Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sanguine said:How can constant appeal to the unfathomable possibly to understanding?
No one is "forcing the issue." The data and observations clearly support the TOE and do not support the theories of C and ID. That is why people can (and rightfully so) disqualify at least the theory of C, because the data doesn't support it, it doesn't explain the data, and you can't predict any sort of evidence based on it.Why do we have to force the issue of which is the better theory? If the data and observations do not clearly define which theory is more reliable, why must be determine which is more reliable? This logic totally stumps me.
razzelflabben said:Good observation and discription of the terms, however, we are still left with less than proof.
I do have a problem with people who claim theory to be fact.
razzelflabben said:I agree whole heartedly, except that the more I talk to E the more I hear them assert that the TOE is fact.
I really think this is the reason that people cannot seem to sit down and discussion the issue rationally, because both camps make assumptions that should not be made.
Many here take that to mean that I am a C even after I say that I lean towards ID. In fact, I have very few opinions of this issue, so few that I do not really fit into any of the theory groups. But the E here maintain that because I present questions to their "evidence" I am a C. How do we make that jump without the steryotypes and assumptions that we already know what someone believes.
My whole arguement stems from the idea that we do not need to argue about the theories, but rather it is possible if we set aside our assumptions, to have an actual discussion, both sides learning something they didn't know and both side applying that new knowledge to what they believe about the theories.
Why does that create such an emotional debate unless our ideas are based on the emotions of belief system against belief system?
Actually, that is only an explaination for why I believe that all three are theories, not a statment about what I believe. You have labeled me without knowing what I believe which is why this whole discussion started in the first place. Because Merle assumed to know what I believe without asking what I believe. This is the root of the problem as I see it, a total lack of communication.gluadys said:No you havent. But you have stated fairly directly your opinion that all the theories contain elements of each other, such that there is very little room for disproving one without disproving both the others as well.
That was the position I was referring to. Have I represented that idea fairly?
But only one aspect of the theory is not testable. This means that it is a valid explaination for scientific exploration.In fact, the vagueness of the original theory is the reason it cannot be scientifically substantiated. A good scientific theory makes testable predictions through which one can verify whether or not it is valid.
I agree accept that I think nature does point to God, we simply can't measure that through scientific methods. Just a bit of semantics.Now the first part of your original theory IIRC is that all things are created by God.
There is no way this part of the theory can be substantiated by evidence. There is not one iota of physical evidence anywhere in the universe which says God made me. Nor does the universe itself make this statement.
So this is not a scientific assertion at all. It is a statement of faith. Therefore, it cannot be part of any theory which claims to be scientific.
That doesnt mean that either scientists or non-scientists need to abandon their faith to do science. It just means that science is a way to acquire knowledge of nature, not of God, and that it does not deal with matters of faith.
But again, the daily observable evidence supports any definition of kind. It is the inconclusive evidence that cannot be substantated that you claim to be proof. Notice the word and idea of proof, not evidence to support. This is a big difference when trying to establish communication.The second part of the original theory as you laid it out was:
all creatures reproduce after their kind.
I will point out again that you said reproduced; you did not say created. Depending on how you define kind that can be verified. If you are open to the concept that cellular organism is a kind, then we can certainly say that all cellular organisms reproduce more cellular organisms.
However, if you insist that God created many different kinds independently and that there is a strict barrier between them such that one kind (such as a reptile) cannot evolve into another kind (such as a bird)then the second part of the original theory has already been disproved.
So doubtingmerles question about zebras is very much to the point. What do you mean by reproduce after its kind? What is your definition of a kind?
Assuming the strain of creationism you personally support is the narrower definition of kind we can then say of the original theory that:
statement 1 is a statement of faith and therefore cannot be substantiated by evidence, and
statement 2 has been disproved.
When is E going to addmit that there are elements of C that can be supported scientifically? That would probably be the same time, depending on the individual you are talking too.So when is creationism going to change its concept of kinds to match the evidence? When is it going to stop denying that apes and humans have a common ancestor and are therefore the same "kind"?
And yet you maintain that the TOE is a theory but it is a fact, even though it cannot be proven as a fact because science cannot make a theory a fact. Man, am I getting confused.I just did. See above.
In principle, it can be done. But it hasnt been done.
And then you introduce the catch-22 that to state the truth that evolution happens is ipso facto to cross the line between theory and fact.
When a fact is a fact, it is not crossing a line into a belief system to say that it is a fact.
And it is the very aspects of the TOE that prove E to be fact that they are commenting on. How exactly does that work. E is a fact because of this evidence that we cannot prove, and is inconclusive?!?That is because most of the papers you have been reading are dealing with various aspects of the theory of evolution, so they quite correctly say they are. The authors all take the fact of evolution for granted and dont feel it necessary to say in every paper, Oh by the way, it is a fact that evolution happens. In this paper we are exploring a theory about how it happens.
