wacky language of razzelflabben. I didn't assume anything about the meaning of the word origins. I'm looking at how YOU define it, I even asked for a clarification just to be sure, and made it a point to say origins did NOT just mean evolution and creationism.

Look! Right here are my quotes:

Note that the other aspects of origins (outside evolution) are not scientific

Look! It doesn't say I assumed origins meant only evolution and creation!

Origins (used as the all-encompassing defintion you give it) does NOT have a reserved spot in education, science does.

Look! I confirmed YOUR definition of origins as being MORE than evolution and creationism!

a vague umbrella term "origins"

Look! I refer to origins as an umbrella term, meaning it covers all sorts of things, not just evolution and creationism!

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?

Look! I call origins a topic which includes LOTS of things besides evolution and creationism!

You say origins--meaning any explanation of where life came from

Click to expand...

Look! I describe origins as meaning any explanation, not just evolution or creationism!

Now, tell me again how you derived this:

razzelflabben:"I wonder why you assumed that origins meant only evolution and creation and not origins? That sounds to me like someone not willing to discuss origins "

from what I have said?

And you are dumbfounded as to why no one can seem comunicate effectively with you?

Huh??? The schools teach origins all the time.

See, here it is right here. You object strenuously when anyone uses "origins" to mean evolution and creation exclusively--it's supposed to mean ALL explanations. Yet schools do NOT teach a topic they call "origins" and very few schools teach anything outside the scientific aspects of "origins".
What are you referring to when you say schools teach "origins" all the time if "origins" cannot be used as JUST a reference to evolution and creationism?
Do you mean literature studies of creation myths from other cultures? What "origins" are they teaching?

The last time I checked, there were a lot of more important topics (scientific in nature) that are not being taught at all because of lack of time.

Being a home-school teacher I wonder where and how you check, but give an example of more important scientific topics that are not being taught .

Why is it then that we teach origins,

Are you sure schools are teaching "origins" using YOUR definition? Because you say it means explanations outside of science. After all, you jumped all over me for using origins to mean evolution.

Does "origins" taught in school MEAN evolution or does "origins" taught in school mean explanations of how life started that are NOT scientific?

I understand why the evolutionist doesn't want creation taught, and why the creationist doesn't want evolution taught, that is way tooooo easy of a question, the question is however, why origins must be taught, thus taking the place of more important scientific discussions and discoveries?

What exactly does "origins" mean in this context? You keep taking everyone to task for using evolution and origins interchangeably, but you haven't made a very good argument for non-evolutionary "origins" shown to be taught in schools.

And yes, walk into any science classroom and you will see a section devoted to our origins.

Gee, do ya think it's called evolution or resembles evolution in any way? Or do the science "sections" in the classroom have displays of Raelians, Scientology stories, Mayan creation myths, etc? Is that science?

First, we see ed saying that evolution is the basis of modern biology, then he switched to say that the basis of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

I think one of your problems is an obsession with the term evolution vs theory of evolution. Most people--and Ed explained this---say "evolution" as a kind of shorthand.
But how did you get from either of those statements that he was saying evolution (or theory of evolution) is the basis for modern SCIENCE? He said BIOLOGY, not science. But you kept claiming he DID say science. Changing the word "biology" to "science" drastically changes the meaning. Yet you continue to ignore this error, and instead focus on whether or not he said "evolution" or "theory of evolution".

I read the statement about a dozen times to make sure that I was reading it correctly. So I ask for clarity, was he talking about evolution or the theory of evolution. But since I am not smart enough to understand the meanings of the words being used, my asking for clarity was a show of my ignorance of science right? I did get your claim right didn't I?

NO, you didn't. He said evolution/ToE is the basis of modern BIOLOGY.
He did NOT say evolution/TOE is the basis of modern SCIENCE.

Carefully examine the 2 sentences above and see if one is different from the other.

How is it different? (Hint: Look at the words in all caps.)

How might that change the meaning?

Why might Edx object to being misquoted?

Now clarification was made other than to say that I misrepersented his words.

Well, you did, He didn't say science, he said biology. Why can't you see this?

The question is not why would a science teacher teach creation or some other theory, the question is why should a teacher, science or otherwise have to be compelled to teach origins. (evolution or otherwise)

Teachers shouldn't be compelled to teach "origins"--meaning any explanation of how life came about---and they aren't compelled to teach various explanations of how life came about. They are required to teach important scientific theories.

What makes our origins so important that we must teach origins in the classroom.

Well if we stick to the defintion of origins as being any explanation--religious, mythical, science fiction, scientific--of how life started on earth, then I have to say you haven't shown this assertion to be true. No school I know of--and I"ve had children in public schools for 17 years--teaches a topic called origins, nor does it teach any creation myths, nor does it teach abiogenesis(beyond a brief mention), nor does it teach the idea of aliens seeding life on earth---schools only teach science, which can fall under the category of origins but let me be PERFECTLY clear:

I AM NOT SAYING ORIGINS ONLY MEANS EVOLUTION!!!!

Edx · Jun 8, 2005

razzelflabben said:
I'm short on time at the moment, so let's dispense with all the banter and cut to the chase. I referenced two posts yesterday, one was yours, one was a post of mine in which I quoted you and that quote I read about 10 times to make sure I read it correctly. That should suffice for the moment, I'll try to find the time to look up the post I quoted, but I don't have it at the moment

Really? Some quote of mine that you read, but dont have, which somehow helps your point? Right, well I certainly dont mind if you are going to take a little longer on a reply (hint), but when you do reply at least dont give me excuses about how your argument would be better if you had more time to write it. I really can wait, you know.

...one place you say that evolution is the basis/foundation, the other place you say the theory of evolution. ....The two statements appear to contridict one another ... , I ask you to clarify. You did not such thing

See below, yes I did certainly clarify. Many times. Im going to do it again one more time: Evolution in popular vernacular means change in ANYTHING. Scientists even use the word this way. However, the theory of evolution is biological. It is said "Evolution" for short. You can tell the difference by looking at the context of how the word is used. If I were to say "Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together", clearly Im not talking about the "evolution" of the role of woman in society or the evolution of technology. So basically since you apparently cant seem to understand the context of words in a sentence, unless otherwise stated, when I say Evolution I mean the theory of evolution IE. Biological evolution. ---I dont think I can say it any clearer so I want to hear no more of this nonsence that I somehow cant or wont answer this.

Also Evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Thats correct. You still didnt answer my question though, how does me saying this:

"Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together"
mean this... "the toe is what modern science is based"

razzelflabben said:
First, we see ed saying that evolution is the basis of modern biology, then he switched to say that the basis of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

Im pretty sure I didnt change, what I did say was that evolution in the unifying theory that ties it all together. Im also not sure how Im supposed to read those statments. What difference do you see?

I read the statement about a dozen times to make sure that I was reading it correctly.

And yet somehow still utterly failed.

Instead of gathering from when I said "Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together", that evolution theory is what ties all aspects of biology together, you instead thought I meant that modern science is based on evolution theory.,,

To my memory, you still have not clarified which you think is the foundation of modern biology, the theory of evolution or evolution, you have quoted others, and made bold accusations, but you have failed to clarify what you intended to say.

