Start communicating

razzelflabben · Jun 28, 2005

gluadys said:
No one here has said that science is our only means of knowing truth. But it is axiomatic that science is our only means of knowing scientific truth. You can't use the bible as a basis for science. You would have to check out a biblical statement using science to determine if it was scientifically true.

and your point.....if the debate between evolution and creation were only about science, there would be not debate. The entire discussion was to point out that the different sides bring different authorities to the discussion, it is not limited to a scientific discussion most of the time. Point being that we are not talking about what authority is the best or which authority should be used here, or there, it is about how two or more people could talk about the same subject but still come up with totally different ideas they claim as truth/fact. What authority is best is left for a different discussion and I am said this repeatedly as well. Agreed that if the discussion is scientific, the authority should be related to science yet nothing on the title of this says scientific discussion only, it says discussion and debate, creation and evolution. That is why authorities must be established, so we are playing with the same rules.

Speciation is an observation. Do you want the references again?

I think you do not understand science. As I have said many many times now, speciation is observed, universal common ancestry is not observed. To that you ask me if I want you to reference where speciation is observed. Okay, you are listening to my how? Speciation is observed, said it in some of the earliest posts I have ever made in this discussion on the forum. No problem. In fact, there is president for speciation understanding in gen but we aren't ready for that discussion, so we'll wait on that. But, speciation is not universal common ancestry and that is somthing that we have not observed. That is the only claim I have made that science says about our "origins", that univeral common ancestry is not observed. Now isn't that worth all this debate and all the claims that I don't understand science and scientific method. I have news for you, changing my words to say what you want them to doesn't change what I said nor what science doesn't evidence. Who could have guessed?

That would depend on the nature of the exception. If it affects only part of the theory, and if it is possible to revise the theory to include the exception, then the entire theory is not falsified. But it does have to be revised to include the exception. It cannot be left as it is.

If no possible revision of the theory can account for the exception, then the theory as a whole is falsified.

Right, but, excussing away the exception by saying that there are exceptions to every rule does not provide an excuss for revising the theory. So you need to do better than that if you want to use the analogy to revise your theory.

No. It is not true that all opinions are equally valid. That is why courts designate some people as "expert witnesses". This is a recognition that in their area of expertise, these people's opinions are more valid that someone who knows nothing or very little about the subject.

And expert witnesses can often be discredited because of a variety of reasons including bias. Therefore, the opinion must be based on evidences and not on opinions which is exactly what I said.

No one says that opinion per se is fact. But your opinion based on no evidence at all that speciation is not a fact is not of equal weight with a biologist's opinion based on actual observation that speciation is a fact. Since the biologist's opinion is based on his own experience, most people will assign more truth value to his opinion than yours and conclude that speciation is a fact. Some may ask to see the evidence or at least documentation of the observation before they come to that conclusion. And good on them if they do.

When did I ever say that speciation is not fact. In fact, many times I have said the opposite. Oh, I know, you can't accept that because you are convinced by that rumor that you don't accept that I don't know anything and that I am a creationist. I forgot about that. By the way, I did not say in this thread or in any thread that speciation is not observed, I did say that universal common ancestry is not observed. Want to prove me wrong?

razzelflabben · Jun 28, 2005

Edx said:
And what "fact and truth" are you talking about? snip for space

Well, the most resent one is that I said that speciation wasn't observed. In reality I said that speciation is observed, but universal common ancestry is not. But you refuse to accept that I said that, I could like a multude of others from authority to this post, but you would just ignore them, so I will leave the discussion at that.

All this coming from a someone that believes in spontaneous magical Creation. Oh but wait... your not a creationist. I forgot.

When did I say that I believed in spontaneous magical creation. From a scientific standpoint, I am a skeptic, thus meaning that I have seen no scientific evidence that we were created, evolved, cloned, or any other possibility. Now I am aware of the fact that you think science has evidened evolution over the other possibilities, but I have yet to see anything that even resembles observation of universal common ancestry, it all relies on inferrances, assumptions, speculation, etc. To for this reason, I remain a skeptic until science can observe one of the above. So that makes me a creations how?

I do wish you would take the time to think for a moment, maybe take a while longer on a post rather than rushing through it at light speed.

My point was simply that yes, we cannot "observe" universal common ancestry. snip for space.

and so now you are saying the same thing I am saying and you know science and scientific method but I don't because.... why was that again? I forgot what it is that you are basing this claim on? Thanks

It was necessary that it be explained since you already demonstrated a lack of understanding of the scientific method and of various other scientific terms. Yes I assumed you didnt understand. Correct. But it was necessary to explain the term you had used, so we knew you understood what it was you were saying, since history had shown you would probably use it the wrong way, through ignorence. Your understanding has been like that of a Creationist, full of misconceptions. As such I had no reason to think you understood common ancestry anymore than you understood any of the other things.

Okay whatever. Put your money where your mouth is and show me how I used the word wrongly.

It wasnt disresprect. Youve been showing a ignorence of science since the beginning, you just cant accept that. All I did was to tell you what common ancestry was, as did gluadys. I should have known you would get stroppy. After all how dare anyone suggest Razzelflabben doesnt understand something?

You know, when I have somthing explained and it is the exact explaination of use of the word, term, idea that I am expressing, it is hard for me to accept the claim that I am ignorance of science. In fact, the first few times this accusation was made, I considered it carfully, but now, I have heard it so much and each time it has been falsified, I put very little stock of concern into the claims. Go figure, when a claim is falsified, it can be discarded, who would have thought?!

Except for the millionth time, peer review does not work like a jury. Find me anything on peer review that says it works like a jury, I dare you to. You wont be able to. Your comparision is a fallacy, based on the fact that you dont understand what you are talking about (again). If you had read what Aron had said, you would have read that even if something does get published it still undergoes the peer review process when everyone then critiques it, and everyone critiques the critiques and so on. Eventually any bias that might have had any determental effect on the science will be found out, especially if its as obvious as what you are suggesting. That paper will then be cited again and again by critics, wishing to show every way you are wrong. It wont do much for your reputation.

sooner or later you must come to grips with the idea that I did not equate peer review to a jury, but rather the possibility of bias in peer review and the importance of understanding this bias as it compares to the importance of bias in a jury. The comparison is not peer review is to a jury, but rather bias in peer review is to bias in a jury.

The scientific method is a self corrective process. No one got anywhere in science without challenging accepted ways of thinking. Steven Hawking proposed the Big Bang Theory which flew in the face of the then generally accepted "steady state" Theory, and Einstein revised Newtons long-accepted Theory of gravity in the last century. Every landmark scientist and thinker in history has done exactly that as far back as Galileo and Socrates. Thats what you do when you want to gain prestige and respect in science, which IS to start a fight and challenge the dominant Theory and accepted way of thinking, and if you can, refine it or replace it with one of your own that explains the evidence better. The way The Nobel Prize is won, I might add, is by finding the flaws in revaluing theories and by proposing something that improves our understanding.

and yet your own quote about peer review pointed out repeatedly the bias that does exist. Go figure, and I have been talking about from the beginning about bias in peer review to which you show us a quote that shows it so clearly and I am the one that doesn't accept things that are right in front of my face. Okay then....

Yet despite all that you are suggesting some kind of monolithic worldwide conspiracy of silence throughout the entire scientific coummunity, where nothing against Evolution, Geology or Cosmology (or anything else Creationists feel like attacking) can ever be stated. To posit such a thing is paranoid and delusional, frankly. And your weak attempt to mischaracterize peer review is just a way to avoid these obvious implications because you want to believe that Creationist material is somehow on equal footing.

Where did I say anything that even resembles this? Please site! All I said is that peer review is biased and you showed us this bias in your quote. But I am wrong and you are right because ...

Based on the fact that you said this, among other things:

"Why must a "theory" be the unifying tie of modern biology?

question addressed to you not a comment about what I believe or know

Why is it impossible for an observed process (speciation) to be the foundation for our modern biological exploration?

Click to expand...

question addressed to you not a comment about what I believe or know

That I can agree with"

Click to expand...

Ah finally something that I state I believe on the topic, that evolution is the foundation of modern biology but that the theory of evolution is not. Now that is truely profound wouldn't you say?

Therefore you dont understand that without theory, the observed process is meaningless and tells us nothing. That is why Gravity, Aerodynamics and Evolution are all facts and theories.

Okay, let's try again, theory is part of the process that we use when determineing scientific observations. Theory is not the observation.

No, not "exactly the same" at all. You use it to mean everything. In your world there is no such thing as an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy as you claim the scientific method, and facts and evidence (actually anything at all) can be called our authorites too in the same way the Bible is to a Creationist. So therefore everyone is commiting the Appeal to Authority fallacy all of the time. So explain why the Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy if this is the case. And explain how no one who understands why the Appeal to Authority fallacy is a fallacy uses the word authority the way you do.

I used it according to an acceptable definition and showed not only the definition but also examples of such so that confusion did not exist. But, you still refuse to accept that if one person uses the authority of observation and another God, then the conclusions are likely to be different. That is what the entire discussion started out to be and you still don't understand that and I really don't know how else to try to get you to understand this.

So are you going to start using scientific terms correctly, and seriously try and understand how the scientific method works then?

WEll, if I use them the same way as the evolutionist do and you deem that poor usage, then I guess not, because I really have no idea how else to use them or how else to understand the use thereof. Sorry, I use the words as the evolutionists use them, it is what I was taught, it is what I have been asked to do, and it is the only way I know to communicate.