It is also annoying be be told what you believe then you have never said what you believe. Bottom line, I know why you think I am a C, because my arguements have been against E, that does not make be a C. If one does not want to be assumed to have a belief system of E, then one must avoid making statements that can be assumed to be a belief system.But do you understand that if one has not crossed the line, it is very annoying to be told that what one knows to be a fact is part of a belief system?
By this explaination, then we are to assume that a theory that is not disproven is fact?Hah!... If only they would. See above.
If the theory is correct, it is true. Theory cannot be fully proved. That does not make a theory untrue. It can be true as far as it goes. Furthermore, theory can be proven false. So we do know when a theory should be discarded. That is why the phlogiston theory of fire, the humour theory of disease and the steady state theory of cosmological expansion are no longer taught. They have all been proven false. As has the theory of creationism.
But by your definitions of scientific methods, it is still only a theory. Maybe an acceptable theory, but still only a theory.True, but that does not preclude the existence of a fact which is called by the same name.
For comparison: gravity is a fact. How do we know? We see things fall, and we can measure the gravitational attraction between masses. Gravity is also a theory. The theory of gravity explains why things fall down and how gravitational attraction works.
Similarly evolution is a fact. How do we know? We have observed evolution both in nature and in experiments designed to produce change in species. Evolution is also a theory. The theory of evolution explains what causes these changes, the way the mechanism of change works.
What proof do you have to support your claim that the theory that our present day humans are ancestors of earlier creatures that have human type qualities, or are you talking about I am decendent from my great great great grandfather? What I have seen that is so called proof does not prove any such thing, instead, it suggests the possiblility, even to the extent of my great great great grandfather.Agreed
Not fact. Belief.
Yes, known fact.
As in mammals or primates? Yes, known fact. This is an example of creatures reproducing more of their kind. Mammals produce mammals, not fish or birds. Primates produce primates, not rodents or chiroptera.
Agreed
The evolution of humanity from earlier ancestors is a fact. It is up to you, I suppose, to decide whether you wish to label our ancestors a lesser creature.
Again, what overwhelming proof do you offer, so far, your offerings fall short of overwhelming proof. Now if you want to present evidence that is equivelant to say the law of gravity, then we would also have to look into the mathamatical proof of evolution and then, we might be able to look at evolution as fact, better known as scientific law. Until you can offer such proof, it remains a theory. BTW, I have seen nothing in your presentation of evidence that disproves the theory of C as put forth in the bible.Theories cannot be fully proven, but they can be substantially validated from the evidence. Evolution has been substantially validated and is considered a well-established theory for this reason.
And the fact of evolution is a direct observation.
I do remember this definition, but based on this definition, there are a lot of wholes that the TOE does not answer and according to your definition of scientific method, this then cannot be a scientific theory.I believe I already gave you two. But I will repeat the briefer one.
Evolution can be precisely defined as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.
The above definition makes no predictions that can be tested, at least any more than the theory of C does. Both provide equal amounts of testable predictions, so what then makes E scientific theory but C not?No, neither your statement nor mine is theory. They are statements of belief. If they were theories they would make predictions which could be tested against the evidence.
So now you are saying that E is a belief and not a theory? I would have to disagree with you on that one.As statements of belief they can be neither dismissed, nor accepted as theory.
So then, if the observations cannot prove the theory, what makes the theory proof? Lab experiments? Where observable data is manipulated? By that definition, then it would be possible to say that creation is the result of cloning because we know that cloning is possible we just can't prove that it has happened yet. That would be an interesting theory about how our world has changed, aliens cloned and otherwise genetically altered the creatures on thier planets to create new species and introduced them to earth. It's a theory that is growing on me and as science goes, would be as provable as E since we now can travel into outerspace to look for these aliens.For definition of evolution, see above. For definition of species, at least for the sort of species you are referring to --- the kind that breed sexually, see biological definition of species.
Now, let me also point out that generally speaking interbreeding does not produce new species, especially in animals. Interbreeding produces hybrids. But hybrids are not new species. It is very difficult for a breeder to maintain a pure line of hybrids precisely because they are not new species. If allowed to, hybrids will breed freely with other members of the species, and will no longer reproduce to the specifications of the breed.
Some plant species have been known to develop through a two-step process of hybridization + polyploidy (doubling of chromosome number). The doubling of the chromosome number facilitates reproduction and at the same time sets up a barrier against cross-breeding back into the parent species.