You know as much as I really didnt want to have to waste my time to look it all up, your claims that I never anwered this is so incredibly wrong it seems the only way to prove it. Now please admit that I did in fact give you an answer. Since then I have even shown you the proper scientific defintion of these words. However after all this it seems you still havent learnt anything.

-----You: Much as the general understanding of evolution is different from the theory of evolution....

Me: "Evolution means change. That is why we hear scientists talking about the "evolution" of the universe, or people talking about the "evolution" of the nature fast food plays in our society. "The Theory of Evolution" however is biological and that is all." - (Page 9, post #84)-----

-----Me: For most Christians the theory of Creation IS evolution. That nature is Gods hand, if you will

You: So then you seperate the toe from evolution then, is that correct?

Me: In context I am talking about biological evolution, which is the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is just a word meaning change, so your above comment becomes rather meaningless. Cosmological evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Evolution. Neither does the evolution of my organizational skills, or even the evolution of technology. Though the way some Creationists argue against the TOE it would mean technological advancement would be impossible. - (Page 14, post #134)-----

-----You: ....Does the toe encompass more theories than just evolution?

Me: No you are getting mixed up again. Evolution means change. The definition of the "Theory of Evolution" (biological like I said) is the 'change in alle frequencies over time'.... - (Page 14, post #134)-----

-----You: Okay, other have discussed their understanding for the words evolution and the toe maybe you could recap yours for us, is there any difference between the words?

Me: Right well evolution, the word, means change. So that is why you can hear people talking about the evolution of cosmology, or the evolution of the role of women in society, or an evolution of technology. Whatever. However, the Theory of Evolution is biological - biological, and nothing but biological. It is a theory that unifies every part of the biological sciences. Do I really need to go further? - (Page 16, post #157)-----

Sorry, you can claim you did from now till the cows come home but you did not clarify your words, but rather acted like I was a fool for questioning you.

Yea, sure. I double dare you to find a place wher I supposedly acted like you were a fool for asking that. In reality I answered you many many times. It turns out I might as well have not bothered as you now claim I never even gave you an answer!

Now I can assume from your comments what you intended but we have been shown many times on this thread how assumptions are poor means of determining truth/fact, so we must rely on the poster to clarify his/her own words and not on the assumptions of the reader. When asked to clarify, parroting anothers words shows no understanding of the topic or understanding of the original problem and thus shows an unwillingness to communicate and admit when one is wrong.

As we can see above, I did in fact clairfy in my own words what the difference was between evolution and the theory of evolution many, many times. The fact is I did give you an answer, many times and in several different ways. You could have said you needed more clarification but you didnt, you specifically stated that I have never given you any answer at all. Just because you dont like the answer doesnt mean I didnt give you one.

And btw sorry to burst your misconception about me "parroting anothers words" I only quoted Arons scientific definiton AFTER you claimed you had "gotten no answer". Even so, this would still be answering your question.

All that is required is a bit of clarify but you are not willing to provide that, and in exchange you offer attacks and accusations. .

I have not "attacked" you at all, I have simply reacted to your conduct. I am more than willing to explain anything to the best of my ability to someone that actually wants to learn. See the situation above. It didnt matter how many times I tried to tell you what evolution and the theory of evolution meant, you still ended up claiming I never _even_answered you at all.

You could have said that you didnt understand my description, but instead you said that actually that I hadent_even given you any answer!

Btw, you didnt answer this from last time:

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.

Ed

razzelflabben · Jun 9, 2005

caravelair said:
if it is a teacher's job to teach science, why shouldn't (s)he be expected to do so? and if you are going to teach science, obviously you will include biology, since it is one of the major fields of study. if you talk about biology, you really can't avoid talking about evolution, as it is the most important theory in biology.

So then am I right in saying that you think that biology is the theory of evolution? I'm sorry, I just don't buy this line of thought. I do believe that evolution has a lot to do with biology but as pointed out many many many times, evolution is not the toe, it is not common ancestry, it is a biological process which is not about our origins, but rather about change. See the definitions. So if we are talking about teaching evolution in biology class, no problem. However, the question was about teaching our origins which is not limited to but includes the theory of evolution. I still see no connection between the toe and modern biology and have asked people here to show it. No one has but they have changed their claims by accusing me of not listening. So, please answer the question, is evolution and the toe the same thing? If not, then why should any teacher, science or otherwise teach origins in school?

razzelflabben · Jun 9, 2005

gluadys said:
I'll look forward to seeing it when it is up.

Well, in a science class we would only talk about the theories. Other origin stories would be discussed in literature and/or religion classes.

Doesn't change the question nor answer it. Why are our origins so important that we feel compelled to teach it in school? That is the question, it is the limited part of the question that has been forced on this thread and yet, the only answer given so far has been arguements about what is scientific theory and why science should teach the toe and not the other theories. It would be so nice to come here, ask a simple question and get a simple answer rather than a bunch of rhetoric that sounds hauntingly like spoon fed answers given to the endoctrinated.

Not an opinion. A conclusion. There is no scientific evidence of creation. You already said so yourself in the other thread. There is no scientific evidence of intelligent design. If you disagree with this, you can offer some. There is evidence for evolution. If you disagree with this, we can discuss it.

wait up a minute and get things straight. My claim on the other thread was not that there is no scientific evidence of creation, but rather that there is no scientific test that would determine if man was created or evolved. Please do listen and keep your comments correct with what I am saying. Secondly, there are scientific evidences for creation some of which we are suppose to be discussing on the other thread. So how about backing up on your accusations and assumptions and look at it long enough to deside for yourself. The first prediction that we talked about on the other thread was evidenced, which in turn by the definition for evidence given here, that science has evidenced the toc. That is the burden of proof if evidence is defined as making a prediction that is observed. We can as I have said on the other thread, weed out the toc from scientific theory but only in due time, not by jumping the gun and making up things before we get to them. Deal with one issue at a time. First issue, can science evidence the toc. So far yes, let's go back to the other thread and look some more. And by the way, I would appreciate it if you refrain from misrepresenting my claims and comments. Thanks

Usually the lay-person is not saying the exact same thing because they are over-generalizing from the paper. But to move forward on this line of thought we would have to look at how you or someone else has cited specific papers.

I have even gone so far as to quote the paper and give a complete overview and I get the same reaction. So I wonder why the evolutionists sound so much like they are endoctrinated, using the same techniques and denying the same things they share with creationists. Oh to find one honest person with convictions about our origins! but I continue to dream! Back to reality!

Good. So you take full responsibility for the fact that you know zilch about the theory of evolution. Ready to learn?