The Theory of Evolution itself doesnt explain it, I didnt suggest that. Evolution theory does however tie together the studies such as Zoology and genetics to understand better the reasons and mechanisms behind the cats 'meow'.

I belive that evolution ties it together but not the theory of evolution, sorry we disagree here.

If we accept assumptions as fact that is wrong, of course. That is why.. "All assumptions must be critically examined...Whatever is inconsistent with the facts -- no matter how fond of it we are -- must be discarded or revised. "- Carl Sagan

same thing I have been saying, go figure one more case of agreement, you know the agreements that indicate to you that I don't understand science. Assumptions are not observations, sound familiar?

That is somewhat true. But conclusions can also be inferred from the evidence of what is not directly observable. Such as the birth of your grandparents, the formation of the grand canyon and science used in crime scene investigations. All of this must be logically inferred from the evidence, because they can not be observed directly. See also above.

Never said that inferrance doesn't tell us that we have a grandparent or that the grand canyon was formed, what I said is that that inferrance doesn't equal truth/fact about who my grandparent is or how the grand canyon was formed. In order to determine fact of how the grand canyon was formed, or who my grandparents are, I need to do more than infer. Again, such awesome evidence of ignorance huh?

Well then since you apparently know more than everyone else, provide a scientific source that agrees with you here that science such as Evolution, Gravity and Aeodynamics are not facts and theories.

But I didn't say that they are not "fact and theory" I said that it is not stated the theory of gravity is fact and theory, the theory of aeodynamics is fact and theory. But when talking about the toe we way to often here "evolution or the theory of evolution is fact and theory" This specification for the toe when none of the other theories have this specification is the problem.

--snip--

Why arent you listening? I keep telling you that Evolution is no less a fact and theory than Gravity, yet you keep insisting we are treating it differently. Evolution doesnt have special treatment, okay? Now are you going stop misrepresenting my position?

Well, when I have yet to hear someone talk about the theory of gravity or aerodynamics as fact and theory but I consistantly see evolutionist do so with the toe, it seems pretty obvious from the standpoint of observation that the theory is treated differently, which is the problem. The problem is not that theory is fact and theory, but that that clarity is made every time we talk about the toe and never about the other theories. I even looked it up on the theory of gravity to as to have further evidence for what I am saying. But the evidence is right in front of your face and you are ignoring it because you can accept when you are wrong. Okay....

You see this is what Im talking about. You are using the word "mechanism" completely inappropriatly. Evolution theory isnt the "mechanism" for Evolution. How could it be? The mechanism for Evolution is mutation and natural selection. How can you claim to understand what you are talking about when you say "the theory of evolution is the mechanism of evolution"? That just shows you have no idea what you are saying. Seriously sometimes its like you know less the more this thread goes on. Unless of course this is another typo.

Okay, so teach me what the definition for "theory of evolution" is oh wise one. The theory of evolution is.....

Exactly my point. You used them together (ToC, and ToE) because you felt they were comparable. Since I have already pointed out that the theory of Creation is nothing like Evolution theory, its misleading to put them together because you consider them on some level equal. So that is why I argued against you using the term "theory of Creation" in this discussion for exactly this reason. See also below.

If they mean the same thing about the different accounts, then they are similar in understanding, and can be used side by side without estabilishing what is and what is not scientific in nature. We can discuss which is scientific if you want. Not here, but we can talk about it.

There were only 3 words that werent scientific. "Creation", "theory of Creation" and "kind". You chose to call Creationism, "theory of Creation", which is misleading as it suggest you think its equally scientific as the theory of Evolution. "Kind" is a made up term by Creationists but is claimed to be scientific. See if Creationists dont claim to be doing science and that their objections are religious not scientific, I have no problem, but they do claim to be doing science and they do claim their objections are scientific, so this discussion is ultimately about scientific terms.

What inferrances, what assumptions, boy you are good!

But you did get an answer. You also said that I refused to answer. Thats a lie. You also said I had acted as if you were stupid, thats also a lie. To anyone reading what you said, they would take what you said to mean that I didnt answer you at all, that I acted like you were stupid for asking and that I changed the subject and refused. Which is not true at all.

snip for space
Ed

Subject is closed.

razzelflabben · Jun 28, 2005

Edx said:
Uh... no. Thats not what the question was at all...

"I have asked you this question before and gotten no answer, I'll try again. Do you think there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution?"

Okay, let's review, I asked you if you meant evolution or the toe, you went on and on about how they could mean the same thing. I said yep, so which do you mean, you said, they can mean the same thing. So I asked you do you see a difference between the two? Now which question did you answer? Certainly not the first. Subject closed.

See now thats a different question. A question I had already answered all the other times you asked it. Of course you deny that, because you wont admit you didnt communicate properly.

actually that was the second question and it come about when you refused to answer the first. God figure, subject closed!

Yes, how cool and simple. Shame thats not the question you asked. Shame you asked why "origins" is taught as the foundation of modern biology, and when I answer with why Evolution theory is taught you say thats not "origins".

Now you are talking about a totally different question that came much later, and to be quite honest, the only person on the thread to take enough time and questions to have what even resembled a hint of the question was glaudys and I would like to take the oppertunity to formally and publically thank her for at least trying.

And how simple would it have been to read what was written? Was I refering to the specific process, or the theory? Well, what did I say?....I said: "Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together" See a process isnt a theory, its a process. So either you dont understand what a theory really is or you didnt read properly.

as I have told you and shown you, many times now, there were two statements you made, one said evolution the other said theory of evolution. I simply asked you which we meant.

And we told you several times. And I told you again in the post you were replying to. Are you seriously saying you dont understand the comparison?

No I didnt. Now dont sidestep, admit you didnt listen to what I said and read into it. I never "ignored all the individual theories", I simply said Evolution theory is the single unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together. But nowhere did I suggest it was a "theory of biology", or that it was "what biology consist souly of". You were attacking a strawman of your own creation.

So you are claiming I have caricatured Creationism then. Nonsence. The way I have described it is exactly what it is. I have researched Creationism far more than you have, clearly. I know their arguments, and I know they are inherently unscientific, and that they are willing to caricature and misrepresent Evolution at every opportunity. And it all seems to start with the use of scientific terms and definitons. They never argue against Evolution (or whatever else) on a level playing field, because thats not their agenda

simple question, where did you get all your information about creation?

Do you think science has ignored all the evidence of Geocentricity? Same difference.

didn't indicate that science had, can't fathom how you got that from my post.

Coming from you...
A theory is more than that, but the understanding is certianly elementary. However someone with even an elementary understanding of science would not call scientific theories like Gravity "only a theory" or Aerodynamics "only a theory". Apples still fell even when Einstein proposed General Relativity revising Newtons theory, and Bowing 747s and fighter jets are still designed on the basis of Aerodynamics.

the statement though admittedly over simplified was referring to the idea that you need not specify that theory is fact and theory and this was explained to you many times to which you still refuse to understand. Subject closed (I'm going to start doing a lot more of that with you since you refuse to accept what is right in front of your face, if you have a legitamite question that's cool but this nonsense rambling accusation stuff is very old now and so, subject closed)

--snip---

How many times do I have to tell you the same thing? The only reason I brought up the fact that Evolution is a fact and a theory was because you said Evolution was "only a theory". Thats the only reason why someone would state this 'elementary' fact of science. Im afriad creationist misconceptions generally mean you do have to get this simple. See also above.

see above

No, you didnt look it up. If you mean a dictionary definiton that isnt a scientific source. Origins is not a subject in science. You cannot use it to mean everything. No one in science uses the word like that. It needs a qualifier to make it meaningfull.

deal with it later in this post.

Many places. Heres two.

"the OP question that the question about our schools was about teaching origins in schools and not a specific theory thus your answer falls short.... The schools teach origins all the time...walk into any science classroom and you will see a section devoted to our origins"

The oP said nothing at all about origins in schools, and in fact was a throuwn in question that was only remotely related to the debate over evolution and creation and in fact, at it's root, was trying to identify why the debate is so volitol. But you wish to ignore all that so subject closed!

"I fail to see how the issue of our origins is the foundation for modern biology.... how then is out origins the foundation for modern biology?"

Click to expand...

Note a question asking you to state your point of view, but you didn't want to do that so subject closed!

I'll go through these one by one. As we will see when "origin" and "origins" is used it is used with a qualifier so it is meaningfull, unlike the way you use it as a subject in itself.

In the 1st link its about genes and DNA. "One of the most important unanswered questions in the field of replication is where and how metazoan origins are specified. Replication initiates from multiple sites (origins) throughout the chromosome. These origins are defined by both cis- and trans-acting factors."

don't see any qualifier, only discussion that gives us understood meaning. Go figure, we figure out the meaning by the context. Just what I asked you to do and you asked me to do and if it is not clear, the rules of the OP say to ask.

In the 2nd link

Click to expand...

its subject is also Molecular Genetics. The heading is "origins", but the subject is everything to do with Genetics. Note that like the above it is also not being used as a subject in itself like you use it. "Characteristics used to define Origins: * The position on the DNA at which replication start points (see right) are found. **A DNA sequence that when added to a non-replicating DNA causes it to replicate.***A DNA sequence whose mutation abolishes replication. ****A DNA sequence that in vitro is the binding target for enzyme complexes known to function in initiation of DNA replication. "

don't see any qualifier, only discussion that gives us understood meaning. Go figure, we figure out the meaning by the context. Just what I asked you to do and you asked me to do and if it is not clear, the rules of the OP say to ask.

In the 3nd, talk origins link

Click to expand...