In animals the most common means of speciation is the opposite of inter-breeding. It is allopatric speciationwhich requires the separation of the species into two groups so that they cannot interbreed.
And the scientists that write the papers that you asked me to read regarding this type of issue, say that it does not provide proof for history cannot be proven. In response to pointing this out to you, you respond, In this case it does? What makes you more knowledgable than the scientist writing the paper? Didn't you admit early on in this discussion that you are not a scientist?Yes. Through a comparison of DNA sequences that help to define when novel genes entered the gene pool. Reading DNA is like reading history. In some cases, we can also check our reading of DNA history against fossils preserved in the geological strata.
The very point I set out making.Indeed, belief and science are totally different subject matters. I am quite willing to stop discussing C/ID with any supporter who agrees their position is a matter of faith. It is only if they try to insist their position is grounded in scientific evidence that I have a quarrel with them. Ditto in reverse. Claiming evolution is a belief system when it is actually science will draw me into a discussion, for evolution is NOT a belief system.
See aboveThere is no reason for evolution to change when the evidence already agrees with it. It is only new evidence that would require change, and nothing I have said here suggests that the theory of evolution could not accommodate new evidence if necessary.
The point I am making is that the theory of evolution will be abandoned if, and only if, a new theory is presented which explains all the evidence better than evolution does. Or explains it all as well, and also explains more.
That theory will not be creationism or ID, for neither of them begins to explain any of the evidence which evolution explains.
My guess is that since theory is open to individual interpretation, C and ID will produce such explanations when the E accept that science does not prove E fact. But again, it is an individual thing, which is the problem with steryotypes, in fact, this entire thread has been so bent on discussing the proofs of E that you don't even have a clue what I believe or what explanations C or ID can offer.So when are creationism and ID going to produce such explanations? So far, they havent done so.
Yep, as well as people who claim that a theory is falsified when it isn't.Jet Black said:how about people who claim that a falsified theory is possible?
razzelflabben said:Why do we have to force the issue of which is the better theory? If the data and observations do not clearly define which theory is more reliable, why must be determine which is more reliable? This logic totally stumps me.
And yet, for each of the theories we discussed here, and each of the papers I read that were recommended to me, I see that the evidence does not fully explain all aspects of any of the theories.
It is more than possible to twist the observations to fit into any of the theories. So your point is that E twist the observations to fit into their theory better than the C do?
If there are differences in the theories, then they certainly add somthing to the TOE especially is similarities occur. In fact, it is very narrow minded to assume that C or ID cannot add anything to our understanding of this world.
So now you are claiming that the entire theory of C is "God did it". I really think this proves my point. There is much about C and ID that you do not understand and a simple listening technique might prove interesting.Sanguine said:Because their hypothesis is essentially "God did it", and it's a fairly fruitless enterprise (not to mention frustrating) to try and show them how they think it happend isn't the case unless God is a cosmic prankster. From what I've seen on these boards, the best we can hope for is that some genuinely un/ill informed people walk away with a better understanding of what evolution is and is not. Hopefull this makes them immune to the likes of Kent Hovind and co.
It would seem from your posts that there is much you could learn if you started to listen to people rather than argue without knowing what they really believe.Sanguine said:How can constant appeal to the unfathomable possibly to understanding?
You are very good at analogies but here is the problem with the analogy, and I believe the core problem is lack of communication which goes back to my original assumptions.Inside Edge said:I've read every post up to this point, I'm going to take a crack at this...
No one is "forcing the issue." The data and observations clearly support the TOE and do not support the theories of C and ID. That is why people can (and rightfully so) disqualify at least the theory of C, because the data doesn't support it, it doesn't explain the data, and you can't predict any sort of evidence based on it.
Now, you may fall back on your claim that because the theories of C and ID often accept the TOE, or at least "elements" of evolution, then this means evidence that supports evolution is also evidence that supports the other two - again, because elements of evolution are intertwined with the other two theories.
So bear with me here before you begin itemizing your responses to me, this next part is my main point: I want you to imagine 3 strings or threads. One is blue, one is red, the other is yellow.
Let me answer with a simple question,gluadys said:Time to stop being vague. Left with less than proof of what? Here we have reference to an observation. To date, no remnant of a terrestrial biped has been found in Cambrian strata. Are you disputing that fact?
Now, how does TOE or TOC or ID explain this fact? Do TOC or ID even attempt to explain this fact?
Multiply that one fact by thousands of similar facts in the fossil record alone. Add thousands of additional facts about living species. Note that TOE explains all of them consistently and coherently.
Meanwhile TOC and ID offer explanations of only some of the facts, and the explanations are often internally inconsistent.
In the view of most rational people, the uncontested power of TOE to explain our observations constitutes overwhelming evidence of its validity.
Gravity is an observed fact, yet it is still considered theory. Animals procreating after their own kind, is an observable fact, yet it somehow disproves the TOC. How do you explain these controdictions?:Nobody is saying that the theory of evolution is a fact. I am saying that evolution is an observed fact. The theory exists to explain the observation.
Does that need further clarification?
I thought that gravity was a law of science, not a fact, that is what use to be taught. Now, you are telling me that science has changed the rules to allow for observations to be considered fact, that a law is no longer a law and that theory is no longer theory and that fact is no longer fact. Maybe you should define all these terms for us.gluadys said:Once again, slowly.
The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is an explanation of a fact.
The observation of evolution happening is enough to establish that evolution is a fact. The theory is an explanation of the observation.
What obvious are we talking about? DNA that the scientists say is not proof? maybe genetic changes that suggest breeding problems down the line? Or is it bones that may or may not be ancestors? What is obvious?Right, and the assumption you are making that ought not to be made is this:--
Stating the obvious (that evolution is a fact) is crossing the line between theory and fact and so stepping into the realm of belief.
Don't forget C) that you are wrong.This is not true. To assume it is true only shows that either
a) you do not understand the difference between a theory and a fact, or
b) you reject the evidence of observed evolution.
Whatever the basis, I assure you you do not know what I believe. Your posts make that obvious.I did not make that assumption on the basis of questions you presented (in fact you have presented no questions about the evidence for evolution--you have only shrugged it off. ) I made that assumption on the basis of your statements--including the fact that when specifically questioned about your "strain" of ID, your answer was purely creationist and made no reference to ID at all.
Because this is not a discussion about my theory beliefs, but a discussion about what is and is not fact. For me to present my personal beliefs would cloud the issue even more than it currently is. Since I came on this thread, people have been bent on proving my theory wrong rather than listening to my position for discussing all the possibilities. Early on, I had hoped that you and I could have a discussion as such but as time has gone on, I am not so sure anymore. My personal beliefs are very broad in nature.And yet, when I specifically asked about your opinion, you demurred. How can we learn anything about your ideas when you refuse to discuss them?
How am I doing this, I have always said that my objection is to those who claim the TOE to be fact, that I have no issue with those who do not make these claims, so now I am misrepresenting those who support the TOE? I think you need to explain this claim.Because, although you think you are being neutral, you are misrepresenting the position of those who support the theory of evolution. People get emotional about having their position misrepresented.
The TOE doesn't try to disprove any other theory. The theory of evolution simply makes predictions, and gives explanations. As it turns out, the data matches up with the TOE.Doesn't this strike anyone as odd, that the TOE is remarkably similar to the theory they try so hard to disprove and visa versa?
This is simply a false statement. Is is not true. In order to make this statement, you must provide evidence that contradicts something the Theory of Evolution claims to be so.In other words, the yellow string of E doesn't stand alone any more than the TOC or the TOID
You have not understood the second half of my first post. Firstly, for you to claim that there are "new parts of the TOE" in your lifetime, means you must have a very extensive knowledge of the TOE, past and present.Both were amazed as was I at how similar the new parts [of the TOE are to the TOC.
It would seem from your posts that there is much you could learn if you started to listen to people rather than argue without knowing what they really believe.
So now you are claiming that the entire theory of C is "God did it". I really think this proves my point. There is much about C and ID that you do not understand and a simple listening technique might prove interesting.
My experance is that evolutionists tend not to accept or entertain a "sterotype" argurement. The standand response to a statement like this is usually from a evolutionists is: "what do you mean by fact", "what do you mean by error?". At least they want you to give them a example of a fact and a error.razzelflabben said:This is the stereotyping type arguements that both sides use to create an atmosphere of anger and belief system vs. belief system that I object too. Both sides assuming what the other is saying and neither side listening to what is being said.
Hi John,JohnR7 said:My experance is that evolutionists tend not to accept or entertain a "sterotype" argurement. The standand response to a statement like this is usually from a evolutionists is: "what do you mean by fact", "what do you mean by error?". At least they want you to give them a example of a fact and a error.
1) Kind... see Genesis chapters 1 and 6.Arikay said:1) define "Kind"
2) Creationism says that animals can't evolve beyond "kind" and that there is some sort of barrier that prevents them from doing so.
3) Provide evidence for that barrier.
If you answered point number 1, you would be doing better than many creations.
Logically? Using defintions and examples to prevent confusion and backpedaling or loophole ecape routes? Using data? Yes, I would agree with you that I love to discuss that way as well.1Trinity3 said:Hi John,
I'm new to this board.
I have been on other boards before and just love this topic. You are so correct on your analysis of the way Evo's argue.
:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?