Pretty boastful aren't you? Tell you what, since a discussion about the toe would take us a different direction and I simply don't have time to add a new thread at this time, how about if you start by pointing out what you think I don't understand about the toe, and we can go from there. You know what I mean, do you think I understand what common ancestry is, how evolution works, or is your claim solely because I don't parrot the evolutionist answers without questioning them? And please do try to be honest and acurate so that there is no confusing about what you are saying. Thanks

Humanista · Jun 9, 2005

razzelflabben said:
It has recently come to my attention that part of the reason that creationist and evolutionists cannot effectively communicate is that there are many different understandings for the same words. So when one person says for example evidence, the other person may not understand it the same way. To help aid communication between the two groups, I wanted to start this thread discussing different understandings of commonly used words or ideas. Because this is not meant to be a debate I would like to ask everyone to refrain from judgements, arguements, critisisms, debates, etc. If you want to debate an idea presented, please start another thread. In other words, ideas and understandings are safe on this thread, if you are unclear as to someones view, please be curtious and non threatening when asking for clarification and let's start communicating. Here are some of the words I would like to see defined by you. It would help to leave our technical definitions in exchange for your ideas as often times interpretations are also subjective.

Creation
Evolution
The theory of creation
The theory of evolution
Speciation
Kind
Theory
Evidence
Scientific method

That's probably to much to start with so feel free to pick and choose. Thanks in advance for keeping this calm and non judgemental.

This is your very first post, the OP, Post #1

I'm just wondering, since you are now using the word "origins" all the time and apparently find it to be the best term and a very important one, why was it not on your list ?

Humanista · Jun 9, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Doesn't change the question nor answer it. Why are our origins so important that we feel compelled to teach it in school? That is the question, it is the limited part of the question that has been forced on this thread and yet, the only answer given so far has been arguements about what is scientific theory and why science should teach the toe and not the other theories. It would be so nice to come here, ask a simple question and get a simple answer rather than a bunch of rhetoric that sounds hauntingly like spoon fed answers given to the endoctrinated.

Geez Louise, why are you being so obtuse?

Why are (using your defintion) EXPLANATIONS OF HOW LIFE BEGAN so important that we (whoever "we" refers to) feel compelled to teach it in school?

That is your question.

The reason no one can answer it to your satisfaction is because the term "origins" is not on any school curriculum. No school board feels compelled to teach "origins" the way you mean it. A subset of origins (by your definition) would be scientific explanations. In science, that is called abiogenesis. No one feels compelled to teach abiogenesis, but it is ususally mentioned (not hours and hours of valuable classroom time spent on it) dudring biology, and it is not taught as fact, but hunches or guesses because science doesn't really know exactly how life started.
You keep claiming "origins" is taught in schools "all the time" but by your definition, evolution or the theory of evolution doesn't even fit the defintion if you want to be precise.
And you continue to fail to answer the question---exactly what are these "origins" that are taught in schools? What exactly is the subject matter?

Everyone keeps telling you that the thing that is taught in school is science and part of science is biology. That's the closest we can come to to fit into the word "origins" you insist on using, even though no school or teacher ever uses that term.

We're trying to work with your word "origins" as best we can, but you get all huffy and imply we're just a bunch of spoon-fed brainwashed idiots who can't answer a simple question?
We've even suggested that other "origins" are taught in comparative religion classes or literature classses, and we can talk about why that might be important from an educational standpoint. It's BEEN explained why teaching scientific theories is important, because scientific theories (evolution or ToE) are all we can come up with to fit your "origin" word in the context of what is taught in schools. If the "origins" that are being taught are something different than Toe or evolution, then please say so. If the "origins" being taught in schools IS Evolution/Toe, then quit whining about everyone refering to it.

razzelflabben · Jun 9, 2005

Because you refuse to take responsibility for your posts and comments and instead resort to talking down to me, I will ignore most of this post. What I will also do it correct some of your assumptions. Thanks again for showing us how assumptions mean nothing about fact. It has been shown so many times here, that I really must wonder why people still assert that assumptions make good evidence.

Humanista said:
No.That is not what I'm saying.

You said :

and I replied:

To which you responded "Oh so now you are saying origins makes no difference."

My question was --look at it it's right above!--- who are you referring to when you question why "origins" is so important?

You must think that SOMEONE thinks "origins" is important, or you wouldn't have asked WHY it is important.

Stay with me now.....
I'm asking who, in YOUR opinion, DOES think "origins" is important?
And you have made it clear that "origins" is NOT in reference to evolutionary theory or creationism. So apparently SOMEONE SOMEWHERE (not you, not me) thinks "origins" is important, or else why would you ask WHY it IS important.

If someone is told to teach the toe in the classroom (note that the toe is inclusive of the topic of origins), the topic must be important to many people. If someone teaches what they are told about our origins, and a bunch of people get distrot, origins must be an important topic. If we have thread and pages of rhetoric that deal with evolution and creation and the theories thereof, (note the toe and the toc are inclusive of the term origins) it must be an important topic to some people. I got involved in the discussion here on the forum because someone else falsly used other comments and brought them to the discussion of the toe and toc at which time the false comments were used to label me and no one has listened yet to what I was actually saying. I have only a mild interest in the topic, because I don't find it to be that important. So I come here and ask why others find it so impressive of a subject and I get the same old spoon fed debate. Why is that? Moving on....

You get angry if anyone references the evolution/creation debate to answer your question, but you never tell us who these people are who are so concerned with "origins" in a way that DOESN'T refer to Toe/Creatonism.

I can't make it any more plain than that.

Part of the problem is you use the word "origins" in a very specialized way and subtley change it to suit your arguments. Sometimes it includes ToE and ID, sometimes it doesn't. It's no wonder other people can't keep track of which definition you are using at the moment.

I have not changed the use of the word origins and I wonder what makes you think I have or how you think it has, you have made similar claims before and I have been confused every time by this claim. The word origins includes but is not reserved for the toe and the toc. Always has, as far as I'm concerned, it always will. Origins meaning how life came to be. As inclusive of toe and the toc, any discussion of the toe or the toc would be included in the term and idea but would not be restricted to those topics alone. IOW's, if a teacher taught the toe it would be a teaching of our origins, as would a literature class that delved into a variety of teachings on different origins beliefs, etc. etc. etc.

I'm just trying to keep up with the wild and wacky language of razzelflabben. I didn't assume anything about the meaning of the word origins. I'm looking at how YOU define it, I even asked for a clarification just to be sure, and made it a point to say origins did NOT just mean evolution and creationism.

Look! Right here are my quotes:

Look! It doesn't say I assumed origins meant only evolution and creation!

Look! I confirmed YOUR definition of origins as being MORE than evolution and creationism!

Look! I refer to origins as an umbrella term, meaning it covers all sorts of things, not just evolution and creationism!

Look! I call origins a topic which includes LOTS of things besides evolution and creationism!

Look! I describe origins as meaning any explanation, not just evolution or creationism!

Now, tell me again how you derived this:

razzelflabben:"I wonder why you assumed that origins meant only evolution and creation and not origins? That sounds to me like someone not willing to discuss origins "

from what I have said?

And you are dumbfounded as to why no one can seem comunicate effectively with you?

See, here it is right here. You object strenuously when anyone uses "origins" to mean evolution and creation exclusively--it's supposed to mean ALL explanations. Yet schools do NOT teach a topic they call "origins" and very few schools teach anything outside the scientific aspects of "origins".
What are you referring to when you say schools teach "origins" all the time if "origins" cannot be used as JUST a reference to evolution and creationism?
Do you mean literature studies of creation myths from other cultures? What "origins" are they teaching?