, there is no mention of "origin" or "origins" here. Did you even read these links? I doubt it. Ive been trying to get you to read this ever since you asked what the difference between Evolution and Theory of Evolution was.

refers to the title of the site, and how the word is used, go figure, no qualifier and even worse, no context. I at least used the word better than that.

The 4th link

Click to expand...

is a news report. This site is not a scientific source, which is what I asked for. Common usage is irrelevant. But this news report still tells you what they are actually talking about.

goes back to context. See the rules in the OP, if the context is not clear, ask!

So it was referring to Evolution? And so when i said "Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together". You responded with, "Now this article is talking about evolution and not our origins" ??

And all if this seems clear to you?

out of context, subject closed.

But what you have written show you dont understand certain things. That being science as a whole, including its terms and methods.

I have asked many many times to evidence this but you have failed to do so, wonder why?

A lie and hypocrisy, wow.

Considering the last few replies, thats laughable.

Same as above.

Nonsense. Your misconceptions and misrepresentations are creationist misconceptions. When you said Evolution is "only a theory" you ignored my response, even though it still fit your argument. In essence what you are accusing me of above is like the opposite of what you do. As soon as you think Im addressing your argument as if it was a Creationist argument you ignore it completely not even trying to understand despite the fact that it still applies.

I didnt assume you know nothing, what you have written has told me that you dont undertand the scientific method or its terms.

Well you are misrepresenting the situation, presumabely to try and gain sympathy with any readers. Oh how badly you have been treated! Poor you!

Ignored "ALL" the compliments? All of them? Really? You must hide them well then through your thick veil of pretentiousness and sarcasm.

Ed

I have shown you as kindly as I could what I am saying and you still refuse to accept that I am saying anything but the creationist arguements. When in fact, most of what I am saying I have never heard a creationist say, so I wash my hands of trying to open your eyes to your own misguided accusations and simply say to you subject closed!

gluadys · Jun 28, 2005

razzelflabben said:
and your point.....if the debate between evolution and creation were only about science, there would be not debate.

The real debate is about interpreting scripture. But science comes into it. There is no debate in the scientific community about the fact and theory of evolution. But many lay people have doubts about the science. Such doubts are encouraged by unscrupulous ministries which suppress evidence and manipulate science to present a picture of doubt and confusion which does not actually exist.

So it is important to know the science as it is, not as it has been mediated through other channels. One cannot make a serious decision on what a Christian approach to evolution is, if ones information about evolution is incorrect. The first order of business is to determine what is true about evolution. The next step is to ponder what this means for Christian faith and biblical teaching.

Since the first order of business is to determine what is true about evolution, that requires having a good, if basic, scientific understanding of the observations and theory.

The entire discussion was to point out that the different sides bring different authorities to the discussion, it is not limited to a scientific discussion most of the time.

But we cannot confuse the issues either. We must decide when we are discussing science and when we are not. When we are discussing science we need to understand what science is, what its criteria are, and how it leads from evidence to scientific conclusions. Using different authorities, different premises, different processes will not lead to scientific conclusions.

Point being that we are not talking about what authority is the best or which authority should be used here, or there, it is about how two or more people could talk about the same subject but still come up with totally different ideas they claim as truth/fact.

It has to be absolutely clear that the best authority, the only authority for science is evidence and logical reasoning which is further tested against evidence. When people try to use other authorities, they will not get scientific conclusions. To get to agreement, at least on the science, both people must agree to use the same basis of reasoning that science uses. They may then turn to another authority, if they wish, for insight on how to deal with the implications of the science.

What authority is best is left for a different discussion and I am said this repeatedly as well. Agreed that if the discussion is scientific, the authority should be related to science yet nothing on the title of this says scientific discussion only, it says discussion and debate, creation and evolution. That is why authorities must be established, so we are playing with the same rules.

The rules of scientific discussion have already been set. All that is needed is agreement to use them in the scientific aspect of the discussion. People who refuse to use scientific criteria are obviously not interested in discussing the science relative to evolution.

But, speciation is not universal common ancestry and that is somthing that we have not observed.

Speciation is common ancestry, since one cannot have speciation without a common ancestor. Universal common ancestry is a logical inference from common ancestry. It is also a testable inference. Here we can follow the scientific method of testing a prediction, which we have gone over before.

1. Ask: if universal common ancestry is true, what evidence of it must we find in nature?

2. Ask do we find this evidence in nature?

If we do, we now have evidence of universal common ancestry.

3. Ask if universal common ancestry is true, what evidence must we not find in nature? (i.e. what evidence would contradict universal common ancestry?)

4. Ask do we find this evidence in nature?

If we do, universal common ancestry is falsified.

If we do find supporting evidence and we do not find contradictory evidence, the logical conclusion is that universal common ancestry is probably a fact. That is the actual state of the evidence today.

That is the only claim I have made that science says about our "origins", that univeral common ancestry is not observed.

And without a time machine, it can never be directly observed. No more than you can observe the wedding of your great-great-grandparents.

But both events can leave observable evidence which is a very strong indicator that they really did happen. We dont need to doubt either event just because we did not personally observe it. Science does not require personal observation of every event. It requires observable evidence of an event. And we do have observable evidence of universal common ancestry.

Right, but, excussing away the exception by saying that there are exceptions to every rule does not provide an excuss for revising the theory. So you need to do better than that if you want to use the analogy to revise your theory.

In science, finding an exception does require revising the theory to accommodate the exception. Just as finding an exception to the usual spelling rule requires that it be noted and learned. The theory has to be revised from This is what happens. to This is what happens except under these conditions when something else happens.

Therefore, the opinion must be based on evidences and not on opinions which is exactly what I said.

That is not at all what you said. You said your comparatively uneducated opinion was just as good as a scientists opinion in the field she is working in.

I am glad you now agree that it is evidence that gives weight to an opinion.

razzelflabben · Jun 28, 2005

gluadys said:
The real debate is about interpreting scripture. But science comes into it. There is no debate in the scientific community about the fact and theory of evolution. But many lay people have doubts about the science. Such doubts are encouraged by unscrupulous ministries which suppress evidence and manipulate science to present a picture of doubt and confusion which does not actually exist.

I wonder why if the real debate is about interpreting scripture why you focus is on of science and not biblical interpretation?

So it is important to know the science as it is, not as it has been mediated through other channels. One cannot make a serious decision on what a Christian approach to evolution is, if ones information about evolution is incorrect. The first order of business is to determine what is true about evolution. The next step is to ponder what this means for Christian faith and biblical teaching.

why is this the first channel, why isn't the first step finding out what creation says?

Since the first order of business is to determine what is true about evolution, that requires having a good, if basic, scientific understanding of the observations and theory.

But we cannot confuse the issues either. We must decide when we are discussing science and when we are not. When we are discussing science we need to understand what science is, what its criteria are, and how it leads from evidence to scientific conclusions. Using different authorities, different premises, different processes will not lead to scientific conclusions.

finally with loads of patience and so many rewordings I can't count them, the clouds are starting to move and you are getting what I am saying. How awesomely cool!

It has to be absolutely clear that the best authority, the only authority for science is evidence and logical reasoning which is further tested against evidence. When people try to use other authorities, they will not get scientific conclusions. To get to agreement, at least on the science, both people must agree to use the same basis of reasoning that science uses. They may then turn to another authority, if they wish, for insight on how to deal with the implications of the science.

cool, not part of the original discussion, but agreed from my standpoint.

The rules of scientific discussion have already been set. All that is needed is agreement to use them in the scientific aspect of the discussion. People who refuse to use scientific criteria are obviously not interested in discussing the science relative to evolution.

again, agreed but not part of the original discussion.

Speciation is common ancestry,

agreed many moons ago.

since one cannot have speciation without a common ancestor. Universal common ancestry is a logical inference from common ancestry.

not an issue, not addressed in my claim.

It is also a testable inference.

depends on definition of testable, but not contested.

Here we can follow the scientific method of testing a prediction, which we have gone over before.

1. Ask: if universal common ancestry is true, what evidence of it must we find in nature?

2. Ask do we find this evidence in nature?

If we do, we now have evidence of universal common ancestry.

we have evidence of but not observations of. See, my claim was and always has been that we do not have observations of universal common ancestry if evidence is defined as observation. That is why I asked people to define evidence. What is evidence. There seems to be two difference ideas here based on an earlier post of yours. evidence is observation and evidence is anything that is observed based on a predictions. Which is exactly why I said that I caracterized evidence as hard and soft, hard being direct observation and soft being what is inferred from the direct observation. direct observation being the better but not only acceptable evidence. Go figure, what I said a long time ago, now coming back and showing up on your post in idea at least. Who could have guressed?

3. Ask if universal common ancestry is true, what evidence must we not find in nature? (i.e. what evidence would contradict universal common ancestry?)

4. Ask do we find this evidence in nature?

If we do, universal common ancestry is falsified.

If we do find supporting evidence and we do not find contradictory evidence, the logical conclusion is that universal common ancestry is probably a fact. That is the actual state of the evidence today.

My claim is that science cannot determine fact on the issue only suggest fact, which is percisely what you seem to be saying here.

And without a time machine, it can never be directly observed. No more than you can observe the wedding of your great-great-grandparents.

so why then was my statement viewed as if I knew nothing about science? This is obvious and stated a couple of times by you alone but when I say it a bit latter, I don't know what I'm talking about. How is that?

But both events can leave observable evidence which is a very strong indicator that they really did happen. We dont need to doubt either event just because we did not personally observe it. Science does not require personal observation of every event. It requires observable evidence of an event. And we do have observable evidence of universal common ancestry.