As discussed above, any teaching that includes one or more understandings of our origins is a discussion of our origins. If I teach science, I don't have to teach everything I know about science to call it a science class, nor do I have to teach everything known about our origins in order to teach a class about our origins. You really do have to understand this concept, you really can't be that ..... oh well, you have shown that kind of ignorance before, moving on.....

Being a home-school teacher I wonder where and how you check, but give an example of more important scientific topics that are not being taught .

Your serious right? Well, even if we ignore the fact that I am an educator by trade, and that I have taught in the public schools, let's forget for the moment that my husband is also a teacher by trade and has taught in the public schools, let's forget for a moment that I know many many teachers, and non home schoolers, lets forget all that for a moment. The news is enough to tell us that it is being taught in schools. Now add all the above and try to twist it to make me sound like I don't know anything about how the schools work and what they teach.

Are you sure schools are teaching "origins" using YOUR definition? Because you say it means explanations outside of science. After all, you jumped all over me for using origins to mean evolution

Does "origins" taught in school MEAN evolution or does "origins" taught in school mean explanations of how life started that are NOT scientific?.

see above, you really should be able to understand the concept.

What exactly does "origins" mean in this context? You keep taking everyone to task for using evolution and origins interchangeably, but you haven't made a very good argument for non-evolutionary "origins" shown to be taught in schools.

Gee, do ya think it's called evolution or resembles evolution in any way? Or do the science "sections" in the classroom have displays of Raelians, Scientology stories, Mayan creation myths, etc? Is that science?

Actually, I did have a class in which we discussed many different6 origins stories and thoughts, hummmm, I wonder why it would be important to the heart of the question to use the term origins and not the toe? toc?

I think one of your problems is an obsession with the term evolution vs theory of evolution. Most people--and Ed explained this---say "evolution" as a kind of shorthand.
But how did you get from either of those statements that he was saying evolution (or theory of evolution) is the basis for modern SCIENCE? He said BIOLOGY, not science. But you kept claiming he DID say science. Changing the word "biology" to "science" drastically changes the meaning. Yet you continue to ignore this error, and instead focus on whether or not he said "evolution" or "theory of evolution".

Yea think for one moment that the possibility for confusion might be why I asked for clarity? Hummmm. no, couldn't be because that would mean that I am not what you have labeled me and we all know you couldn't be wrong.

NO, you didn't. He said evolution/ToE is the basis of modern BIOLOGY.
He did NOT say evolution/TOE is the basis of modern SCIENCE.

Carefully examine the 2 sentences above and see if one is different from the other.

How is it different? (Hint: Look at the words in all caps.)

How might that change the meaning?

Why might Edx object to being misquoted?

pg. 30 post 295 includes a quote I haven't taken time to find yet. Let me cut and paste the quote for you then you can explain ed's words for him since he seems to be afraid to.

The foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

So, are we talking about the theory of evolution of evolution? Why can't either of you simply give me a straight answer as to what is being said instead of creating an long drawn out arguement about how I don't understand science, the scientific method, etc.etc. etc. Is ed meaning that the foundation of modern biology is evolution or does he mean that the foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution. As admitted by both of you, they are not of the same meaning though often used interchangably. So what meaning is being applied in this case? Evolution or the theory of evolution? Why is that such a hard question to answer. I want to sit down and cry at how pitiful it is that instead of answering a simple question, you feel it necessary to go on for pages and pages and pages of false accusations and nonsense arguements just so you can save face and then turn around and accuse creationists of the same behavior. I honestly (if you could see my face right now and hear my voice, you would not doubt my sincerity here), never thought that it was so bad, that neither side could not answer a simple question because of arrogance and boastful claims. How terribly sad. It could have all be avoded if ed had simply answered which he meant and we moved on.

Well, you did, He didn't say science, he said biology. Why can't you see this?

Teachers shouldn't be compelled to teach "origins"--meaning any explanation of how life came about---and they aren't compelled to teach various explanations of how life came about. They are required to teach important scientific theories.

Okay, let's use your words since you don't like mine. Why should the theory of evolution be so important that it is taught as an important scientific theory. Note we are not interchanging the words evolution and theory of evolution.

Well if we stick to the defintion of origins as being any explanation--religious, mythical, science fiction, scientific--of how life started on earth, then I have to say you haven't shown this assertion to be true. No school I know of--and I"ve had children in public schools for 17 years--teaches a topic called origins, nor does it teach any creation myths, nor does it teach abiogenesis(beyond a brief mention), nor does it teach the idea of aliens seeding life on earth---schools only teach science, which can fall under the category of origins but let me be PERFECTLY clear:

I AM NOT SAYING ORIGINS ONLY MEANS EVOLUTION!!!!

BUT, THE TOE IS INCLUDED IN ORIGINS AND IS BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS!

Personally, I would that no theory of origins was being taught (throw that in so as not to be labeled a creationist trying to push a religious agenda in our schools)

razzelflabben · Jun 9, 2005

Edx said:
Really? Some quote of mine that you read, but dont have, which somehow helps your point? Right, well I certainly dont mind if you are going to take a little longer on a reply (hint), but when you do reply at least dont give me excuses about how your argument would be better if you had more time to write it. I really can wait, you know.

See below, yes I did certainly clarify. Many times. Im going to do it again one more time: Evolution in popular vernacular means change in ANYTHING. Scientists even use the word this way. However, the theory of evolution is biological. It is said "Evolution" for short. You can tell the difference by looking at the context of how the word is used. If I were to say "Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together", clearly Im not talking about the "evolution" of the role of woman in society or the evolution of technology. So basically since you apparently cant seem to understand the context of words in a sentence, unless otherwise stated, when I say Evolution I mean the theory of evolution IE. Biological evolution. ---I dont think I can say it any clearer so I want to hear no more of this nonsence that I somehow cant or wont answer this.

Also Evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Thats correct. You still didnt answer my question though, how does me saying this:

"Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together"
mean this... "the toe is what modern science is based"

Im pretty sure I didnt change, what I did say was that evolution in the unifying theory that ties it all together. Im also not sure how Im supposed to read those statments. What difference do you see?

And yet somehow still utterly failed.

Instead of gathering from when I said "Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together", that evolution theory is what ties all aspects of biology together, you instead thought I meant that modern science is based on evolution theory.,,

You know as much as I really didnt want to have to waste my time to look it all up, your claims that I never anwered this is so incredibly wrong it seems the only way to prove it. Now please admit that I did in fact give you an answer. Since then I have even shown you the proper scientific defintion of these words. However after all this it seems you still havent learnt anything.

-----You: Much as the general understanding of evolution is different from the theory of evolution....

Me: "Evolution means change. That is why we hear scientists talking about the "evolution" of the universe, or people talking about the "evolution" of the nature fast food plays in our society. "The Theory of Evolution" however is biological and that is all." - (Page 9, post #84)-----

-----Me: For most Christians the theory of Creation IS evolution. That nature is Gods hand, if you will

You: So then you seperate the toe from evolution then, is that correct?

Me: In context I am talking about biological evolution, which is the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is just a word meaning change, so your above comment becomes rather meaningless. Cosmological evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Evolution. Neither does the evolution of my organizational skills, or even the evolution of technology. Though the way some Creationists argue against the TOE it would mean technological advancement would be impossible. - (Page 14, post #134)-----

-----You: ....Does the toe encompass more theories than just evolution?

Me: No you are getting mixed up again. Evolution means change. The definition of the "Theory of Evolution" (biological like I said) is the 'change in alle frequencies over time'.... - (Page 14, post #134)-----

-----You: Okay, other have discussed their understanding for the words evolution and the toe maybe you could recap yours for us, is there any difference between the words?

Me: Right well evolution, the word, means change. So that is why you can hear people talking about the evolution of cosmology, or the evolution of the role of women in society, or an evolution of technology. Whatever. However, the Theory of Evolution is biological - biological, and nothing but biological. It is a theory that unifies every part of the biological sciences. Do I really need to go further? - (Page 16, post #157)-----

Yea, sure. I double dare you to find a place wher I supposedly acted like you were a fool for asking that. In reality I answered you many many times. It turns out I might as well have not bothered as you now claim I never even gave you an answer!

As we can see above, I did in fact clairfy in my own words what the difference was between evolution and the theory of evolution many, many times. The fact is I did give you an answer, many times and in several different ways. You could have said you needed more clarification but you didnt, you specifically stated that I have never given you any answer at all. Just because you dont like the answer doesnt mean I didnt give you one.

And btw sorry to burst your misconception about me "parroting anothers words" I only quoted Arons scientific definiton AFTER you claimed you had "gotten no answer". Even so, this would still be answering your question.

I have not "attacked" you at all, I have simply reacted to your conduct. I am more than willing to explain anything to the best of my ability to someone that actually wants to learn. See the situation above. It didnt matter how many times I tried to tell you what evolution and the theory of evolution meant, you still ended up claiming I never _even_answered you at all.

You could have said that you didnt understand my description, but instead you said that actually that I hadent_even given you any answer!

Most people I have talked to, see evolution as not being specific to common ancestry, and the toe as being specific to the toe. This is a very important difference for the evolutionist to acknoledge and adress when talking to creationists. Now if we are trying to communicate and understanding others points of view, it is important to clarify common points of disagreements. In fact, most "evidences" presented deal with common ancestry. So from the above, it would seem that you see no difference in evolution and the toe on the issue of common ancestry. Thanks for clarifying that for us. I would think that there are many evolutionists that would like to correct you at this point, but probably not because there is no accountability among the good old boys evolutionist club right?!?

Btw, you didnt answer this from last time:

Click to expand...

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.

Ed

Okay, if you want to play that game, I will answer you with a question. Who decides what is the most important scientific questions to teach? What panel of people are they, what feilds are they from and who appoints them to that panel? I can agree, though I am not sure to what degree I agree, that evolution is important to modern biology, I have said this before, however, when we include the toe, which includes origins and common ancestry, we change the topic and I see NO connection between our understanding of modern biology and the toe apart from the toe asking questions that we can test. The source of our questions not being a big issue to the classroom. The answers being the big issue. So once again, we come back to the question of whether or not you mean evolution or the toe and if you see evolution as being common descent or if that is reserved for the toe?? Humm, but you already answered that I am just to slow to be able to see that in your answer! Cool, I like being told how slow I am though you are not attacking my personhood. If only it worked that way we would live in an ideal world.

caravelair · Jun 9, 2005

razzelflabben said:
So then am I right in saying that you think that biology is the theory of evolution? I'm sorry, I just don't buy this line of thought. I do believe that evolution has a lot to do with biology but as pointed out many many many times, evolution is not the toe, it is not common ancestry, it is a biological process which is not about our origins, but rather about change. See the definitions. So if we are talking about teaching evolution in biology class, no problem. However, the question was about teaching our origins which is not limited to but includes the theory of evolution. I still see no connection between the toe and modern biology and have asked people here to show it. No one has but they have changed their claims by accusing me of not listening. So, please answer the question, is evolution and the toe the same thing? If not, then why should any teacher, science or otherwise teach origins in school?

you don't think common descent has anything to do with biology? are you on crack?

gluadys · Jun 9, 2005

razzelflabben said:
I can agree, though I am not sure to what degree I agree, that evolution is important to modern biology, I have said this before, however, when we include the toe, which includes origins and common ancestry, we change the topic and I see NO connection between our understanding of modern biology and the toe apart from the toe asking questions that we can test.

Ok. Let me get this straight. Evolution is a process of change in species, right? We can document that species change their characteristics over time, even to the point of becoming new species. We can document that these changes come from mutational change impacted by environmental conditions.

Am I correct in concluding that you agree with teaching evolution in this sense?

Then, according to you, toe includes "origins and common ancestry". And this is what you do not agree with teaching. Is this correct?

You even wonder why it is important to teach?

In the first place, I think you are not understanding the relation of toe to the question of origins. If by "origins" you mean the origin of the first living things, that is not included in the toe. What you are speaking of there is abiogenesis, not evolution, and the toe only relates to evolution, it does not relate to abiogenesis. Also as pointed out earlier, most high schools do not spend more than one lesson on abiogenesis because so little is known yet and no clear theory of abiogenesis has been established yet.

On the other hand if by "origins" you include the origin of species, including the origin of humanity, that is covered by evolution. And the toe does relate to that. So it will be taught in connection with evolution, because the whole purpose of the toe is to explain what evolution is and how it works. You simply cannot teach evolution with out teaching the theory of evolution. When you explain the relationship of mutations to species change, that is teaching the theory of evolution. When you explain natural selection or genetic drift, that is teaching the theory of evolution. When you explain how speciation occurs, that is teaching the theory of evolution. When you explain the close relationship of chimpanzees and humans, that is teaching the theory of evolution.

Now how can you teach evolution without teaching how it works and how it relates species to each other? But teaching how it works and how it relates species to each other is teaching the theory of evolution. It is not just saying species change over time. It is describing the mechanism and pattern of change--and that is what the theory of evolution is all about.

Speaking of patterns of change: you also misunderstand the relationship of common ancestry to the theory of evolution. You seem to think evolution begins with the concept of universal common ancestry. It doesn't. In one sense common ancestry is not part of toe, since toe focuses on how evolution happens. But as noted above, once we understand how evolution happens, we can then recognize patterns of change. We can start to relate species to each other via the ancestral species they came from. It is like constructing a family tree. We relate John and Sara as siblings because they have the same parents. But we relate Ted and Jennifer as first cousins, because they do not have the same parents, but they do have the same grandparents. Evolution means we can do the same sort of thing with species.

And this leads to a prediction: many species will have common ancestors. And many species groups will have common ancestors. And possibly, all species groups will be related to a single or to a very few common ancestors.