Not contested. Never contested by me.

In science, finding an exception does require revising the theory to accommodate the exception. Just as finding an exception to the usual spelling rule requires that it be noted and learned. The theory has to be revised from This is what happens. to This is what happens except under these conditions when something else happens.

all this because I showed you an exception to your claim that observation is always fact. Do you want to revise your theory or go on and on about how exceptions can be used to revise your theory, remember I'm not totally stupid when it comes to science.

That is not at all what you said. You said your comparatively uneducated opinion was just as good as a scientists opinion in the field she is working in.

I am glad you now agree that it is evidence that gives weight to an opinion.

Actually what I said is that all opinions are valuable and valid and that opinion is not necessarily fact. This in response to your claim that scientists believe evolution to be fact. (toe) and my claim that opinion doesn't equal fact. Thus, a person who understands science would infer that observation equals fact, not opinion. and we should be able to put the issue to rest, but instead, we infer something else into the statement and go on and on.

Edx · Jun 28, 2005

Im going to ask you right now to read through the entire 2 part responce before you reply. One of the reasons you make so many ridiculous statements and errors, looking like you arent listening, is because of this.

razzelflabben said:
Well, the most resent one is that I said that speciation wasn't observed. In reality I said that speciation is observed, but universal common ancestry is not. But you refuse to accept that I said that, I could like a multude of others from authority to this post, but you would just ignore them, so I will leave the discussion at that.

*sigh* Pay attention. That wasnt me.

When did I say that I believed in spontaneous magical creation. From a scientific standpoint, I am a skeptic, thus meaning that I have seen no scientific evidence that we were created, evolved, cloned, or any other possibility. ---snip---So that makes me a creations how?

What, you dont understand sarcasm? You use it all the time, I figured you were well versed.

Ed: My point was simply that yes, we cannot "observe" universal common ancestry. snip for space.

Razzel: and so now you are saying the same thing I am saying and you know science and scientific method but I don't because.... why was that again? I forgot what it is that you are basing this claim on? Thanks

Well if you werent so dishonest as to snip the rest of my reply you would have understood why I said what I said. Tell you what, I'll remind you (see below). You must undertand that "observations" are not only about what is directly observable, its about "observing the evidence". So that would be the way geologists "observe the evidence" to explain how the Grand Canyon formed.

"My point was simply that yes, we cannot "observe" universal common ancestry. Its not something anyone can "observe", just like one cannot observe the formation of the Grand Canyon. That doesnt make it any less science or an assumption to infer from the evidence how the Grand Canyon was formed. It doesnt make it any less a fact. See if we decided science was only restricted to what is directly observable we would have to throw out rather a lot of it. Common ancestry is also not an "assumption", its the only logical scientific conclusion that explains the evidence. If you ever get to the point where evidence is the discussion, you will be show this. Of course whether you are as pedantic, semantical and purposely difficult as you have been here to disregard anything you are shown, remains to be seen."

Okay whatever. Put your money where your mouth is and show me how I used the word wrongly.

I already said that I assumed you wouldnt understand this term, because you had used other scientific terms badly in the past and showed such a lack of undertsanding of both evolution and science in general I figured I should explain what common ancestry was first before I addressed your point before you start using that incorrectly as well. I still maintain that you probably still dont really understand it properly now, and eventually that will become apparent. But that is is enough to say for now that I had reason enough to explain it to you.

You know, when I have somthing explained and it is the exact explaination of use of the word, term, idea that I am expressing, it is hard for me to accept the claim that I am ignorance of science.

And yet you ignore every instance where you have used words innappropriately. "Origins" is a perfect example, but we'll get to that later. Remember what I said at the start of this post? Read everything first. Im tired having to say things twice because you couldnt wait, and I CAN tell very easily if you have done.

sooner or later you must come to grips with the idea that I did not equate peer review to a jury, but rather the possibility of bias in peer review and the importance of understanding this bias as it compares to the importance of bias in a jury. The comparison is not peer review is to a jury, but rather bias in peer review is to bias in a jury.

But you did compare it to a jury, and that is wrong. Its nothing like a jury. The fact you even mention a jury shows you dont understand.

and yet your own quote about peer review pointed out repeatedly the bias that does exist. Go figure, and I have been talking about from the beginning about bias in peer review to which you show us a quote that shows it so clearly and I am the one that doesn't accept things that are right in front of my face. Okay then....

There you go, you ignore what I said again. If you had read what Aron said you would have seen that while publishers dont generally want to publish such unscientific garbage he believes they should, just so everyone can see just how terrible their science really is.

But if Creationists and IDists (and you) want to cry conspiracy and bias all they need do is present their paper along with the comments from the reviewers which rejected it. Then everyone will be able to see if there was such a bias, or whether the rejection was legitimate on scientific grounds. Its easy to put things on the internet, and easy to prove bias if that really were the reason for rejection. Why then, do you think they do not do this?

Where did I say anything that even resembles this? Please site! All I said is that peer review is biased and you showed us this bias in your quote. But I am wrong and you are right because ...

That was your whole reason for comparing peer review to a jury. You were trying to show how peer review is biased too, like Creationist sources are biased.

Ed: Based on the fact that you said this, among other things:
......"Why must a "theory" be the unifying tie of modern biology?..."

Razzel: question addressed to you not a comment about what I believe or know

Ed: "...Why is it impossible for an observed process (speciation) to be the foundation for our modern biological exploration? ..."

Razzel: question addressed to you not a comment about what I believe or know

This is getting silly now. The above is a perfect example of you not reading everything before you start typing, only taken to ridiculous extremes.

Your obviously rhetorical questions you asked (above), then stated you agreed with (below) clearly was the reason why I quoted it as such. But either through some petty attempt to make me look stupid, lazyness or even sheer stupidity you didnt even give me the courtesy to bother reading through the entire quote before you started typing! I actually gave you more credit than this Razzel, but the depths you have stooped to in this post really is unbelievable.

Ed: "...That I can agree with."

Razzel: Ah finally something that I state I believe on the topic, that evolution is the foundation of modern biology but that the theory of evolution is not. Now that is truely profound wouldn't you say?

Oh yes... "finially" (see above).

Ed: Therefore you dont understand that without theory, the observed process is meaningless and tells us nothing. That is why Gravity, Aerodynamics and Evolution are all facts and theories.

Razzel: Okay, let's try again, theory is part of the process that we use when determineing scientific observations. Theory is not the observation.

Correct. Theory is not the observation. But the observations mean nothing unless we develope a theory that explains it. And as such without the "theory" of Evolution we cannot have an observed process being the foundation of modern biology since the observed process will have no meaning, no theory to tell us anything about it. Your ignorence on this matter is one of the reasons why I keep saying you dont understand science properly.

I used it according to an acceptable definition and showed not only the definition but also examples of such so that confusion did not exist. But, you still refuse to accept that if one person uses the authority of observation and another God, then the conclusions are likely to be different. That is what the entire discussion started out to be and you still don't understand that and I really don't know how else to try to get you to understand this.

Dont dodge the question. Considering what I told you before, explain why the Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy if this is the case. And explain how no one who understands why the Appeal to Authority fallacy is a fallacy, uses the word authority the way you do.

WEll, if I use them the same way as the evolutionist do and you deem that poor usage, then I guess not, because I really have no idea how else to use them or how else to understand the use thereof. Sorry, I use the words as the evolutionists use them, it is what I was taught, it is what I have been asked to do, and it is the only way I know to communicate.

I love the way you hold up your proverbial hands and pretend how honest you are.

No, you do not use scientific terms the way science uses them.

I belive that evolution ties it together but not the theory of evolution, sorry we disagree here.

And no matter how many times I state how that cant be, you just ignore me for some reason. See also above. Evolution, being the process, cannot tie all aspects of biology together since if there is no theory to tell us anything about what it means, it cannot mean anything. And I already did tell you how the theory of Evolution relates to modern science, including applied science, but you ignored that as well. (see recent reply where I asked you several times to go address that past post)

same thing I have been saying, go figure one more case of agreement, you know the agreements that indicate to you that I don't understand science. Assumptions are not observations, sound familiar?

No, its not the same thing you have been saying. Im saying that assumptions taken as fact is wrong, that... "...all assumptions must be critically examined...Whatever is inconsistent with the facts -- no matter how fond of it we are -- must be discarded or revised. " However you incorrectly call common ancestry an assumption. Now ignoring the evidence for it now, you must understand that it is not an assumption but rather the only logical scientific conslusion that explains all the evidence. It is no less an assumption than for a geologist to state how the grand canyon formed based on the "logical scientific inference that explains all the evidence". See below.

. In order to determine fact of how the grand canyon was formed, or who my grandparents are, I need to do more than infer. Again, such awesome evidence of ignorance huh?

And as what gluadys pointed out its about scientifically logical inference based on what fits all the evidence. If it doesnt fit, we must revise it or throw it out in favour of an explanation that explains the evidence better no matter how fond of it we are.

But I didn't say that they are not "fact and theory" I said that it is not stated the theory of gravity is fact and theory, the theory of aeodynamics is fact and theory. But when talking about the toe we way to often here "evolution or the theory of evolution is fact and theory" This specification for the toe when none of the other theories have this specification is the problem.... But the evidence is right in front of your face and you are ignoring it because you can accept when you are wrong. Okay....