So common ancestry is not something that the concept of evolution begins with, but which it logically leads to. That is what makes it part of the theory of evolution. And since, when we teach science and scientific method, we want students to learn how to draw out the logical conclusions of theories, we cannot avoid the logical conclusion of the theory of evolution--which is common ancestry, both recent and ancient.

In short, teaching biology must include three aspects of teaching about evolution. 1. It must teach the basic facts of evolution--what evolution is and how we know evolution happens. 2. It must teach the theory of evolution--how evolution happens (mutations, heredity, natural selection) and how it relates species to species. (speciation) 3) It must teach the logical conclusions of evolution, one of these being common ancestry. All of these have implications for biology and biology just doesn't make any sense unless all of these are taught.

gluadys · Jun 9, 2005

razzelflabben said:
wait up a minute and get things straight. My claim on the other thread was not that there is no scientific evidence of creation, but rather that there is no scientific test that would determine if man was created or evolved.

You didn't make a claim. You answered a question about the creation of human beings. However, you also did something that you constantly berate other people for. You made an assumption about the question. You assumed the question was about "creation or evolution" even though the question only mentioned creation. You read into the question something that was not there. Your assumption that the question referred to evolution as well as creation was incorrect.

Perhaps you would like to return to that thread and read the question more carefully to see if you would like to change your answer now that you understand it is a question about creation only and not about "creation or evolution."

Tell you what, since a discussion about the toe would take us a different direction and I simply don't have time to add a new thread at this time, how about if you start by pointing out what you think I don't understand about the toe, and we can go from there.

In the first place I think you confuse evolution with the origin of life. Many people do, so that would not be surprising. Perhaps you can show that I am wrong by setting out your understanding of how the theory of evolution is part of the debate on origins?

Humanista · Jun 9, 2005

razzelflabben said:
If someone is told to teach the toe in the classroom (note that the toe is inclusive of the topic of origins), the topic must be important to many people.

Wait a minute. You defined "origins" as being explanations for how life STARTED.
You also agreed that evolution/ToE are defined as follows:

Evolution: Change in gene frequency and alleles over time

Theory of Evolution: The how and implications of evolution. For example, evolution occurs through natural selection and mutation. The ToE states that all life share a common ancestor.

I can show you the post where you said you agreed with the above definitons.

Now, how does any of that apply to how life BEGAN? Don't you agree that evolution/theory of evolution only deals with what happens once life DID get here? And that it makes no explanation of HOW life started?

If someone teaches what they are told about our origins, and a bunch of people get distrot(sic), origins must be an important topic.

Importance is relative. I dont' think much time is spent on exploring how life began, because no one knows how life began and every science teacher will admit no one knows. There is no theory of how life began. Do you want to change your definition of origins beyond "explanations of how life began"?

If we have thread and pages of rhetoric that deal with evolution and creation and the theories thereof, (note the toe and the toc are inclusive of the term origins) it must be an important topic to some people.

Creationism includes--and in fact very much emphasizes--how life began (it was created by God) so I would call it origins if origins means how life began. However, evolution really isn't about how life began and classes on evoution or ToE barely touch on it, and even then acknowledges it is speculation.Whch is why many people are comfortable saying God created the life, and evolution changed it.

I have only a mild interest in the topic,

of explanations of how life began?

because I don't find it to be that important. So I come here and ask why others find it so impressive of a subject and I get the same old spoon fed debate. Why is that?

Because others didn't really understand how you used the word "origins" or why you insisted on separating it out from what was a discussion of ToE and creationism.

I have not changed the use of the word origins and I wonder what makes you think I have or how you think it has, you have made similar claims before and I have been confused every time by this claim. The word origins includes but is not reserved for the toe and the toc. Always has, as far as I'm concerned, it always will. Origins meaning how life came to be.

And yet you acknowledge that evolution isn't how "life came to be" meaning how it started. Do you mean how life came to be in its present form including all changes? When I asked for clairfication of the word origins you never specified it was in 2 parts (1) what caused life to appear on this planet and (2) what caused life to change to its present form once it was here

pg. 30 post 295 includes a quote I haven't taken time to find yet. Let me cut and paste the quote for you then you can explain ed's words for him since he seems to be afraid to.

The foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

Gosh, I don't see the word science in that quote. Do you see the word science? Yet you claimed he said the foundation of moern SCIENCE is the theory of evolution.

So, are we talking about the theory of evolution of evolution? Why can't either of you simply give me a straight answer as to what is being said instead of creating an long drawn out arguement about how I don't understand science, the scientific method, etc.etc. etc. Is ed meaning that the foundation of modern biology is evolution or does he mean that the foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution. As admitted by both of you, they are not of the same meaning though often used interchangably. So what meaning is being applied in this case? Evolution or the theory of evolution? Why is that such a hard question to answer. I want to sit down and cry at how pitiful it is that instead of answering a simple question,

This is actully getting to be comical. Did you even read what I wrote in my last post? Here, I'll post it again:

NO, you didn't. He said evolution/ToE is the basis of modern BIOLOGY.
He did NOT say evolution/TOE is the basis of modern SCIENCE.

Carefully examine the 2 sentences above and see if one is different from the other.

How is it different? (Hint: Look at the words in all caps.)

How might that change the meaning?

Why might Edx object to being misquoted?

Was I talking about whether he said Toe of just evolution? NO!
I even capitalized the words in question---

Did he say science?

Or did he say biology?

Do me a favor, answer the question with one word. Dont' put any other word in your reply. Either type in

"biology"

OR type in

"science"

That has been, is, and will be MY simple question which YOU cannot seem to grasp.

Humanista · Jun 9, 2005

razzel, I'm going to try to help you understand with a parable. Surely as a teacher you use them as a possible teaching tool.

There is a family called the Smiths. In the Smith family are 5 member: John, Mary, Sonny, Sally and Victor.

John, Mary, Sonny Sally and Victor are all Smiths.

All Smiths are not Sonny.

All Smiths are not Mary, and so on.

Roger said Victor's favorite sport is baseball. He also said Victor's favorite sport is professional baseball.

Now, if the Smiths represents science, and Victor represents biology, then you are claiming that Roger said the favorite sport of the Smiths is baseball.

But that changes the meaning. ALL the Smiths don't like baseball, just Victor.

What I keep hammering is that it doesn't matter whether Roger said baseball or professional baseball. No one is arguing that they are identical. Not the point.

It matters that he said it was VICTOR's (biology) favorite sport (foundation), not the Smiths (science as a whole) favorite sport (foundation).

Biology is always a science.

All science is not biology.

Learn not to make category errors. Or, if you just mistyped, admit it. We all do it.

And to refresh your memory here are your actual words in Post 350:

razzelflabben said:
you continues to assert that the toe is what modern science is based on

Please note that in your above quote nowhere to be found is the word BIOLOGY, but I do spy the word SCIENCE.

Care to admit you were wrong?

Edx · Jun 9, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Most people I have talked to, see evolution as not being specific to common ancestry, and the toe as being specific to the toe. This is a very important difference for the evolutionist to acknoledge and adress when talking to creationists. .........

So from the above, it would seem that you see no difference in evolution and the toe on the issue of common ancestry. Thanks for clarifying that for us.......

I really dont understand why I have to keep explaining this, maybe its because you dont really seem to want to use scientific terms in the way they are supposed to be used. I can understand how you might have misunderstood at first, as it can be confusing. I have already shown you Arons definitons which explained it, and previously had given you a link to the article on "What is Evolution" on TO. I have incorporated Aron Nelsons (AN) definitions into the following.

There are really 3 different ways of using the word Evolution. Only 2 are relevant, only 2 are scientific and only 2 are biological.

Evolution 1) A word to describe change, any change, over a period of time. Eg. Technological evolution, the evolution of the role of woman in society. An example of the word in use using that definition. Note that it is not scientific, its not a theory, its just a word to describe 'change over a period of time'.

Evolution 2) A term to describe Biological Evolution. "A process of varying allele frequencies among populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of reproductive organisms, compiled over successive generations, which can increase biodiversity when continuing variation among genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from the parent population" [AN]

Evolution 3) A term to describe the Theory of Evolution:
"The study of the facts and processes within biological evolution, and the collective body of hypotheses and theories which best explain those facts. Chief among them are Darwin's theory of natural selection, and the concept of common ancestry."[AN]

And before you say it, 2 and 3 arent seperate. 2, is the fact of Evolution, 3 is the theory. That is why Evolution, just like every other scientific theory is both a fact and a theory. You can usually tell which someone is refering to by the context of how they use the word.

Whenever I say "Evolution is the foundation for modern biology", or, "Evolution should be taught in science classes" or "Evolution is the single unifying theory and the framework for modern biology", quite obviously Im not using 1, the commen usage of the word simply to mean 'change over a period of time.' So put that out of your mind. Forget it. Whenever you see these things just look at the context, and it will usually be pretty clear as to what it is people are talking about.

And just what would be a Theory of Evolution, in regards to the first definition? What kind of meaningless nonsence would that be about? Its just a word meaning "to change over time", you cant have a theory about that word. No one can teach this "theory" because no such theory exists, nor would even make sence. Except that is what you claim I "might" be talking about, and berrating me for not "clarifying". Well here it is again then: I was, am, and have always been talking about the biological scientific defintion of Evolution. --- So is there anything else that isnt clear?

Also, I again want you to admit you were wrong when you claimed I didnt ever give you an answer to this. This is quite clearly not true, I certianly did many times as I already pointed out. Whether you understood it fully or not is a moot point, as you claimed I didnt actually give you an answer. You could have said you needed me to be more clear, but instead you pretended I ignored you completely and worse still you even said I "refused"!

And why is it you still wont explain 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"

but probably not because there is no accountability among the good old boys evolutionist club right?!?

Funny, I said exactly the same thing about Creationists a while ago. Difference is your claim is baseless. If Creationists really were accountable, you would be able to find one to show me but then I dont want to go back to that topic until we have sorted this out.

Im simply not prepared to waste my time on anything else for you to claim later than I never said what I actually did directly tell you over and over again. Or else I might as well type up some posts, print them out and show them to my wall.

Okay, if you want to play that game, I will answer you with a question.Who decides what is the most important scientific questions to teach? What panel of people are they, what feilds are they from and who appoints them to that panel?

I must admit Im not completely familiar with all the ins and outs of how the education system works, but there isnt exactly a "panel" of people like you describe. In the Uk the Department of Education and Skills comes up with the national curriculum. This includes research not only into what to teach, but how to teach effectively. They say:

"The national curriculum is intended to secure for all pupils an entitlement to a number of areas of learning and to develop knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes necessary for their self-fulfilment and development as active and responsible citizens. This should be implemented irrespective of social background, culture, race, gender or differences in ability and disabilities"

Its a lot more complicated of course, but none of this is relevant.

I have said this before, however, when we include the toe, which includes origins and common ancestry, we change the topic

No it doesnt.

I can agree, though I am not sure to what degree I agree, that evolution is important to modern biology....and I see NO connection between our understanding of modern biology and the toe apart from the toe asking questions that we can test. The source of our questions not being a big issue to the classroom. The answers being the big issue.

Evolution theory is everything to do with biology. View THIS page. Here are a few examples it gives: 1). Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions. 2). Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001). 3) Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002). 4) Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping. 5) Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).

You also need to view THIS page. It answers the question very similar to yours: Evolution does not need to be taught in science classes. The important parts of biology, such as how organisms function, how they are classified, and how they interact with one another, do not depend on evolution.

So once again, we come back to the question of whether or not you mean evolution or the toe

Just why would I be talking about the commen word to describe absolutely everything and anything, when you want to say it 'changed or changes over time'?

Humm, but you already answered that I am just to slow to be able to see that in your answer! Cool, I like being told how slow I am though you are not attacking my personhood. If only it worked that way we would live in an ideal world.

Well I said you were doing it on purpose, actually. You ignored my answers when I answered your question as to the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution, claiming I never gave you any answer at all and that I "refused". In the post you were replying to here, I had simply rearranged my last reply you claimed I never answered.

I dont consider this conduct of yours to be "slow", because that supposes you are too stupid to understand the basics of reading comprehension. I dont think thats you. I think you know exactly what you're doing

Ed

razzelflabben · Jun 10, 2005

Now since everyone on this thread seems to want to label me a creationist, let me say before delving into this post, where I am coming from so that it is a matter of record and then, you can twist it all you want to say I am a creationist and I will freely ignore it because I have begun by setting the record straight. Few people in this world have huge issues with evolution because 1. it is nothing more than change and 2. it has so many crossovers into the creation story that seperating it out for arguement is like arguing against ones self. Where the biggest controversies are is 1. common ancestry and 2. (though it is lessening from my experiences) age of the earth. Both of which are part of the theory of evolution and not evolution. To this point, when I come to a discussion of creation and evolution, I assume that the largest part of the debate will focus on common ancestry and sure enough, it always does. Now, I have yet to find actual evidence of common ancestry and before you attack me over that, it is another thread, when this one is finished and we have finished looking at the toc on the other thread, we can get into that, but for now, it is sufficient to say that no one yet has shown me evidence of common ancestry, only assumptions of such. This being the case, my belief is simply that science cannot at this time put to rest the question of common ancestry, which is the heart of the debate over origins. So, it is what any discussion must understand as differences and what those differences mean especially if communication is to prevail over arguements and common ground is to be found over debate. So, let's move on

gluadys said:
Ok. Let me get this straight. Evolution is a process of change in species, right? We can document that species change their characteristics over time, even to the point of becoming new species. We can document that these changes come from mutational change impacted by environmental conditions.

cool, as I said above, I think you would increasingly find fewer and fewer people who have a problem with this, it is observation and not assumptions.

Am I correct in concluding that you agree with teaching evolution in this sense?

as it relates to modern biology sure why not, but only as it relates, to make bold assumptions and call them facts is lying to our students and is also indoctrinating them to beleive what we do not know. I have an issue with either of these things happening in the classroom.

Then, according to you, toe includes "origins and common ancestry". And this is what you do not agree with teaching. Is this correct?