I already said this last time, but you responded with "see above". See above to where, I have no idea. Now I want you to read whats written below slowly and carefully, I even bolded the most important parts. I dont like talking down to people, but here you give me no choice. Now are you really telling me you still dont see what Im saying?

"...The only reason I brought up the fact that Evolution is a fact and a theory was because you said Evolution was "only a theory". Thats the only reason why someone would state this 'elementary' fact of science. Im afriad creationist misconceptions generally mean you do have to get this simple"

Okay, so teach me what the definition for "theory of evolution" is oh wise one. The theory of evolution is.....

All those other times wasnt enough? Is there anything about the below that is unclear to you?

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 (speciation).

Evolution Theory:
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.

If they mean the same thing about the different accounts, then they are similar in understanding, and can be used side by side without estabilishing what is and what is not scientific in nature. We can discuss which is scientific if you want. Not here, but we can talk about it.

But they dont mean the same thing about the different accounts. There is nothing similar about them other than slightly, and Jimbo The All Mighty Toad that coughed up the universe is as similar as Creationism is to Evolution.

What inferrances, what assumptions, boy you are good!

I want you to explain this, and dont just snip it like you do everything else you dont want to address. Actually take the time to look back and explain yourself.

Subject is closed.

I asked you before to prove your lies about me werent really lies, but you snipped it. I asked you again, and you say the above. Not to mention all those other times Ive brought it up. So in other words you just dont want to deal with it. This should not be surprising though.

Ed

Edx · Jun 28, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Okay, let's review, I asked you if you meant evolution or the toe, you went on and on about how they could mean the same thing. I said yep, so which do you mean, you said, they can mean the same thing. So I asked you do you see a difference between the two? Now which question did you answer?

Apparently everything you read gets translated into a garbled mess. No wonder you never seem to undertsand anything.

What I said was "evolution" means change over time. That is the popular usage. Thats correct. I also told you that when "Evolution" is used in a biological context it can refer to the process, or specifics like speciation. But the word "Evolution" in context can also be referring to the theory, like Natrural Selection for example. Really you cant seperate the two as far as you seem to think it is different. The only thing that really seperates the usage are the context in which they are used. If I say a species "evolved" am I refering to the process or the theory? You dont say a bird "theory of evolutionized", so both, really. Because even if you are talking about the change in allele frequencies over time, we also say "evolution", because thats all evolution is when it comes down to it.

(Im really not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp. Maybe its because you so desperatly want to seperate the process from the theory as we have see in part 1 of this reply)

actually that was the second question and it come about when you refused to answer the first. God figure, subject closed!

There you go, lying again. I didn't "refuse" at all, nor can you prove that I did especially as I was the one that listed every time I answered the question politely. Why do you think I answered it so fully recently? Perhaps you happened to state the question differently? Unlike before where you just seemed to parrot the same question over and over, presumably hoping each time I might develop some amazing mind-reading abilities or something.

Now you are talking about a totally different question that came much later,

Yes it was. However IF youhad actually asked me when I said "Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together" if I meant the process or the theory (which you didnt), I would have told you. Not that I can understand how there was any confusion anyway. I actually stated "theory"... come on.

as I have told you and shown you, many times now, there were two statements you made, one said evolution the other said theory of evolution. I simply asked you which we meant.

And yet this was the first time I stated it, writing, "Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together" and the second time I wrote 'theory of evolution'. Now even though I stated "theory" the first time round, you were still ...confused...

simple question, where did you get all your information about creation?

From Creationists themselves. Debating them, watching debates and from Creationists own websites and literature.

Ed: Do you think science has ignored all the evidence of Geocentricity? Same difference

Razzel: didn't indicate that science had, can't fathom how you got that from my post.

Well duh.You said science is ignoring all the evidence for Creation.Well, do you think they have ignored all the evidence for Geocentricity as well?

the statement though admittedly over simplified was referring to the idea that you need not specify that theory is fact and theory and this was explained to you many times to which you still refuse to understand.

And it was explained to you many times that you have to get that simple when someones states a scientific theory is "only a theory", which really is the most obvious clue someone doesnt really know what they are talking about.

Note a question asking you to state your point of view, but you didn't want to do that so subject closed!

I love the way you twist your own words. It wasnt a question asking me to state my point of view. It was you asking why "origins" is the foundation of modern biology. When I answered why Evolution theory is considered the foundation of modern biology you stated "this article is talking about evolution and not our origins". So, who were you replying to? Who said "origins" is the foundation of modern biology, when "origins" does not even mean Evolution? Why come up with this word origins at all, and use it in such a wishy washy way then blame others for not understanding what you are talking about? See below.

don't see any qualifier, only discussion that gives us understood meaning. Go figure, we figure out the meaning by the context. Just what I asked you to do and you asked me to do and if it is not clear, the rules of the OP say to ask.

How about you try to be reasonable for just a moment?

In the site it is painfully obvious what the subject is. The word origins is certianly used, but not as term but in a subject that makes it meaningfull, not in the vague obscure way you use it.

don't see any qualifier, only discussion that gives us understood meaning. Go figure, we figure out the meaning by the context. Just what I asked you to do and you asked me to do and if it is not clear, the rules of the OP say to ask.

This is actually laughable. The subject is plainly about Molecular Biology. The subject of "origins" is stated plainly as being in regards to DNA replication. There is no obscurity, and no doubt as to what is being discussed.

refers to the title of the site, and how the word is used, go figure, no qualifier and even worse, no context. I at least used the word better than that.

For some reason I figured you had actually read the site. How silly of me. It is called Talk Origins, not because there is a subject in science called "origins", but because our "origins" is the heart of what Creationists attack and that is what the site is about. Because the fact is Creationists attack everything scientific that one might consider to be about our "origins", because it doesnt agree with their literalist belief. Now if you actually read the site you will find no vague meaningless usage of the word "origins" in the articles - they use the correct terms. The word origins is used in TO once or twice to refer to everything creationists attack, but only when it makes sence to do so.

But you use the word "origins" to refer to any of the subjects such as "abiogenesis" and "evolution" (which are completely separate fields as you already know), but not specify what you are actually talking about. Whereas Talk Origins always uses the correct term. Since you obviously havent bothered to read the site, Im not surprised you dont get this. Clearly you keep using the word "origins" inappropriately because you want to confuse people, or you dont want to back down and look like you are admitting its wrong to do so.

As gluadys said:

"They specify "origin of the universe" "origin of galaxies" "origin of the earth" "origin of biotic organisms" "origin of species" "origin of the eye" "origin of H. sapiens" etc. They don't use the bare term "origins" to lump all these together as if it was one scientific subject."

goes back to context. See the rules in the OP, if the context is not clear, ask!

For the second time, a news report isnt a scientific source. If you are discussing science, you must use its terms. Do you or do you not want to use scientific terms correctly?

out of context, subject closed.

Its not out of context at all. And you "closing the subject" seems to be the only way you can stop arguing without admitting you were wrong.

I have asked many many times to evidence this but you have failed to do so, wonder why?

And I have shown you. Yet each time you just ignored it completely and claim you do in fact understand science the same way as everyone else even though you dont understand what a theory really is or how the scientific method really works like with peer review, and why the word "origins" cant be used like a bare term lumping several unrelated scientific fields together as if it was one scientific subject.

I have shown you as kindly as I could

I think anyone monitoring this discussion can see the kind of "kindness" you have shown others.

hat I am saying and you still refuse to accept that I am saying anything but the creationist arguements

I have repeatedly told you I am treating you as an individual. But the fact is your misundertsandings and misrepresentations just all happen to be Creationist misundertstandings and misrepresentations. Im afriad you just cant seem to face that.

Ed

razzelflabben · Jun 29, 2005

Edx said:
Im going to ask you right now to read through the entire 2 part responce before you reply. One of the reasons you make so many ridiculous statements and errors, looking like you arent listening, is because of this.

I usually read one post and then address it, then go to the next, but because you asked, I read both first, seems to me you should take some reading lessons, as a reading teacher, I can tell you that you seem to have some comprehension problems. But that is only free advise.

*sigh* Pay attention. That wasnt me.

What, you dont understand sarcasm? You use it all the time, I figured you were well versed.

Well if you werent so dishonest as to snip the rest of my reply you would have understood why I said what I said. Tell you what, I'll remind you (see below). You must undertand that "observations" are not only about what is directly observable, its about "observing the evidence". So that would be the way geologists "observe the evidence" to explain how the Grand Canyon formed.

I sniped the reply so that it would fit on one post, sorry, didn't know we needed 3 posts to cover these issues that is why I deemed it prudent to close some of the subjects, so that the posts could be kept down. Sorry didn't know that would offend you so.

"My point was simply that yes, we cannot "observe" universal common ancestry. Its not something anyone can "observe", just like one cannot observe the formation of the Grand Canyon. That doesnt make it any less science or an assumption to infer from the evidence how the Grand Canyon was formed. It doesnt make it any less a fact. See if we decided science was only restricted to what is directly observable we would have to throw out rather a lot of it. Common ancestry is also not an "assumption", its the only logical scientific conclusion that explains the evidence. If you ever get to the point where evidence is the discussion, you will be show this. Of course whether you are as pedantic, semantical and purposely difficult as you have been here to disregard anything you are shown, remains to be seen

."

I did not contest anything you have said here, the only thing I said is that universal common ancestry was not observed. We will talk about assumptions later as it was brought up originally, but for now deal with what was said. Universal common ancestry is not observed. You admit it, glaudy admitts it, but you are knowledgable but when I say the same thing, I know nothing about science or the scientific words or methods. This is why I can't take your claim that I have shown ignorance seriously, because I said nothing here controversial to your claims, in fact, I shorthanded what you said and that equals me not understanding. If you want me to take your claims seriously, then you must consistantly show your claims to be valid. You don't. People who know me know that the one thing I always demand in debate is consistancy. You my friend have none.

I already said that I assumed you wouldnt understand this term, because you had used other scientific terms badly in the past and showed such a lack of undertsanding of both evolution and science in general I figured I should explain what common ancestry was first before I addressed your point before you start using that incorrectly as well. I still maintain that you probably still dont really understand it properly now, and eventually that will become apparent. But that is is enough to say for now that I had reason enough to explain it to you.

Again, that inconsistancy comes through since I have used the terms consistantly and the same way that you and others here have used them. The problem with consistancy or lack thereof on a forum that is suppose to be about science is that inconsistancy is one of the first tales of a belief. Science requires consistancy and so do I. If I had consistantly used words wrong, you would have grounds, but I have not and the above shows us this in the fact that my comments about universal common ancestry are identical to yours. You expound on the idea which I discuss with you later, but the comments are identical. To this you claim that I don't understand. Consistantly you can only make that claim if my arguement was different than yours or it I had shown other misuses for the term of which you conistantly have shown I haven't. When I first got thrown into a creation/evolution debate on the forum, I thought to myself man, I don't belong here, I can't possibly know as much as these people. But, I was "drug" into the debate so I listened and learned and participated as I could. Only to find that I knew as much or more than most of the people here debating. Now I don't know all the "new" evidence, and I don't always know how to use the terms properly (it isn't my field), but the ideas, concepts, meanings, etc. I knew better than I gave myself credit for knowing. When you can consistantly show my lack thereof, I will be happy to listen and consider your words, but so far the consistancy has been that I do understand. So that leaves your claims falsified.

And yet you ignore every instance where you have used words innappropriately. "Origins" is a perfect example, but we'll get to that later. Remember what I said at the start of this post? Read everything first. Im tired having to say things twice because you couldnt wait, and I CAN tell very easily if you have done.

Click to expand...

later, can't wait.

But you did compare it to a jury, and that is wrong. Its nothing like a jury. The fact you even mention a jury shows you dont understand.

Click to expand...

I compared the importance of bias in peer review to the importance of bias in a jury and you refuse to admit it even though it is in front of your face and stated many many times now, which is why I choose to close subjects with you when the subject has been thouroughly covered. Subject closed

There you go, you ignore what I said again. If you had read what Aron said you would have seen that while publishers dont generally want to publish such unscientific garbage he believes they should, just so everyone can see just how terrible their science really is.

Click to expand...

Actually I did read it and showed to you two different biased that were clearly stated, maybe you should go back and review instead of claiming I didn't read it.

But if Creationists and IDists (and you) want to cry conspiracy and bias all they need do is present their paper along with the comments from the reviewers which rejected it. Then everyone will be able to see if there was such a bias, or whether the rejection was legitimate on scientific grounds. Its easy to put things on the internet, and easy to prove bias if that really were the reason for rejection. Why then, do you think they do not do this?

Click to expand...

I didn't hear anyone here cry conspiracy did you? Who? I said that peer review doesn't remove bias and as such must be viewed as such. Wow earth shattering, I really don't understand how such simple things are percieved as so threatening to your ideas and beliefs about the toe. In fact, they are scientific understandings, why do you think they do peer reviews in the first place? To help to do away with the bias! Go figure!

That was your whole reason for comparing peer review to a jury. You were trying to show how peer review is biased too, like Creationist sources are biased.

Click to expand...

Absolutely creationist sources are biased, I thought I was the first to say that, you might have been, no biggy, That is the problem with rely on the sources, be that creationist or evolutionist for determining fact. A much more relyable authority would be observaton. But we haven't yet discussed what authority is the best, suffice to say that evolutonist sources are biased as are creationist sources and therefore are poor authorities to base fact on.

This is getting silly now. The above is a perfect example of you not reading everything before you start typing, only taken to ridiculous extremes.

Your obviously rhetorical questions you asked (above), then stated you agreed with (below) clearly was the reason why I quoted it as such. But either through some petty attempt to make me look stupid, lazyness or even sheer stupidity you didnt even give me the courtesy to bother reading through the entire quote before you started typing! I actually gave you more credit than this Razzel, but the depths you have stooped to in this post really is unbelievable.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't understand what your trying to get at. I ask questions, largely because I accept that I don't know it all. Sometimes I ask questions to see if I understand things the same way others do. You seem to assume that when I ask a question I am not inquiring but rather making some kind of a statement or point. In fact, I am asking for information. When I understand what is being said, then and only then do I know if I agree, disagree, need to qualify, or what and if necessary, I ask more questions in order to identify the root of any disagreement. It's all about listening before assuming that we disagree.

Oh yes... "finially" (see above).

Correct. Theory is not the observation. But the observations mean nothing unless we develope a theory that explains it. And as such without the "theory" of Evolution we cannot have an observed process being the foundation of modern biology since the observed process will have no meaning, no theory to tell us anything about it. Your ignorence on this matter is one of the reasons why I keep saying you dont understand science properly.

Click to expand...

Actually, you have it backwards, the observation comes before the theory and as such, in the case of evolution, the observaton is a process, the "process of change" it is from this "process of change" that we come up with a theory that will allow us to further test through the use of predictions. That is why evolution (process)can be the foundation of modern biology .

Dont dodge the question. Considering what I told you before, explain why the Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy if this is the case. And explain how no one who understands why the Appeal to Authority fallacy is a fallacy, uses the word authority the way you do.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know what you want me to say, I demonstrated how glaudys used the word authority the same way I did and you still insist that no one uses it the same way I do, Go figure, you denying what is right in front of your face again. Our acceptance of an authority allows us to communicate. It allows us to understand what premesis the other person is adhering to and why or how they are coming to the conclusions they are. See communication is not about who is right and who is wrong, it's about understanding what the other person is saying and why.

I love the way you hold up your proverbial hands and pretend how honest you are.

No, you do not use scientific terms the way science uses them.

Click to expand...

YOu have had multiply opertunities to evidence this so why not start now?

Click to expand...

razzelflabben · Jun 29, 2005

part 2 of part 1, see why I sniped some of your words before?

And no matter how many times I state how that cant be, you just ignore me for some reason. See also above. Evolution, being the process, cannot tie all aspects of biology together since if there is no theory to tell us anything about what it means, it cannot mean anything. And I already did tell you how the theory of Evolution relates to modern science, including applied science, but you ignored that as well. (see recent reply where I asked you several times to go address that past post)

address this above. Hope you can read it so that the post can be shortened.

No, its not the same thing you have been saying. Im saying that assumptions taken as fact is wrong, that... "...all assumptions must be critically examined...Whatever is inconsistent with the facts -- no matter how fond of it we are -- must be discarded or revised. " However you incorrectly call common ancestry an assumption. Now ignoring the evidence for it now, you must understand that it is not an assumption but rather the only logical scientific conslusion that explains all the evidence. It is no less an assumption than for a geologist to state how the grand canyon formed based on the "logical scientific inference that explains all the evidence". See below.

Okay, tell me how saying that assumptions are not fact is NOT the same thing as saying that assumptions taken as fact is wrong? I can't wait to here this explaination, it is so exciting to see a pro a work. All I have ever said about assumptions is that they don't equal fact. Theres that earth shattering revelation again, you know the ones that show how ignorant I am of science and scientific terms. Let's see what the word assumption means okay? assumption-
premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
a hypothesis that is taken for granted; "any society is built upon certain assumptions"

So, we have observed speciation, we assume that speciation goes on indefinately and so we infer that universal common ancestry is fact. The problem is that universal common ancestry is infered from an assumption and is therefore not fact but a logical conclusion. More earth shattering revalations from Razz, no wonder you think I don't use scientific words correctly, because you never take the time to find out what I am saying. universal common ancestry is in fact a conclusion based on an assumption. Go figure, that makes the logical conclusion based on the assumption that the assumptions are correct. Now that is truely enough to base our understanding of fact on. NOT!

And as what gluadys pointed out its about scientifically logical inference based on what fits all the evidence. If it doesnt fit, we must revise it or throw it out in favour of an explanation that explains the evidence better no matter how fond of it we are.

and yet even glaudy admitted that in order to come to the logical conclusion of universal common ancestry, we must rely of inferrances of inferrances of observation and fact, simply doesn't work that way. So, if we rely on observation to determine fact, and universal common ancestry is not observed, then it is not fact, but in fact a conclusion based on an assumption.

I already said this last time, but you responded with "see above". See above to where, I have no idea. Now I want you to read whats written below slowly and carefully, I even bolded the most important parts. I dont like talking down to people, but here you give me no choice. Now are you really telling me you still dont see what Im saying?

"...The only reason I brought up the fact that Evolution is a fact and a theory was because you said Evolution was "only a theory". Thats the only reason why someone would state this 'elementary' fact of science. Im afriad creationist misconceptions generally mean you do have to get this simple"

Okay, let's look at it. The theory of gravity is only a theory, why might you ask? because a theory is what we think based on the empirical evidence we observe and therefore is nothing more than a theory. Go figure. Aerodynamics is only a theory Why might you ask, because because a theory is what we think based on the empirical evidence we observe and therefore is nothing more than a theory. The theory of evolution is just a theory why you might ask, because it is a fact and a theory. Nonsense! it is a thoery just like all the other scientific theories. Stop trying so hard to make the theory of evolution sound like something more that is all I have asked, the theory of eovlution is not a fact, it is a theory based on observed empirical evidence just like all other theories. Get over it.

All those other times wasnt enough? Is there anything about the below that is unclear to you?

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 (speciation).

Evolution Theory:
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.

Okay try this, what is the shorthand version of the two definitions? I see in the definition for the term evolution theory the words, the hypotheses and theories which best explain those facts. (translation, mechanisms) and in fact, in a much earlier post, this was the word you objected to in my understanding of the term theory of creation. In fact, your concern was not with the idea or understanding but with the use of a "scientific sounding" term. Both relating similar ideas, thus both adapting terms that relate similar ideas.

But they dont mean the same thing about the different accounts. There is nothing similar about them other than slightly, and Jimbo The All Mighty Toad that coughed up the universe is as similar as Creationism is to Evolution.

Well, I can show you many similarities between the two but you aren't ready for that just yet.

I want you to explain this, and dont just snip it like you do everything else you dont want to address. Actually take the time to look back and explain yourself.

I asked you before to prove your lies about me werent really lies, but you snipped it. I asked you again, and you say the above. Not to mention all those other times Ive brought it up. So in other words you just dont want to deal with it. This should not be surprising though.

Ed

Been over it to many times to count and you can't accept it, so we move on. Case closed!

rmwilliamsll · Jun 29, 2005

The problem is that universal common ancestry is infered from an assumption and is therefore not fact but a logical conclusion. More earth shattering revalations from Razz, no wonder you think I don't use scientific words correctly, because you never take the time to find out what I am saying. universal common ancestry is in fact a conclusion based on an assumption.

what exactly is this assumption?

razzelflabben · Jun 29, 2005

Edx said:
Apparently everything you read gets translated into a garbled mess. No wonder you never seem to undertsand anything.

You know what is really funny, that is exactly what my husband just said about you.

What I said was "evolution" means change over time. That is the popular usage. Thats correct. I also told you that when "Evolution" is used in a biological context it can refer to the process, or specifics like speciation. But the word "Evolution" in context can also be referring to the theory, like Natrural Selection for example. Really you cant seperate the two as far as you seem to think it is different. The only thing that really seperates the usage are the context in which they are used. If I say a species "evolved" am I refering to the process or the theory? You dont say a bird "theory of evolutionized", so both, really. Because even if you are talking about the change in allele frequencies over time, we also say "evolution", because thats all evolution is when it comes down to it.

And this explaination of how the word evolution can mean different things, addresses the question "do you mean evolution or the theory of evolution? how, and how does that quesiton show that I don't understand that the word evolution can have more than one meaning? I've asked you this before, don't recall you givning me an answer, just keep making the same old claims, why don't you take a deep breath and try again to answer the question in a way that an ignorant boob like me can comprehend. Thanks

(Im really not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp. Maybe its because you so desperatly want to seperate the process from the theory as we have see in part 1 of this reply)

It all goes back to claims of what is and is not fact. If you claim that the toe is fact, I will challenge you to evidence universal common ancestry, because like it or not that is the main thing that people have a problem with and is often claimed to be fact by the evolutionsists. But in order to be consistant, the claim must be limited to evolution, the process which is observed. So in order to hold you or anyone else accountable for their claims, we must understand the basic differences between the toe and e and if we can't do that, then any discussion is meaningless because if is all about belief and not about science. That is why the question was important and when you didn't actually answer the question you were asked if you saw any difference between e and the toe.

There you go, lying again. I didn't "refuse" at all, nor can you prove that I did especially as I was the one that listed every time I answered the question politely. Why do you think I answered it so fully recently? Perhaps you happened to state the question differently? Unlike before where you just seemed to parrot the same question over and over, presumably hoping each time I might develop some amazing mind-reading abilities or something.

tell me please why you couldn't simply say, oh, I mean the theory of evolution rather than assume that I know nothing and go into long drawn out discussion that doesn't answer the simple question, which did you mean? You answered every time, you just didn't answer the question until much much later.

Yes it was. However IF youhad actually asked me when I said "Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together" if I meant the process or the theory (which you didnt), I would have told you. Not that I can understand how there was any confusion anyway. I actually stated "theory"... come on.

And yet this was the first time I stated it, writing, "Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together" and the second time I wrote 'theory of evolution'. Now even though I stated "theory" the first time round, you were still ...confused...

I asked you when your words seemed to contridict themselves and it was not related to any one post but the comparison of two differeent posts and I have shown you this and even took the time to look it up, putting it right in front of your face just so you could deny it. CASE CLOSED!

From Creationists themselves. Debating them, watching debates and from Creationists own websites and literature.

You should look at the actual creation story for a change, you might be surprised by what you see and what you don't see, and it appears that this is one of the root problems in our discussion, when I am talking about creation I am not referring to the creationist websites and literature, but rather to the account as recorded in Gen. Glaudy and I are talking about it on another thread, if you are willing to look at it with us, you are welcome to come on over but please leave behind your aditude and anger thanks, it's just a friendly look at what the account says and doesn't say not a debate over whether it is or is not anything.

Well duh.You said science is ignoring all the evidence for Creation.Well, do you think they have ignored all the evidence for Geocentricity as well?

science doesn't even acknowledge that creation has been evidenced. Get real. YOu could really learn something from looking at the text in Gen.

And it was explained to you many times that you have to get that simple when someones states a scientific theory is "only a theory", which really is the most obvious clue someone doesnt really know what they are talking about.

and a scientific theory is only a scientific theory, that is the point. the claim that scientific theory is like saying, using glaudys analogy of a chicken, a chicken is not only a chicken, it is also a chick that grows up into a chicken. Is the claim wrong? NO, is it redundent? Yes, Does the claim that the chicken is more than a chicken sound like we are talking about more than a chick? YES. That's the problem. theory is theory, it is not more or less. theory covers it just as chicken is a chicken covers the story of how it starts out an egg, then goes to a chick etc. It is about consistancy, nothing more or nothing less.

I love the way you twist your own words. It wasnt a question asking me to state my point of view. It was you asking why "origins" is the foundation of modern biology. When I answered why Evolution theory is considered the foundation of modern biology you stated "this article is talking about evolution and not our origins". So, who were you replying to? Who said "origins" is the foundation of modern biology, when "origins" does not even mean Evolution? Why come up with this word origins at all, and use it in such a wishy washy way then blame others for not understanding what you are talking about? See below.

But I never asked you why our origins is the foundation of modern biology, I asked you if you meant that evolution or the theory or evolution was the foundation of modern biology. In the above quote, (made much later in the discussion), the word origins is used in place of the term toe thus would indicate the origins of the species understanding. It is to be taken in context, remember you telling me to read it in context?

How about you try to be reasonable for just a moment?

In the site it is painfully obvious what the subject is. The word origins is certianly used, but not as term but in a subject that makes it meaningfull, not in the vague obscure way you use it.

This is actually laughable. The subject is plainly about Molecular Biology. The subject of "origins" is stated plainly as being in regards to DNA replication. There is no obscurity, and no doubt as to what is being discussed.

For some reason I figured you had actually read the site. How silly of me. It is called Talk Origins, not because there is a subject in science called "origins", but because our "origins" is the heart of what Creationists attack and that is what the site is about. Because the fact is Creationists attack everything scientific that one might consider to be about our "origins", because it doesnt agree with their literalist belief. Now if you actually read the site you will find no vague meaningless usage of the word "origins" in the articles - they use the correct terms. The word origins is used in TO once or twice to refer to everything creationists attack, but only when it makes sence to do so.

But you use the word "origins" to refer to any of the subjects such as "abiogenesis" and "evolution" (which are completely separate fields as you already know), but not specify what you are actually talking about. Whereas Talk Origins always uses the correct term. Since you obviously havent bothered to read the site, Im not surprised you dont get this. Clearly you keep using the word "origins" inappropriately because you want to confuse people, or you dont want to back down and look like you are admitting its wrong to do so.

I use the word the same way all of these do and I was asked to show you such. I did, it is in front of your face, the words use is put into context of what is being said, not in specifying which is meant. If you don't understand the context, you are required to ask. Now in relation to the question I was asking, the context should indicate to you that how life came to its present state is the understood definition. But if you are not holding yourself to the same level of communication that you are holding me to, I guess you can excuse yourself from the responsibility of reading the word in context and no one but me will hold you accountable.

As gluadys said:

"They specify "origin of the universe" "origin of galaxies" "origin of the earth" "origin of biotic organisms" "origin of species" "origin of the eye" "origin of H. sapiens" etc. They don't use the bare term "origins" to lump all these together as if it was one scientific subject."

But as I have shown you, they don't specify "origin of the universe", "origin of galaxies", etc. they allow the context of the sentence, paragraph, article, etc. to define what is being referred to, you know, like you supposedly did with the term evolution.

For the second time, a news report isnt a scientific source. If you are discussing science, you must use its terms. Do you or do you not want to use scientific terms correctly?

Waiting for you to show me one I am not using correctly.

Its not out of context at all. And you "closing the subject" seems to be the only way you can stop arguing without admitting you were wrong.

It is the only way to end an arguement with someone who refusses to accept what is right in front of his/her face.

And I have shown you. Yet each time you just ignored it completely and claim you do in fact understand science the same way as everyone else even though you dont understand what a theory really is or how the scientific method really works like with peer review, and why the word "origins" cant be used like a bare term lumping several unrelated scientific fields together as if it was one scientific subject.

addressed all the above and see nothing inconsistant about my understanding and the way you and others are using them. I see a lot however of people like you only pretending to read what I am saying so as to read into the post and "creationist arguement" and therefore argue you point.

I think anyone monitoring this discussion can see the kind of "kindness" you have shown others.

fair enough, I have been honest, I have been truthful, and I have sought to do so with the utmost respect and kindness possible which often seems to be the opposite when infact, there is no polite way to say some of the things that need said. Which is also why I have peppered the posts with comments that were just as honest and forthright as to your education, abilities to debate, my enjoyment of our debate, etc. Thus striving to be balancing critisizms with compliments and thus holding your character in tact.

I have repeatedly told you I am treating you as an individual. But the fact is your misundertsandings and misrepresentations just all happen to be Creationist misundertstandings and misrepresentations. Im afriad you just cant seem to face that.

Ed

What ever, it is all laid out for you to review. Be cautions not to be so sure about what you think I am and what you think I am saying to read and understand and listen to what I really believe and am saying. You and I are not so far off from a common understanding as you are making us out to be. In fact, there are only a small handful of points that we are actually disagreeing on, it would be to your credit to learn and understand this.

razzelflabben · Jun 29, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
what exactly is this assumption?

WEll the first assumption if you read the post was that speciation has no stopping point, that it can and does go on indefinatly. This is not observed and unfortunately is another one of those things that cannot be observed. There are others but that seems to be the favorite when determineing a logical conclusion.

gluadys · Jun 29, 2005

razzelflabben said:
So, if we rely on observation to determine fact, and universal common ancestry is not observed, then it is not fact, but in fact a conclusion based on an assumption.

Wrong. The conclusion is not based on an assumption. It is based on observed evidence which is totally consistent with universal common ancestry and cannot be explained by a different theory.

rmwilliamsll · Jun 29, 2005

razzelflabben said:
WEll the first assumption if you read the post was that speciation has no stopping point, that it can and does go on indefinatly. This is not observed and unfortunately is another one of those things that cannot be observed. There are others but that seems to be the favorite when determineing a logical conclusion.

ok.
that looks significantly like the YECist kind barrier.
the immediate problem is how to word it so that we can discuss it carefully.

If there is a stopping point then it must exist at the genetic level. Looking at the DNA of all creatures, what do you propose that this barrier looks like? where do we start looking for it. If it is an assumption then that kind of reasoning ought to be doable.

now this is to further the discussion and to actually get somewhere and to do use it as a motivation to do some useful research. we can look at the idea that this is an assumption after we define it well enough to work with the idea.

....

razzelflabben · Jun 29, 2005

gluadys said:
Wrong. The conclusion is not based on an assumption. It is based on observed evidence which is totally consistent with universal common ancestry and cannot be explained by a different theory.

Okay, time to put your money where your mouth is, tell us when we have observed speciation going on indefinately? When have we actually seen it happen?

When you answer that one, you can then address this one. Who said anything about it not being a logical conclusion or that there were other theories that explained the evidence?

I did not hear either of these claims in the post you are referring to. In fact, I said that it is a logical conclusion based on an assumption and therefore is not fact but rather conclusion.

razzelflabben · Jun 29, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
ok.
that looks significantly like the YECist kind barrier.
the immediate problem is how to word it so that we can discuss it carefully.

If there is a stopping point then it must exist at the genetic level. Looking at the DNA of all creatures, what do you propose that this barrier looks like? where do we start looking for it. If it is an assumption then that kind of reasoning ought to be doable.

now this is to further the discussion and to actually get somewhere and to do use it as a motivation to do some useful research. we can look at the idea that this is an assumption after we define it well enough to work with the idea.

....

I thought yecist believed the earth to be young, how does this observation say anything about the age of the earth?

Anyway, I didn't say that there was a stopping point, you must read what I am saying, I said that we have not observed that the process of speciation has no stopping point. That is like saying that I live in a house. You can't evidence it so you don't know for fact. You can conclude that I live in a house, and you might very well be right, however, drawing a conclusion is not the same thing as knowing fact. Now, if I invited you to my home and showed you all the titles, etc. you might even have a stronger case for your conclusion that I live in a house, but you still do not know for fact, because you have not observed me living in that house. Let me tell you a story about when I was doing my student teaching. We had a student who was being sexually abused by his grandfather. Children services were involved and required the grandfather not to live with the family. So everytime children services made a visit to the home, the grandfather was gone. Problem was, when childrens services were not visiting, the grandfather was there. Observation is a tricky thing, as glaudys and I were talking about in the case of my friend with color blindness, observations do not always tell us the whole story. So what does all that mean here. It means that when we say, universal common ancestry is fact, what we are really saying is not that it is fact, but that we infer it as being fact based on the observations we have. If observation is our strongest evidence (scientific method) then, an inferance based on the assumptions of that evidence is weak indeeed which is why is is still theory and why universal common ancestry is not fact. It doesn't mean that we know fact, or that something else is fact, it simply and frankly means that universal common ancestry remains unobserved and therefore is not fact. It is indeed an inferrance based on the assumption that speciation goes on indefintately, which we have not observed and all the tests in the world don't change that we have not observed such.

So, a genetic stopping point does not observe speciation not going on forever but rather suggests such. And btw, I am not a genetisist so I don't know for sure what it might look like. The bottom line is that speciation is not observed as going on indefinately and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

gluadys · Jun 29, 2005

gluadys said:
The conclusion is not based on an assumption. It is based on observed evidence which is totally consistent with universal common ancestry and cannot be explained by a different theory.

razzelflabben said:

Okay, time to put your money where your mouth is, tell us when we have observed speciation going on indefinately? When have we actually seen it happen?

Click to expand...

I did not and do not claim that we have observed speciation going on indefinitely. I said the conclusion of common ancestry is based on evidence, not an assumption. We have observed evidence of universal common ancestry. We have not observed speciation going on indefinitely.

Nor do we need to in order to establish universal common ancestry. What we need is evidence for which there is no other logical explanation. And we do have that evidence.

When you answer that one, you can then address this one. Who said anything about it not being a logical conclusion or that there were other theories that explained the evidence?

You didnt. Thats for sure.
But you did say it was a logical conclusion based on an assumption. That is incorrect. It is a based on evidence.
The point of other theories was noted because if two or more theories can explain the evidence, then we cannot know which is correct and we have no scientific conclusion until more evidence settles the matter. But if universal common ancestry is the only explanation for the evidence, then it is the only scientifically valid option---unless and until someone figures out a different way to explain the evidence.

I did not hear either of these claims in the post you are referring to. In fact, I said that it is a logical conclusion based on an assumption and therefore is not fact but rather conclusion.

Yes, that is what you said. But it is not a conclusion based on an assumption. It is a conclusion based on evidence. So, it is a fact---unless there is some other way to account for the evidence.

gluadys · Jun 29, 2005

razzelflabben said:
The bottom line is that speciation is not observed as going on indefinately and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

It is not observed as being blocked at any point either and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

rmwilliamsll · Jun 29, 2005

The bottom line is that speciation is not observed as going on indefinately and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

if there had been scientists around for the last 3.5billion years this would be possible, maybe. the hypothesis has no way of being confirmed, and you know it, and that is why you insist on this particular formulation of it.

science doesn't play word games in this manner, it phrases it's hypothesis so that real work can be done. It is obvious that to observe the last 3.5 B years is impossible. Does that mean that it didn't happen? no. it means that you have biased the question so that it is not answerable. shame on you, this doesn't lead either to a discussion nor to any understanding.

however my alternative way of phrasing the same question does lead to a testable hypothesis. look for a genetic stop. look for a kinds barrier. look for a reason for your speciation can not continue forever.

they could exist. for instance, a different genetic code for every kind. at the level of tRNA, make each kind have its own code. no doubt about it, a kinds barrier to further speciation.

but i am curious about why you would insist on the impossible when i've shown you a perfectly equivalent testable hypothesis. ignorance is one thing, but deliberate evasion is yet another. deal with what science can talk about. your assumption(?) of speciation can not continue forever is not only not an assumption (it is a theory with good evidence that all life is continuous at the genetic level) but your way of wording it leads nowhere but to confusion and sloppy thinking.

....

Humanista · Jun 29, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
if there had been scientists around for the last 3.5billion years this would be possible, maybe. the hypothesis has no way of being confirmed, and you know it, and that is why you insist on this particular formulation of it.

science doesn't play word games in this manner, it phrases it's hypothesis so that real work can be done. It is obvious that to observe the last 3.5 B years is impossible. Does that mean that it didn't happen? no. it means that you have biased the question so that it is not answerable. shame on you, this doesn't lead either to a discussion nor to any understanding.

however my alternative way of phrasing the same question does lead to a testable hypothesis. look for a genetic stop. look for a kinds barrier. look for a reason for your speciation can not continue forever.

they could exist. for instance, a different genetic code for every kind. at the level of tRNA, make each kind have its own code. no doubt about it, a kinds barrier to further speciation.

but i am curious about why you would insist on the impossible when i've shown you a perfectly equivalent testable hypothesis. ignorance is one thing, but deliberate evasion is yet another. deal with what science can talk about. your assumption(?) of speciation can not continue forever is not only not an assumption (it is a theory with good evidence that all life is continuous at the genetic level) but your way of wording it leads nowhere but to confusion and sloppy thinking.

....

Start communicating

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Legend

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Contributor

avid reader

Contributor

Contributor

Legend

avid reader

Contributor

Contributor

Legend

Legend

avid reader

Empirically Speaking

Similar threads