This is the core of the debate, common ancestry, therefore, it is the issue that must be settled before we can move on in the debate over origins. And, yes, I see no reason why origins must be taught in our schools.

You even wonder why it is important to teach?

In the first place, I think you are not understanding the relation of toe to the question of origins. If by "origins" you mean the origin of the first living things, that is not included in the toe. What you are speaking of there is abiogenesis, not evolution, and the toe only relates to evolution, it does not relate to abiogenesis. Also as pointed out earlier, most high schools do not spend more than one lesson on abiogenesis because so little is known yet and no clear theory of abiogenesis has been established yet.

Now, let's back up a moment, our children have all loved the movies Land Before Time, I think their up to the 2 millionth movie now (just joking I think there are 8) anyway, every one assumes common ancestry, and that is only the tip of the iceberg. You cannot read a book about dinosaurs without reading about common ancestry, that hasn't even touched the classroom. We teach common ancestry and origins from the time our children are old enough to sit up then come here and boast that we don't teach origins and common ancestry. Boy do you need to pick up a book and read to a child! Our eldest terned 16 recently, he has been an reader since I taught him to read, he loves animals and can tell you more about animals than you would ever want to know. His life is all about animals and observing them in the wild and he got his knowledge of animals from books. A couple of years ago, he was frustrated because he had read any animal book worth reading in our library and needed more to read. Ask him how many books he read that didn't assume common ancestry. He can count them on one hand. Common ancestry is commonly taught, in our schools and out.

On the other hand if by "origins" you include the origin of species, including the origin of humanity, that is covered by evolution. And the toe does relate to that. So it will be taught in connection with evolution, because the whole purpose of the toe is to explain what evolution is and how it works. You simply cannot teach evolution with out teaching the theory of evolution. When you explain the relationship of mutations to species change, that is teaching the theory of evolution. When you explain natural selection or genetic drift, that is teaching the theory of evolution. When you explain how speciation occurs, that is teaching the theory of evolution. When you explain the close relationship of chimpanzees and humans, that is teaching the theory of evolution.

Now, it is important to seperate evolution from the toe, even in definition, common ancestry is not included in the definition of evolution but is in the definition of toe, therefore when trying to communicate it must be specified which is meant, the definition of change, or the definition of change to the degree of common descent.

Now how can you teach evolution without teaching how it works and how it relates species to each other? But teaching how it works and how it relates species to each other is teaching the theory of evolution. It is not just saying species change over time. It is describing the mechanism and pattern of change--and that is what the theory of evolution is all about.

See here, you have left out common ancestry. When discussion something with someone and an arguement breaks out, it is always important to look for the root of the disagreement. That is easy in this debate, (though I suspect, we can narrow the root down even further, it is the heart of the disagreement.) So if we want to leave out common ancestry, then you won't have a debate from most people. some sure, there are a lot of extremists, but the majority of people don't fit the extremist mentality and so the debate would greatly deminish.

Speaking of patterns of change: you also misunderstand the relationship of common ancestry to the theory of evolution. You seem to think evolution begins with the concept of universal common ancestry. It doesn't.

No, I assume that it is the heart of the debate.

In one sense common ancestry is not part of toe, since toe focuses on how evolution happens. But as noted above, once we understand how evolution happens, we can then recognize patterns of change. We can start to relate species to each other via the ancestral species they came from. It is like constructing a family tree. We relate John and Sara as siblings because they have the same parents. But we relate Ted and Jennifer as first cousins, because they do not have the same parents, but they do have the same grandparents. Evolution means we can do the same sort of thing with species.

Yeah, yeah, change the problem to make a point that has nothing to do with the problem and thus we can claim how little someone else knows. This is a way to common technique of the evolutionist. Do you comprehend that the core of the debate is common ancestry and not evolution itself, in fact, the bible, in Gen. tells a story of how man will evolve into creatures that build, think, etc. evolution is not foreign to the story of creation. Common ancestry however, is.

And this leads to a prediction: many species will have common ancestors. And many species groups will have common ancestors. And possibly, all species groups will be related to a single or to a very few common ancestors.

And that is not the only prediction that can be made yet I have heard an abundance of evolutionists claim that prediction as fact. Common ancestry as fact. I wonder why that is?

So common ancestry is not something that the concept of evolution begins with, but which it logically leads to. That is what makes it part of the theory of evolution. And since, when we teach science and scientific method, we want students to learn how to draw out the logical conclusions of theories, we cannot avoid the logical conclusion of the theory of evolution--which is common ancestry, both recent and ancient.

Then teach all the possiblities and/or teach assumption, not fact, and if you dont't think it is being taught as fact, borrow a movie or read a book with your favorite child this weekend and find out what is being taught to them from the earliest education up.

In short, teaching biology must include three aspects of teaching about evolution. 1. It must teach the basic facts of evolution--what evolution is and how we know evolution happens. 2. It must teach the theory of evolution--how evolution happens (mutations, heredity, natural selection) and how it relates species to species. (speciation) 3) It must teach the logical conclusions of evolution, one of these being common ancestry. All of these have implications for biology and biology just doesn't make any sense unless all of these are taught.

Okay, if there are any creationist out there listening in, I have a question for ya all. If the theory of evolution including common ancestry was being taught as theory and not fact, would you have the same degree of problem that you do today? If we taught common ancestry as part of the possible conclusions to evolution, would you have the same degree of problem?

razzelflabben · Jun 10, 2005

gluadys said:
You didn't make a claim. You answered a question about the creation of human beings. However, you also did something that you constantly berate other people for. You made an assumption about the question. You assumed the question was about "creation or evolution" even though the question only mentioned creation. You read into the question something that was not there. Your assumption that the question referred to evolution as well as creation was incorrect.

Perhaps you would like to return to that thread and read the question more carefully to see if you would like to change your answer now that you understand it is a question about creation only and not about "creation or evolution."

Be careful in your assumptions here since I also at least once, if not several times included the idea of spontanious combustion, thus through sarcasm relaying the idea that any form of our coming into existance was included in that answer. Now if you didn't understand it that way, then it is the fault of communication not my understanding. And the answer to your question was that I know of no test that identifies how we can to being, be that creation, evolution, spontanious combustion, alien cloning, frog leaping onto lily pads. No test I know of can identify how life came to being. That being the answer I gave to your question, then becomes the claim I am making.

[/quote] In the first place I think you confuse evolution with the origin of life. Many people do, so that would not be surprising. Perhaps you can show that I am wrong by setting out your understanding of how the theory of evolution is part of the debate on origins?[/QUOTE]Origins of life, how life came to being. Evolution the "study" of change. The theory of evolution, the mechanisms of how evolution occures which includes but is not exclusive of the idea of common descent which is in part our origins. How's that for an answer, if you want to know more about what I know of the issue, see the above post then feel free to correct me and tell me how wrong I am and how I don't understand the toe. I'm looking forward to your correction so I can see how wrong I am.

Start communicating

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Legend

Empirically Speaking

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Empirically Speaking

Empirically Speaking

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Empirically Speaking

Empirically Speaking

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads