Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[razzelflabben]

I am curious Razzel, which, according to you is the other mainstream conclusion. From all the scientific literature I have as of yet looked at concerning single common ancestry, single common ancestry for all organisms living on earth is indeed the only viable conclusion according to the scientific mainstream. Which other mainstream conclusion exists that I am apparantly not aware of?

Here's how the miscommunication went, we were talking about common ancestry, I said that I had no problem with common ancestry, ed claimed that I had a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry. Based on his continual refusal to accept that I have no problem with common ancestry only the conclusion that it is the only viable conclusion, I assumed that his intent was that I had a problem with common ancestry. He then explained what his intent was and I understood and accepted the communication error and then asked him to make sure he understood that I believe common ancestry is possible and viable explaination but that I have a problem with the assertion that it is the only viable explaination. Instead of accepting this, ed went on a rampage of how I don't understand that the mainstream scientific conclusion is both. I get this, what I didn't understand is that he was including both in a discussion in which they were serperated from the start. Is that clearly written? I didn't understand that when the discussion was about two seperate issues, his comment was to be taken as both the issues rolled into one. I understand that now, but that hasn't changed my view at all.

 

[razzelflabben]

Right so we havent been arguing over what the word possible means the last few posts at all. And you didnt just use the word possible as probable, or as a synonym for viable. No, of course not.

This is meaningless. Care to explain or is this another case where you arent going to bother?

if you have not understood by now that the probability that man would evolve from a single celled population is infantismaly small, there is no help for you. It is a basic of evolution.

Why? I still dont know you arent a Creationist, and youve still given me no reason to think you arent. All i said was that you are a lot more difficult than I imagined at the time, so maybe you might not have a strong opinion either way and you just get off on being difficult because it makes you feel superior or something. Whatever the case, you are still the most difficult person Ive ever come accross, ever. That much i can say for certian.

And you appear to find it easy to hold two contradictory ideas in your head. Like you can lie without being a liar, or you can agree completely with mainstream science, while also disagreeing with it at the same time. And so no, I dont find it too hard to imagine that you could display all tenents of a Creationist but at the same time not consider yourself one in the same way.

See Tom this is the problem, ed can't even acccept that there was a communication problem which was cleared up.

Once again. Prove it. Im really sick of you claiming Im dishonest yet never backing it up. Its really really boring.

You ignored every other challenge to do this and if you are true to form you'll ignore this too, and you'll continue to do it.



So you are calling him dishonest. Thats the point. Thats what a lie is. So while you may use a different definition of lie to the rest of the world, surely you understand what dishonesty is, correct? You said he was dishonest, and thats what he was challenging you to prove.



Of course it isnt. You object to the word "liar", but the relevant point is people dont like being called dishonest, and thats what a lie is.



Thats not a lie I keep telling you the reason why and you evidently keep ignoring it.

Whats crazy is that you only just agreed with me in the last post what a lie was. A lie is making a false statement while knowing it was false before they said it. Otherwise its not a lie. A lie is dishonest. You cant be dishonest if you made false statement without knowing it was false.



His criteria is the same criteria you agreed upon in the last post to me. So you ARE calling him a liar since you ARE calling him dishonest.



Oh looki, another attack on my intelligence.

As I already explained in the big section you skipped, your opinion that there is another viable scientific conclusion is not the mainstream scientific position so you cannot by definition agree with it. It also means by definition you have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry. And you literaly ignored everything I said, in order to create a strawman. You are getting worse.


Oh really? I thought according to you discussing whats "possible" is "not even remotely on topic". You sure suddenly changed your mind.

No, what possible is is off topic, what is possible is the topic at the present moment. It seeems that your problem is with percise lang. a topic you seems to think was important in another discussion we had, or is percise lang only important to you if you want to make a point?

And now after I just talked at length about what possible means and you telling me its not on topic as your reason to ignore it all, you go ahead insult my intelligence further by saying I dont understand it and that I really have to. Whats the point discussing anything with you? You really dont even care what people say at all.

Hum, a taste of your own medicine leaves a foul taste in your mouth. Interesting turn of events isn't it? You assert you understand something, I assert you don't and that we need to keep going over it until you get it and you being offended that I don't agree with you. I think this is an extremely interesting lesson on effective communication.

You mean ignored sickeningly by you.



Except there isnt two mainstream scientific conclusions. There is only one. That is common ancestry.

no, there are two, 1. common ancestry is a viable conclusion 2. common ancestry is the only viable conclusion. Two different things two different conclusions. Deal with it.

More attacks



Science has been studying evolution theory (including commen ancestry) ever since Darwin, its one of the most well supported fields in science today. It didnt just become the only viable scientific theory overnight as you imply it did.

When pray tell did I suggest this? You are really streatching for a way to disagree with me here. I have never suggested any such thing. Deal with it

This has been going on for over a century. Just what conclusion do you think is viable scientifically other than common ancestry? What have scientists been missing all these years?

I see evidence to suggest that a creator created life and all that is related thereof thus making it a viable conclusion. Viable meaning that there is suggnificant evidence to support it while lacking evidnce to falsify it.

No I dont, Im just not going to do so on this thread in this discussion. YOU had the chance to discuss it when YOU had the chance with Aron. YOU had the chance to discuss it in all your other arguments with anyone else. If YOU want to talk about now get your facts straight, gather your thoughts together in a way that people will be able to understand you, ditch the petty adhominims and snide remarks and start a new thread.

If you do that you'll get a better reaction and reception. But I know you wont do this because this doesnt get you what you want. Becuase I think you love it when people argue the way Im doing with you and Im not going to indulge that sick perversion of yours for much longer.


Show me where Ive ever done that. You cant and you wont, just like every other time you've accused me of some dishonesty.



No, get it right Razzel, ALL you've given us is Creationist arguments. If by chance I missed one that isnt I'd be interested in seeing it, and I'd gladly conceed that point. But I doubt it especially as Ive asked you to show me this several times and each time, just like everything else that requires you to back up your assertions, all you do is make excuses about why you cant.

How about my arguement that there is evidence that evolution is a viable conclusion. I am still waiting to see you show me a creationist that uses that arguement. I am anxious to see it, if you do nothing else in your life, please show me one creationist that uses the arguement that there is evidence for evolution Thanks it will be interesting to see you dig it up. Like a child on christmas morning I await your evidence that my arguements are the creationist arguements.

 

[Edx]

Baby steps ed, you need to know what 1+1 is before we can move on. Don't get deffensive and try to jump the gun, we first must teach you what possible is.

I already discussed at length what possible means. You dismissed it all because you said it was "not even remotely on topic".

So if I find evidnece that suggests the earth is flat, then it is possible the earth is flat,

Its always possible that the earth is flat.

probability comes later,

No, evidence would show that it its highly probable that its an imperfect sphere. And we have so much evidence its an imperfect sphere that we say this for certianty as much as anyone can say for certain. But its still not absolute knowledge and therefore still doesnt mean that it isnt still distantly possible that its flat after all.

Yes and it seems to be with you that its practically impossible to "adequately represent your beliefs and ideas".

It's totally possible and simple but first you have to know what they are, .

Which would be a lot easier if you didnt contradict yourself all the time, and it would be a lot easier if you realised why people dont understand you becuase of that. Btw, saying something is "practically possible", is different to just saying something is merely "possible".

And once more you need to go read what I actually wrote. Just try it. Read the actual words. I was saying that even though you said you didnt have a problem with it, you evidently did. I said you evidently had a problem with commen ancestry based on what you were telling me. I didnt say you never said what you said.

And I told you that I have no problem with common ancestry, In fact, I have told evolutionists many times, that I believe this evidence or that supports common ancestry, only to be told that I sound like or am a creationist but refuse to admit it. So you have been told part of what I believe and still refuse to accept it, interesting isn't it? .

No not really. No one called you are a Creationist for saying the evidence supports common ancestry or that you support the mainstream scientific opinion. They called you a Creationist for everything else you said, like you saying there is evidence against common ancestry, or when you show you dont understand how we organise and sort fossils or how you say there is another viable scientific conclusion other than common ancestry, or when you say science deals in absolutes, or that common ancestry is only a theory. Today you even said that you believe the "other viable scientific conclusion is that god created life! THATS why people were calling you a Creationist, and THATS why people were saying you didnt understand what you were talking about.

You certainly suggested I should believe mainstream science because it is manistream science

Prove it. Show me where I said that. The exact part. Put up or shut up.

...

Im still waiting, and this is just one accusation Im waiting for you to substantiate.

I agree with the mainstread scientifc conclusion that common ancestry is a viable conclusion

I noticed you substituted "the only" for "a" above. That wasnt very smart, didnt you think I'd notice?

It's what I have been saying all along. What do you think I have been saying? I agree, common ancestry is a viable conclusion of the evidence. I don't agree that common ancestry is the only viable conclusion of the evidence.

Read what you actually wrote. You said you agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion completely before. You then replaced the word "the only" for "a" so it doesnt read "only viable conclusion" it now reads " a viable conclusion". But this isnt the mainstream scientific conclusion.

Cant you understand that Im not trying to tell you you dont believe that there is other viable scientific conclusions, Im trying to tell you that this isnt the mainstream scientific opinion so you cannot by definition agree with it.

you do not agree with the mainstream scientific opinion on this matter, no matter how much you also claim differently.

NO

Right

you don't seem to be following the communication error here,

What communication error? Because in that case you keep doing it. You dont agree with mainstream science, because it doesnt agree with you that there is evidence against common ancestry that leads to other viable scientific conclusions.

I have seen the communication error, accepted it, tried my best to clarify for you what happened and how we are now on the same page but you refuse all that, why?

I suggest when you reply to a post you open a seperate window so you can see what it is people are replying to like I do, becuase in this case we werent discussing a "communication error".

We were discussing the fact that you claim you have no problem with mainstream scientific opinion and are trying to claim they agree with you by trying your old semantic game tricks. Its not going to work. Mainstream science doesnt agree with you. And no matter how much you twist things and protest it never is.

I never said that. Im asking you what arguments you have said that havent been Creationist ones before. I'll be surpised if you come up with something new, thats the point.

Start with the statement that there is evidence for common ancestry, I haven't heard that one from a creationist yet, Show the evidence for this is indeed a creationist arguement, and I'll buy your arguement.

Except, that is not an argument at all, this says nothing against Evolution, or common ancestry or the mainstream scientific opinion.

You say you agree with the evidence and agree with the mainstream view. So in that case we should agree, but we dont, because this isnt your argument or any argument.

Except you said that evolution has the same uncredible dishonest sources that Aron was claiming Creationists have. .

No sir I did not, I said that the claim has been made that evolutionists are as uncredible.

No, YOU said they were not credible. YOU said Aron and a bunch of other people were not credible. YOU said people lied. YOU said people were dishonest.

In other words, both sides make the same claims I prefer to look at the evidence and ignore all the name calling. How many times now have I said this?

And you keep missing the issue that Aron claimed certian things about Creationists and their sources and said that you wouldnt be able to find anything comparable for Evolution.

Aron asked you to show that, and thats what started this. It doesnt matter if you arent a Creationist.

Again, no sir, aron asked me to show an evolutionist that told lies, not a creationist that claimed that evolutionist lie.

... yea I know. I didnt say anything resembling that. See? I even quoted it for you.

My definition for lieing requires the persons intent be known, we can't do that so we can't know if a man is a lier or simply misstated something that was false, (lie)

Please stop ignoring me. A false statement is NOT necessarily A LIE.

no sir I strongly implied and directly stated that he didn't want to get into a discussion about another man's integrety.

Because you implied it would show him to be dishonest. YOU said he used "subtle forms of lieing" to make his points, in other words, subtle forms of dishonesty. YOU said that he said something he knew was false before he said it.

He wanted me to prove that he was a lier, and so I showed him by his criteria for determining such, ..., that he also was by his criteria a lier.

No, by YOUR criteria. YOU claimed he made "false statements". Those arent lies unless he knew they were false when he said them.

Aron told you what his definition of a lie was:

"What makes them not lies is that (1) they aren't verifiably untrue, and (2) even if they were untrue, you would have to be able to show that I knew that before I made those claims." -Aron (emphasis mine)

But still YOU replied saying he did that.

First time I recall ever being accussed of not understanding logic and how it works. Oh, it is complex reasoning you are having a problem with not logic, how do they differ in your eyes?

Please try and remember what we are talking about. The issue is that complex reasoning is based on basic reasoning. If you dont understand the basics theres no way you will get a handle on the complex stuff. Got it?

If I understand why the war happened but I don't understand why our troops are still in Iraq, then history will not help to address the issue, in fact, when communication is applied to the discussion,

*snip*. Sheesh, fine it wasnt a perfect analogy! My point which Ive told you several times which apparently you never read is that while we may not know for sure why certian events are taking place in Irac, or why key figures have done what they have done, you certinaly arent ever going to have any idea whatsoever unless you try and get an handle on understanding the history around the countries and the key individuals involved. And the more detailed knowledge you have about this history the more clearly you will understand the situation.

In order for you to have reason to believe that I accused you of dishonesy, you would have to show some hint that I was referring to you You haven't provided that, instead you have provided a vague comment that could have referred to anyone and then said, soo you accussed me of lieing. .

Are you lying here or did you just forget? You acknowledged yourself later to Aron that this is the first time you delt with him and so obviously you couldnt have been refering to anyone else.

You to Aron: "start with the first time I recall ever dealing with you on the forum. Ed set up a discussion between us in which I repeatedly said that I understood how the conclusion of common ancestry.."

But why would it even matter anyway? If someone comes up to you and says "liar!" if you think they are calling you are liar and confront them, does that make you a liar even if that person was actually talking to someone behind you?

Ed

 

[Edx]

if you have not understood by now that the probability that man would evolve from a single celled population is infantismaly small, there is no help for you.

Your sarcastic joke would only be remotely funny if you think probabilities are a problem for Evolution, which is a Creationist argument. Like I said.

See Tom this is the problem, ed can't even acccept that there was a communication problem which was cleared up.

Look, Razzel cant read what I write!

No, what possible is is off topic, what is possible is the topic at the present moment.

So the topic is whats possible, not whats possible.

Yea, great, thats crystal clear.

Hum, a taste of your own medicine leaves a foul taste in your mouth. Interesting turn of events isn't it? You assert you understand something, I assert you don't and that we need to keep going over it until you get it and you being offended that I don't agree with you.

I assert I understood what possible means, I explain it and you ignore it claiming it was off topic to avoid accepting you are wrong. I never once did that to you or anything comparable. Stop lying Razzel, and when I use that word you better believe I mean the dishonest kind, you know, the way everyone else uses the word "lie". If you arent going to ever back up your accusations Im going to treat you with the kind of respect you deserve.

Except there isnt two mainstream scientific conclusions. There is only one. That is common ancestry.

no, there are two, 1. common ancestry is a viable conclusion 2. common ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

No theres one. Common ancestry is the only viable conclusion. Thats the mainsteam scientific opinion. But even if we accepted the above, point 2 would still say what Im saying. So either way you still dont agree with it. Either show where mainstream science supports your views or shut up about it and conceed it. .

Science has been studying evolution theory (including commen ancestry) ever since Darwin, its one of the most well supported fields in science today. It didnt just become the only viable scientific theory overnight as you imply it did.

When pray tell did I suggest this? You are really streatching for a way to disagree with me here. I have never suggested any such thing.

In the way you tried to describe to me the scientifc method, and how scientists discover what viable conclusions there could be by looking at the evidence. But if you didnt actually mean to imply that , what you said was irrelelevant.

This has been going on for over a century. Just what conclusion do you think is viable scientifically other than common ancestry? What have scientists been missing all these years?

Deal with it I see evidence to suggest that a creator created life and all that is related thereof thus making it a viable conclusion.

You mean in a different way to Theistic Evolutionists believe God created? Well, you must do since you are arguing against their position too.

So this is pretty interesting. So you arent a Creationist even though you think the evidence can point viably to "creation" rather than common ancestry. And you agree completely with mainstream science even though mainstream science doesnt even think Intelligent design is a scientific theory.

Viable meaning that there is suggnificant evidence to support it while lacking evidnce to falsify it.

But its not scientific, and its not what mainstream science considers viable.

How about my arguement that there is evidence that evolution is a viable conclusion. I am still waiting to see you show me a creationist that uses that arguement.

Like I said thats not an arguement. Even most Creationists cant hold two obviously completely contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time so they arent likely to say such things. .

But you seem to be able to, so you think someone can lie without being a liar, you can have no problem with evidence for common ancestry while believing there is evidence against it and you are able to agree completly with mainstream science while disagreeing with it at the same time.

 

[Edx]

I am curious Razzel, which, according to you is the other mainstream conclusion. From all the scientific literature I have as of yet looked at concerning single common ancestry, single common ancestry for all organisms living on earth is indeed the only viable conclusion according to the scientific mainstream. Which other mainstream conclusion exists that I am apparantly not aware of?

Here's how the miscommunication went, we were talking about common ancestry, I said that I had no problem with common ancestry, ed claimed that I had a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry. Based on his continual refusal to accept that I have no problem with common ancestry only the conclusion that it is the only viable conclusion, I assumed that his intent was that I had a problem with common ancestry. He then explained what his intent was and I understood and accepted the communication error and then asked him to make sure he understood that I believe common ancestry is possible and viable explaination but that I have a problem with the assertion that it is the only viable explaination. Instead of accepting this, ed went on a rampage of how I don't understand that the mainstream scientific conclusion is both. I get this, what I didn't understand is that he was including both in a discussion in which they were serperated from the start. Is that clearly written? I didn't understand that when the discussion was about two seperate issues, his comment was to be taken as both the issues rolled into one. I understand that now, but that hasn't changed my view at all.

After displaying that she cant remember what people said or follow the coversation, 216 words later Razzel still fails to answer Toms question.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

I already discussed at length what possible means. You dismissed it all because you said it was "not even remotely on topic".



Its always possible that the earth is flat.

Ed, everything you accuss me of, I see you doing in your posts, like right here, I tried to explain to you that we are not talking about the common christian arguement that all things are possible but rather the things that have enough probability to be clasified as possible. I also told you that we were taking you back to what is possible before going on to the probablies or viables. So that you can comprehend what I am saying, because your posts lack all understanding and we need to teach you how to count before we can teach you anything else. You still assert that all things are possible thus showing lack of understanding in what is meant when talking about the possible. Once you figure out what is possible, we can delve into the probable. You ignore all this to make yourself look well, it makes you look rediculous and egotistical especially after claiming that I do this. Deal with it. If you don't want to learn to count, show an aptitude for counting.

No, evidence would show that it its highly probable that its an imperfect sphere. And we have so much evidence its an imperfect sphere that we say this for certianty as much as anyone can say for certain. But its still not absolute knowledge and therefore still doesnt mean that it isnt still distantly possible that its flat after all.

But you see, you show no understanding of the common use of the possible which is why we must teach you to count before we can talk about the probable, you aren't ready for this discussion, you need to know the history of the us and iraq first. We will get to it all, but first you need to learn to count, you first need to learn the history.

Which would be a lot easier if you didnt contradict yourself all the time, and it would be a lot easier if you realised why people dont understand you becuase of that. Btw, saying something is "practically possible", is different to just saying something is merely "possible".

But you don't know what possible means much less using it in the context in which it was written so you really can't know if I contridicted myself or not, learn to count and then we might be able to talk.

No not really. No one called you are a Creationist for saying the evidence supports common ancestry or that you support the mainstream scientific opinion.

But your claim is that my arguements are creationist arguements and you asked me to provide one arguement that wasn't creationist. I have done that, now it is up to you to provide a creationist using the same arguement or appologize, opps, you don't do that do you, so just put up or shut up.

They called you a Creationist for everything else you said, like you saying there is evidence against common ancestry,

but no one has taken the time to find out what the evidence is so how could you possibly know if I am right or wrong except...... maybe..... your belief......and faith......predetermine your opinions? Interesting evidence huh?

or when you show you dont understand how we organise and sort fossils or how you say there is another viable scientific conclusion other than common ancestry,

see, this is how I know for certain that you haven't really heard my posts, because I believe and have clearly stated many times over that I find the fossil record to be evidence for evolution.

or when you say science deals in absolutes,

absolutes as in evidence, we have seen this or that happen and can reproduce said.

or that common ancestry is only a theory.

show me the law of evolution or any other thing you want to call it but a theory.

Today you even said that you believe the "other viable scientific conclusion is that god created life!

actually I believe I percisely stated that there was a creator, nothing mentioned about who that creator was.

THATS why people were calling you a Creationist, and THATS why people were saying you didnt understand what you were talking about.

And that is why I am telling you that you are wrong, because you don't even have right what I have said or believed, and yet you label me based on false assumptions. Remember back to my theory that people come into the discussion with perconcieved ideas of who people are and then read into thier posts according to those preconcieved ideas. You just evidenced my thoery, you don't even know what I have said and yet you are sure you know who I am and what I am all about therefore it is okay to label me according to your idealism, and idealisms of what I have said without ever knowing what I actually said or believe. How sad really, you miss so much life when you do this.

Im still waiting, and this is just one accusation Im waiting for you to substantiate.



Read what you actually wrote. You said you agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion completely before. You then replaced the word "the only" for "a" so it doesnt read "only viable conclusion" it now reads " a viable conclusion". But this isnt the mainstream scientific conclusion.

Ed, you can't really be this slow, I specified after comprehending what you were saying how it is an inaccurate picture of my actual beliefs to summarize it the way you did, thus, I wrote it yet another way hoping beyond reason that you would be able to listen to what I am saying. I have NO problem with the conclusion that common ancestry is A viable conclusion, I have a problem with the conclusion that common ancestry is the ONLY viable conclusion. Therefore I accept your interpretation of your statement and agree, that as written, I do have a problem with mainstream scientific conclusions of common ancestry, however this clouds the the total picture, therefore, specifiying that that provides an inacurate picture of what I actually believe, in that only part of the total do I disagree with. For example, I might agree that evolution is truth, but disagree that the fossil record is the strongest evidence for evolution. To say that I don't believe in the fossil record as evidence would be a misrepresentation of what I believe, because it only tells part of the story. Same pricipal applies. I understand what you are trying to get at but it misreperresents the whole, accurate picture thus requireing calarification to correctly portray my beliefs.

Cant you understand that Im not trying to tell you you dont believe that there is other viable scientific conclusions, Im trying to tell you that this isnt the mainstream scientific opinion so you cannot by definition agree with it.

again, this is an unfair and inaccurate portayal of my beliefs because it suggests that I don't agree that common ancestry is possible or viable. All I am saying and I know you will twist this terribly, is that where this is technically correct, it is practically a misrepresentation because it puts two different parts into one. Let's say you want to order lunch, you want a sandwich and a cookie but the lunch comes with sandwich and cake, is it a fair representation of what you wanted for lunch by the lunch you purchase or was purchased for you? if you order the sandwich and cake because that is what was available, does that adequately represent that you desired a cookie with your lunch?

What communication error? Because in that case you keep doing it. You dont agree with mainstream science, because it doesnt agree with you that there is evidence against common ancestry that leads to other viable scientific conclusions.

see above

I suggest when you reply to a post you open a seperate window so you can see what it is people are replying to like I do, becuase in this case we werent discussing a "communication error".

We were discussing the fact that you claim you have no problem with mainstream scientific opinion and are trying to claim they agree with you by trying your old semantic game tricks. Its not going to work. Mainstream science doesnt agree with you. And no matter how much you twist things and protest it never is.

you didn't ask me if mainstream science agreed with me, that is an absolute no, what you asked me is if I agreed with mainstream science and I said to you yes in part but not in whole. What don't you understand about that?

Except, that is not an argument at all, this says nothing against Evolution, or common ancestry or the mainstream scientific opinion.

You say you agree with the evidence and agree with the mainstream view. So in that case we should agree, but we dont, because this isnt your argument or any argument.



No, YOU said they were not credible. YOU said Aron and a bunch of other people were not credible. YOU said people lied. YOU said people were dishonest.

and you are wrong. Get over it

And you keep missing the issue that Aron claimed certian things about Creationists and their sources and said that you wouldnt be able to find anything comparable for Evolution.


... yea I know. I didnt say anything resembling that. See? I even quoted it for you.



Please stop ignoring me. A false statement is NOT necessarily A LIE.



Because you implied it would show him to be dishonest. YOU said he used "subtle forms of lieing" to make his points, in other words, subtle forms of dishonesty. YOU said that he said something he knew was false before he said it.

I evidenced the claims I made, but you ignored it and then asserted that I need to back up my claim. This kind of nonsense can go on forever which is exactly why I ignore most of your ramblings and defiance of what I actually say.

No, by YOUR criteria. YOU claimed he made "false statements". Those arent lies unless he knew they were false when he said them.

Aron told you what his definition of a lie was:

"What makes them not lies is that (1) they aren't verifiably untrue, and (2) even if they were untrue, you would have to be able to show that I knew that before I made those claims." -Aron (emphasis mine)

But still YOU replied saying he did that.



Please try and remember what we are talking about. The issue is that complex reasoning is based on basic reasoning. If you dont understand the basics theres no way you will get a handle on the complex stuff. Got it?



*snip*. Sheesh, fine it wasnt a perfect analogy! My point which Ive told you several times which apparently you never read is that while we may not know for sure why certian events are taking place in Irac, or why key figures have done what they have done, you certinaly arent ever going to have any idea whatsoever unless you try and get an handle on understanding the history around the countries and the key individuals involved. And the more detailed knowledge you have about this history the more clearly you will understand the situation.

And my point was and still is that I don't need a repeat of all the history if all I want to know is why the war isn't over yet, wasn't over when saddam fell.

Are you lying here or did you just forget? You acknowledged yourself later to Aron that this is the first time you delt with him and so obviously you couldnt have been refering to anyone else.

That was much later after you brought yourself into the discussion and I do recall it quite well.

You to Aron: "start with the first time I recall ever dealing with you on the forum. Ed set up a discussion between us in which I repeatedly said that I understood how the conclusion of common ancestry.."

To be fearfully honest with you, at the moment I first made the assertion I didn't even recall what the post was about, you reminded me of that when you brought yourself into the discussion, and the proof that this is a later issue is in the fact that it specifies common ancestry, as just admitted, I had forgotten for the moment and was only remined of when you prought yourself into the dscussion.

But why would it even matter anyway? If someone comes up to you and says "liar!" if you think they are calling you are liar and confront them, does that make you a liar even if that person was actually talking to someone behind you?

Ed

I don't even know what that is suppose to mean, I never called aron a lier, I only accpeted your admission of lieing, nothing more nothing less. Get over it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Your sarcastic joke would only be remotely funny if you think probabilities are a problem for Evolution, which is a Creationist argument. Like I said.



Look, Razzel cant read what I write!




So the topic is whats possible, not whats possible.

Yea, great, thats crystal clear.

I assert I understood what possible means, I explain it and you ignore it claiming it was off topic to avoid accepting you are wrong. I never once did that to you or anything comparable. Stop lying Razzel, and when I use that word you better believe I mean the dishonest kind, you know, the way everyone else uses the word "lie". If you arent going to ever back up your accusations Im going to treat you with the kind of respect you deserve.



No theres one. Common ancestry is the only viable conclusion. Thats the mainsteam scientific opinion. But even if we accepted the above, point 2 would still say what Im saying. So either way you still dont agree with it. Either show where mainstream science supports your views or shut up about it and conceed it. .



In the way you tried to describe to me the scientifc method, and how scientists discover what viable conclusions there could be by looking at the evidence. But if you didnt actually mean to imply that , what you said was irrelelevant.


You mean in a different way to Theistic Evolutionists believe God created? Well, you must do since you are arguing against their position too.

So this is pretty interesting. So you arent a Creationist even though you think the evidence can point viably to "creation" rather than common ancestry. And you agree completely with mainstream science even though mainstream science doesnt even think Intelligent design is a scientific theory.

But its not scientific, and its not what mainstream science considers viable.

Like I said thats not an arguement. Even most Creationists cant hold two obviously completely contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time so they arent likely to say such things. .

But you seem to be able to, so you think someone can lie without being a liar, you can have no problem with evidence for common ancestry while believing there is evidence against it and you are able to agree completly with mainstream science while disagreeing with it at the same time.

I'm sure you don't really care what I actually believe, it would dent your idealism of who I am, but for the second time on this thread alone, I believe that there is sufficient evidence for both common ancestry and a creation, and a lack of evidence to falsify either therefore I would label myself a skeptic, thus meaning I don't believe we actually know what our origins are. My personally spiritual belief would be that a creator did the deed, but in what mannor that was acomplished, whether evolution or creation, I am in total limbo.

 

[Edx]

Ed, everything you accuss me of, I see you doing in your posts, like right here, I tried to explain to you that we are not talking about the common christian arguement that all things are possible but rather the things that have enough probability to be clasified as possible.

Yes, I know that, and my point is you've got it backwards.

All things are possible, but not all things are probable. See the part I bolded from your post. Something doesnt become more "possible" with evidence, they become more probable. They already ARE possible.

You still assert that all things are possible thus showing lack of understanding in what is meant when talking about the possible.

If you want to discuss the word possible then address the first part of my previous post on the word "possible" you originally hand waved away as "not even remotely on topic".

But you see, you show no understanding of the common use of the possible which is why we must teach you to count before we can talk about the probable,

You started saying that there are other "possible" conclusions to common ancestry and how you didnt understand why I was disputing that. I wasnt of course, becuase you were previously using the word "viable", which means something very different. If you didnt think I understood the word viable you would have been more accurate to replace it with the word "probable". I disputed your use of the word possible becuase it was not the position I was taking and was hardly going to argue against a strawman.

If you understand all this, then it doesnt matter. Forget about it.

But you don't know what possible means much less using it in the context in which it was written.

I know the context and I know what the word possible means. You cant switch the word "viable" with "possible" and it still mean the same thing. They mean something very different. Its possible I win the lottery this week, but it isnt probable. Its much more probable that someone will win it though, and they do quite frequently.

But your claim is that my arguements are creationist arguements and you asked me to provide one arguement that wasn't creationist. I have done that, ,

No you didnt. This isnt an "argument" but you still expect me to find an Creationist "arguing" that?

But lets try anyway. ID proponant Michael Behe apparently doesnt have a problem with common ancestry. His arguments are that God guided evolution, and that this "Intelligent Design" can be studied scientifically, specfially in regards to complex molecular structures. So there you go.

But like I said, saying that you accept common ancestry is not an "argument" and its not why people were disagreeing with you or calling you are Creationist, and its not why people call Behe a Creationist or disagree with him either.

opps, you don't do that do you, so just put up or shut up.

How rich! Every time I have claimed something about you I have backed it up and you have quickly hand waved it away or ignored it completly. Not once have you ever backed up anything you've said about me. All you have to do is scroll back and see how many times you've accused me of some dishonesty or where you've claimed I said something I say I didnt, and me asking over and over to back yourself up.

but no one has taken the time to find out what the evidence is so how could you possibly know if I am right

Well thats probably becuase every time you try and talk about some concept of evolution you show you dont understand it. Therefore people will correct you.

see, this is how I know for certain that you haven't really heard my posts, because I believe and have clearly stated many times over that I find the fossil record to be evidence for evolution.

Unfortunatly I cant find the thread anymore. CF search is almost useless and google advanced search doesnt find every thread for some reason. But there was a thread where you argued with people for ages about geology and how we sort fossils. You misunderstood things the same way a Creationist might.

absolutes as in evidence, we have seen this or that happen and can reproduce said.

You said science deals in absolutes. It doesnt.

or that common ancestry is only a theory.

show me the law of evolution or any other thing you want to call it but a theory.

See look there, you still dont dont get it. A law isnt higher than a theory. The Law of Gravity isnt more of a fact than the theory of General Relativity. In fact Newtons law of Gravity is just plain wrong when applied to certian situations and aspects of the universe, which is what Einsteins theory of General Relativity explains. Its still just as much open to question and change, and still not absolute. So saying a scientific theory in science as only a theory shows a misunderstanding of science. And asking when common ancestry will "stop" being a theory is shows this even more so. Theories dont become laws, they are different things. Theory is the highest rank in science investigation.

You've been told this many times, but apparently it still hasnt sunk in yet.

Today you even said that you believe the "other viable scientific conclusion is that god created life!

actually I believe I percisely stated that there was a creator, nothing mentioned about who that creator was.

Yea in the kind of nudge nudge wink wink way the Intelligent Design guys also say its a "designer" not necessarily "god", right? It could be aliens!

Point is, you believe common ancestry could viably be wrong and that the other viable scientific theory you were on about is that a creator created all life. Im fairly certian thats even closer to Creationism than at least most of those Intelligent Deisgn guys.

I have NO problem with the conclusion that common ancestry is A viable conclusion, I have a problem with the conclusion that common ancestry is the ONLY viable conclusion.

Yes, for the nth time, I know that. But you put "a" viable conclusion" together with "mainstream scientific", but as I kept telling you the mainstream scientific opinion is not the same as yours.

I do have a problem with mainstream scientific conclusions of common ancestry, however this clouds the the total picture,For example, I might agree that evolution is truth, but disagree that the fossil record is the strongest evidence for evolution. To say that I don't believe in the fossil record as evidence would be a misrepresentation of what I believe,

I didnt say that, and unfortunatly as I cant get at the original thread I couldnt find what your point was word for word. What I said was you had a problem with the way science organises and sorts fossils. You thought some of it was some kind of problem for evolution.

But remember you also say you have no problem with the evidence for common ancestry, when of course you actually do. So again, its not a misrepresentation to say you do.

see above you didn't ask me if mainstream science agreed with me, that is an absolute no, what

You said over and over that you have no problem with mainstream scientific opinion on common ancestry. But you do, becuase it doesnt agree with you. Now you said I misrepresented you? That you actually meant "absolutely no"? You either agree with mainstream scientific opinion on common ancestry or you dont. By your same logic we could also say the ID guys would have no problem with mainstream scientific conclusion on evolution, which of course is nonsence.

you asked me is if I agreed with mainstream science and I said to you yes in part but not in whole.

No, I said you didnt agree with mainstream scientific conclusion on common ancestry. I was very carefull to be specific about what mainstream scientific position we were talking about, beucase I had a feeling you'd do something like this. Thats why I was also specific to make sure I said the words "viable" and "scientific" conclusion, so you couldnt claim you were talking about something else later on.

What don't you understand about that?

I understand that you dont know who said what and when and just make it all up in your head,

Because you implied it would show him to be dishonest. YOU said he used "subtle forms of lieing" to make his points, in other words, subtle forms of dishonesty. YOU said that he said something he knew was false before he said it.

Get over it I evidenced the claims I made,

No you did not. Not once. You just kept claiming Aron was dishonest, while also saying you cant know his heart, while also saying that any false statement can be called a lie, and never backing any of it up.

And my point was and still is that I don't need a repeat of all the history if all I want to know is why the war isn't over yet, wasn't over when saddam fell.

If "all you want to show"? See thats my point. Thats basic. If we want to answer more complex and advanced questions, (ie: more complex and advanced reasoning), we are going to have to get a good grasp on the history of the conflict, the countries and the individuals involved (ie: the basic reasoning). Do try and remember the reason for the analogy.

That was much later after you brought yourself into the discussion and I do recall it quite well.

So even though I was exactly right to think you meant me when you said that, you still say that to question your accusation is to admit I am lying to prove my points. Yea...

But why would it even matter anyway? If someone comes up to you and says "liar!" if you think they are calling you are liar and confront them, does that make you a liar even if that person was actually talking to someone behind you

I don't even know what that is suppose to mean, I never called aron a lier, I only accpeted your admission of lieing, nothing more nothing less. Get over it.

Read what you are replying to. I didnt say anything about Aron. We are talking about me.

Imagine some woman comes up to you and shouts liar. You think she is talking to you and confront her about it. Then she claims she could have been talking to someone behind you, not you, and that for you to think she was talking about you is to admit you ARE a liar.

Then you find out she WAS calling you a liar! Then she says it doesnt matter, she says that you assumed she was talking about you. That becuase she could have been talking to someone behind you, this still means you admitted to her you are a liar!

Same story here, and somehow you think this makes sence. But then again, I dont know why I bother, you never admit any other errors, you even blame stuff on your kids rather than admit you made a mistake, so I shouldnt believe you will take an accusation like this back.

 

[Edx]

I'm sure you don't really care what I actually believe, it would dent your idealism of who I am, but for the second time on this thread alone, I believe that there is sufficient evidence for both common ancestry and a creation, and a lack of evidence to falsify either therefore I would label myself a skeptic, thus meaning I don't believe we actually know what our origins are. My personally spiritual belief would be that a creator did the deed, but in what mannor that was acomplished, whether evolution or creation, I am in total limbo.

Lets look at the facts Razzel.

You said you have no problem with the evidence for common ancestry. But you do have a problem with it becuase you have said you believe there is evidence against it.

You said you agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry. But you do have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion, becuase you believe there is another viable scientific theory other than common ancestry that the evidence supports. By definition, this isnt the mainstream view, therefore you dont agree with it.

You finially tell us what this viable scientific conclusion is, and you say its that a creator created all life and that the evidence supports this and it is just as viable as common ancestry.

So you believe in Creation, not though natural evolution like theistic evolutionists believe, but through some other means. But...you arent a Creationist.

I also would like to know how you think a creator creating life is viable scientifically while what the Intelligent Design proponants claim isnt.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, I know that, and my point is you've got it backwards.

Ed, I grew up around stuborn people, you don't scare me or intimidate me. I am not who you claim I am and no amount of telling yourself that I am will change who I really am or what I have said and believe. Deal with it.

All things are possible, but not all things are probable. See the part I bolded from your post. Something doesnt become more "possible" with evidence, they become more probable. They already ARE possible.

You first must learn what science terms as possible before we move on to probable, or at least the common understanding of possible in the scientific community. It is not the same idea that the christian religious float around, but rather an understood amount of probability. You don't understand this, you are still trying to use the christian get out of evidence card that everthing is possible. Remove it so that we can talk about viable please. You know, the claim I have made from the start until it dawned on me that you couldn't count yet.

If you want to discuss the word possible then address the first part of my previous post on the word "possible" you originally hand waved away as "not even remotely on topic".

Right, the topic isn't there are no absolutes, as the christian arguement is, but rather that there are things that are so remotely possible that we don't accept them as possible. When you understand this, we will talk about probability.

You started saying that there are other "possible" conclusions to common ancestry and how you didnt understand why I was disputing that. I wasnt of course, becuase you were previously using the word "viable", which means something very different.

At least you recognize they are different that is a huge relief, now we just have to get you to understand how they are different.

If you didnt think I understood the word viable you would have been more accurate to replace it with the word "probable". I disputed your use of the word possible becuase it was not the position I was taking and was hardly going to argue against a strawman.

When you insist that what I have said is so unclear as to create a misrepresentation through half truths, I got to figure that somewhere along the line, there is a word you don't understand. It appears my guess was right, you don't understand possible. Let's learn to count so we can move on.

If you understand all this, then it doesnt matter. Forget about it.


I know the context and I know what the word possible means. You cant switch the word "viable" with "possible" and it still mean the same thing. They mean something very different. Its possible I win the lottery this week, but it isnt probable. Its much more probable that someone will win it though, and they do quite frequently.

You are showing some sign of comprehension, but I am still not sure you get it, I think I should teach you to count some more.

No you didnt. This isnt an "argument" but you still expect me to find an Creationist "arguing" that?

It is one of my common arguements, because I accept the conclusion of common ancestry. What I don't accept is that it is the only viable conclusion. Therefore, you told me that my arguements we typical creationist arguements and I said so me. Here is a common arguement of mine, show me one creationist that uses the same arguement. But you refuse to back your claim, why? I don't hear an appology yet, nor do I see you backing your claim. Humm?

But lets try anyway. ID proponant Michael Behe apparently doesnt have a problem with common ancestry. His arguments are that God guided evolution, and that this "Intelligent Design" can be studied scientifically, specfially in regards to complex molecular structures. So there you go.

First off you fail in that he is a ID not a creationist, I know some of you don't see a difference, but there is, because a creationist doesn't necessarily believe that God created in six days, mysteriously, etc. Secondly, you fail because my arguement is that evidence supports evolution, not that ID can be studied scientifically. Though I do agree with him on that issue. So on two accounts, you still need to evidence your claim.

But like I said, saying that you accept common ancestry is not an "argument" and its not why people were disagreeing with you or calling you are Creationist, and its not why people call Behe a Creationist or disagree with him either.

I didn't say I accepted common ancestry, I said that I agree that it is a viable conclusion. The arguement you need to show as a creationist one is that there is evidence for evolution. And by the way, I might accept this nonsense except that you still don't have what I have said accurate and therefore you are applying creationist aarguements to my posts rather than reading my posts and seeing creationist arguements. Big difference when we consider preconcieved ideas in communication. My posts would have to fit the claim not your idea of what I said. More evidence to support my theory that preconcieved ideas govern most of the discussions here.

How rich! Every time I have claimed something about you I have backed it up and you have quickly hand waved it away or ignored it completly. Not once have you ever backed up anything you've said about me. All you have to do is scroll back and see how many times you've accused me of some dishonesty or where you've claimed I said something I say I didnt, and me asking over and over to back yourself up.

You haven't backed this one up yet, still waiting to see how you expect it to be done, When I figure out what you accept as a backing up, we will go back and back up the claims once again. But so far, I don't see what you will accept because you still haven't backed up any of your claims with facts, only fiction. Oh, is that the trick here, fact isn't good enough, only fiction. Interesting concept, don't agree with it, but interesting none the less.

Well thats probably becuase every time you try and talk about some concept of evolution you show you dont understand it. Therefore people will correct you.

Correction, you show that preconcieved ideas of others color what you read and understand.

Unfortunatly I cant find the thread anymore. CF search is almost useless and google advanced search doesnt find every thread for some reason. But there was a thread where you argued with people for ages about geology and how we sort fossils. You misunderstood things the same way a Creationist might.

Interesting concpet since I believe that the fossil record is evidence for evolution. Hummm, could be more of that reading into posts what is not there and me taking pages and days and infinate word combinations to hope that one person would take the time to actually hear what I am saying. Nah couldn't be, we all know that you are always right (sarcasm)

You said science deals in absolutes. It doesnt.

yet scientists on this very forum have disagreed and said that science does deal in absolutes. Interesting don't you think? Science deals in absolutes but it doesn't deal in absolutes. Maybe more confusing than interesting, nah, I'll go with interesting.

See look there, you still dont dont get it. A law isnt higher than a theory. The Law of Gravity isnt more of a fact than the theory of General Relativity. In fact Newtons law of Gravity is just plain wrong when applied to certian situations and aspects of the universe, which is what Einsteins theory of General Relativity explains. Its still just as much open to question and change, and still not absolute. So saying a scientific theory in science as only a theory shows a misunderstanding of science. And asking when common ancestry will "stop" being a theory is shows this even more so. Theories dont become laws, they are different things. Theory is the highest rank in science investigation.

You've been told this many times, but apparently it still hasnt sunk in yet.

except that I didn't say one was over the other, or better or any other nonsense, I said simply that evolution was a theory, not a law, not a ..... but a theory. Nothing more nothing less. But you read into my post all this other stuff and then try to teach me that I know nothing because I accurately called evolution a theory. More evidnce, it is becomeing a great deal of evidence now, thanks for offering so much.

Yea in the kind of nudge nudge wink wink way the Intelligent Design guys also say its a "designer" not necessarily "god", right? It could be aliens!

I don't see a nudge or wink, where were they?

Point is, you believe common ancestry could viably be wrong and that the other viable scientific theory you were on about is that a creator created all life. Im fairly certian thats even closer to Creationism than at least most of those Intelligent Deisgn guys.

Lost me here

Yes, for the nth time, I know that. But you put "a" viable conclusion" together with "mainstream scientific", but as I kept telling you the mainstream scientific opinion is not the same as yours.

And I am telling you that when two ideas are lumped together into one, it is possible to misrepresent anothers view . Consider how many bills get vetoed because of one item slipped in the otherwise good bill. Or consider that lunch in the other post, where what you wanted they didn't have. A fair representation of my ideas seperates the two, an unfair representation lumps it together forcing a veto for a single line of bad law. All I asked from you was a fair accurate respresentation of what I believe instead you lumped several things together in hopes that I would pass the or in this case veto the entire bill thus showing that I have a problem with common ancestry. All I am doing is making sure that it is understood what part of the bill I am vetoing. It was a slick trick on your part except that I insist with the same stubornness I grew up around that I am fairly and accurately represented.

I didnt say that, and unfortunatly as I cant get at the original thread I couldnt find what your point was word for word. What I said was you had a problem with the way science organises and sorts fossils. You thought some of it was some kind of problem for evolution.

again, no, what I question is if a different way of organzing would result in the same conclusion. I am not saying the way of organizing is wrong or a problem, only asking the question, if we did it differently, would we come to the same conclusion.

But remember you also say you have no problem with the evidence for common ancestry, when of course you actually do. So again, its not a misrepresentation to say you do.

what problem? I still don't see one time in which you have evidenced this claim with actual facts. Is this more of that fiction coming through. Show me where I have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry.

You said over and over that you have no problem with mainstream scientific opinion on common ancestry. But you do, becuase it doesnt agree with you. Now you said I misrepresented you? That you actually meant "absolutely no"? You either agree with mainstream scientific opinion on common ancestry or you dont. By your same logic we could also say the ID guys would have no problem with mainstream scientific conclusion on evolution, which of course is nonsence.

I don't know how many ways I can say this any clearer than what I have done, so this this the last comment on this topic, I agree with part of the mainstream scientific conclusions on common ancestry and part of it I disagree with.

snipped for space.

If "all you want to show"? See thats my point. Thats basic. If we want to answer more complex and advanced questions, (ie: more complex and advanced reasoning), we are going to have to get a good grasp on the history of the conflict, the countries and the individuals involved (ie: the basic reasoning). Do try and remember the reason for the analogy.

But if I already know that, as is consistant with the analogy, you don't need to teach it to answer the question. And that is the point when we keep within the analogy.

So even though I was exactly right to think you meant me when you said that, you still say that to question your accusation is to admit I am lying to prove my points. Yea...

actually, what I am saying is that the only thing that would have clued you to the idea that I might have been referring to you was guilt, not my post, not my words, not my ideas, not my lang., not suggestions, but your own guilt would have been the only thing that lead you to the conclusion that I was referring to you. Get over it

Read what you are replying to. I didnt say anything about Aron. We are talking about me.

Imagine some woman comes up to you and shouts liar. You think she is talking to you and confront her about it. Then she claims she could have been talking to someone behind you, not you, and that for you to think she was talking about you is to admit you ARE a liar.

except I didn't come up to you and shout liar now did I?

Then you find out she WAS calling you a liar! Then she says it doesnt matter, she says that you assumed she was talking about you. That becuase she could have been talking to someone behind you, this still means you admitted to her you are a liar!

If you are going to make an analogy, make it one that fits the discussion.

Same story here, and somehow you think this makes sence. But then again, I dont know why I bother, you never admit any other errors, you even blame stuff on your kids rather than admit you made a mistake, so I shouldnt believe you will take an accusation like this back.

Interesting accusation since you have been shown posts where I accepted responsibility for being wrong, but refuse the evidence in order to insist that I never admit when I am wrong.

 

[razzelflabben]

Lets look at the facts Razzel.

You said you have no problem with the evidence for common ancestry. But you do have a problem with it becuase you have said you believe there is evidence against it.

You said you agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry. But you do have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion, becuase you believe there is another viable scientific theory other than common ancestry that the evidence supports. By definition, this isnt the mainstream view, therefore you dont agree with it.

You finially tell us what this viable scientific conclusion is, and you say its that a creator created all life and that the evidence supports this and it is just as viable as common ancestry.

So you believe in Creation, not though natural evolution like theistic evolutionists believe, but through some other means. But...you arent a Creationist.

I also would like to know how you think a creator creating life is viable scientifically while what the Intelligent Design proponants claim isnt.

Look, I have told you repeatedly, I believe that both are viable conclusions to the evidence we currently have. What does that make me? A creationist, when does a creationist believe that evolution is a viable conclusion? And evolutionist? when does an evolutionist believe that creation is viable? No, it pretty much so makes me what I said I was, a skeptic. Someone who think that we don't know and that either theory could be correct.

 

[Edx]

Ed, I grew up around stuborn people, you don't scare me or intimidate me. I am not who you claim I am and no amount of telling yourself that I am will change who I really am or what I have said and believe. Deal with it.

I dont know what you are talking about. You do have it backwards. I really dont think sometimes you even know what you are replying to sometimes.

It is not the same idea that the christian religious float around, but rather an understood amount of probability.

What is with this "Christian" thing you are talking about now? Its got nothing to do with Christianity.

Right, the topic isn't there are no absolutes, as the christian arguement is, but rather that there are things that are so remotely possible that we don't accept them as possible.

Something is either "practically" possible or more or less "probable" not "more possible". You can say something is a "viable possibility" when you mean "practically" possible. Thats why suddenly replacing the word viable for possible doesnt make sence, beucase you didnt keep the word viable. Like I told you before if this is just a communication error then just accept it and understand why I had a problem and we need not argue about it.

When you insist that what I have said is so unclear as to create a misrepresentation through half truths, I got to figure that somewhere along the line, there is a word you don't understand.

Prove it. Prove I said you were unclear with this. Come on, you keep saying these things. I said several times I understood you. I disagreed with you but not becuase of the word "viable". But you think I didnt so to try and make things "clearer" you start using the word possible? What a bad decision that was.

You are very good at making yourself "unclear" though. Like the brilliantly thoughtout clarification you make in another post.

"what possible is is off topic, what is possible is the topic at the present moment. "

So the topic is whats possible, not whats possible. Great, that sure cleared things up.

Let's learn to count so we can move on.

You are abusing my analogy. To bad it only makes you look like an ass.

I know the context and I know what the word possible means. You cant switch the word "viable" with "possible" and it still mean the same thing. They mean something very different. Its possible I win the lottery this week, but it isnt probable. Its much more probable that someone will win it though, and they do quite frequently.

You are showing some sign of comprehension, but I am still not sure you get it.

Oh thats very nice of you. Now show me where Ive shown any lack of understanding of the word, would you? Becuase Ive been saying the exact same thing.

It is one of my common arguements, because I accept the conclusion of common ancestry. What I don't accept is that it is the only viable conclusion.

Which is not the mainstream view.

I cant say a YEC that agrees with "micro evolution" has no problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion, just becuase he agrees with "part of it".

Therefore, you told me that my arguements we typical creationist arguements .

No, I told you thats not correct several times. Stop ignoring me. You agreeing with some aspect of Evolution theory isnt an argument, we would agree in this case, so what would be the problem? I said your arguments against Evolution theory were Creationist arguments. So again show me an argument that hasnt been told by Creationists, which is what I asked for.

But you refuse to back your claim, why?

Because its not an argument, and I did back up my claim so dont say I "refuse" to.

First off you fail in that he is a ID not a creationist, I know some of you don't see a difference, but there is, because a creationist doesn't necessarily believe that God created in six days, mysteriously, etc.

Not according to the law. What makes Behe a Creationist is because he believes that natural forces alone cannot account for the complex molecular structures he talks about, he believes supernatural intervention was required to design these structures, and he also believes that this design is a scientific theory. THATS what makes him Creationist.

Secondly, you fail because my arguement is that evidence supports evolution, not that ID can be studied scientifically.

No I dont fail becuase you said thats what the evidence points to: a creator. But not even just a "creator", you believe he created in a way thats different to common ancestry, that the scientific evidence can be shown to be against common ancestry and support this other "creation" theory of yours instead.

So its not even the way Behe believes in a creator (at least the ID guys were smart enough to call it "designer") since he accepts common ancestry, and not even the way a theistic evolutionist believes in a creator since TEs doesnt have a problem with the mainstream scientific view.

Though I do agree with him on that issue.

Yes well of course you do. You think your 'Creation theory' can be shown to be at least as viably correct scientifically as common ancestry. This makes you at least a believer in Intelligent Design, and that has been ruled as religious belief and unscientific in the Dover trial and therefore unconstitutional and illegal to teach.

And by the way, I might accept this nonsense except that you still don't have what I have said accurate and therefore you are applying creationist aarguements to my posts rather than reading my posts and seeing creationist arguements.

Ive given examples of why people calling you a Creationist and saw you as a Creationst. Aside from your ignorence of the scientific method you believe there is evidence against common ancestry. You believe in creation by a creator and believe this not only can be studied scientifically but is another viable scientific alternative to common ancestry.

How rich! Every time I have claimed something about you I have backed it up and you have quickly hand waved it away or ignored it completly. Not once have you ever backed up anything you've said about me. All you have to do is scroll back and see how many times you've accused me of some dishonesty or where you've claimed I said something I say I didnt, and me asking over and over to back yourself up.

You haven't backed this one up yet, still waiting to see how you expect it to be done, When I figure out what you accept as a backing up, we will go back and back up the claims once again.

Fine, heres a good example. I showed you a couple of major errors you made when you were talking to Aron that showed a ignorence of how science worked. You said I had taken it out of context, I asked you to show me where. You ignored me.

But when I asked you to back something up you said about me you ignore me completely. You dont even bother. You dont even try. Occasionally you give me excuses as to why you cant be bothered though.

Well thats probably becuase every time you try and talk about some concept of evolution you show you dont understand it. Therefore people will correct you.

Correction, you show that preconcieved ideas of others color what you read and understand.

Really? So you dont think saying that common ancestry is only a theory is a good point? And when you made out that a law is of higher rank than a theory you werent really saying that?

Interesting concpet since I believe that the fossil record is evidence for evolution. Hummm, could be more of that reading into posts what is not there

Even though you will have a chance to change what your point was and being unable to find the thread I cant check, I challenge you to tell me what your point was in that thread. What were you trying to say about fossils? And how does it relate to common ancestry and your "creation" theory. I am betting that it will still show an demonstratable lack of knowledge. So go on. Show everyone you understand.

again, no, what I question is if a different way of organzing would result in the same conclusion. I am not saying the way of organizing is wrong or a problem, only asking the question, if we did it differently, would we come to the same conclusion.

See above.

Nah couldn't be, we all know that you are always right (sarcasm) ... ...Interesting don't you think? Science deals in absolutes but it doesn't deal in absolutes. Maybe more confusing than interesting, nah, I'll go with interesting.

You know your posts would be a lot shorter if you cut out all the self indulgent nonsence you write. You are very bad at trying to insult someone intelligently Razzel, so just dont bother it just makes you look stupid.

You said science deals in absolutes. It doesnt.

yet scientists on this very forum have disagreed and said that science does deal in absolutes.

I dont know why Im asking this because you've never backed anything else you've claimed about people before. But I'll ask it anyway. Show me where scientists "on this very forum" have said that science deals in absolutes. I'd be surpried if you find one NON-scientist!

....Theories dont become laws, they are different things. Theory is the highest rank in science investigation.

except that I didn't say one was over the other, or better or any other nonsense, I said simply that evolution was a theory, not a law, not a ..... but a theory. Nothing more nothing less. But you read into my post all this other stuff and then try to teach me that I know nothing because I accurately called evolution a theory.

Thats not what I said Razzel. Ever notice how many times I have to tell you that? What I was questioning was not that you called evolution a theory, but rather that you said it was "only" a theory and asking when it would "stop" being a theory, and then showed that you thought a "law" was of higher rank than a theory. Read what people actually say, please!

I don't see a nudge or wink, where were they?

In the same place as the ID people keep them. You and they both know you arent talking about space aliens.

Point is, you believe common ancestry could viably be wrong and that the other viable scientific theory you were on about is that a creator created all life. Im fairly certian thats even closer to Creationism than at least most of those Intelligent Deisgn guys.

Lost me here

Well try reading what Im writing for a change. I said your position seems closer to traditional Creationism than most of the Intelligent Design people.

And I am telling you that when two ideas are lumped together into one, it is possible to misrepresent anothers view .

Exactly. And you pretended that mainstream science allows other viable conclusions so you can agree with it.

All I asked from you was a fair accurate respresentation of what I believe instead you lumped several things together in hopes that I would pass the or in this case veto the entire bill thus showing that I have a problem with common ancestry.

And of course you do have a problem with common ancestry. After all you keep telling me you want to discuss the evidence against it and what you believe shows your creation theory is also scientifically viable, dont you?

It was a slick trick on your part

I dont need any slick tricks.

But remember you also say you have no problem with the evidence for common ancestry, when of course you actually do. So again, its not a misrepresentation to say you do.

...Show me where I have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry.

Ive done it lots of times. You keep telling me you do, then contradicting yourself like you have again now. For instance you keep saying you want to discuss the evidence against common ancestry that points to another viable scientific conclusion you believe exists, which have recently learnt is your "creation" theory, but of course, you arent a Creationist either...

I agree with part of the mainstream scientific conclusions on common ancestry and part of it I disagree with.

You didnt say "part" before. And a YEC could easily say the same thing by claiming he or she believes in "micro evolution". But neither he or you would be right to say that I am wrong for saying you both dont agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion on common ancestry. Because if you remember thats what I said and you said I was wrong about.

But if I already know that, as is consistant with the analogy, you don't need to teach it to answer the question.

But I keep telling you you are asking a basic question that does not require advanced knowledge to answer. To be able to answer advanced questions you need to understand advanced knowledge and reasoning. Its the equivalent of learning how to read the notes to play Twinkle Twinkle on the piano, compared with a more advanced task of learning to sight read Mozart. You cant expect to be able to play Mozart like that if you cant even read the notes to Twinkle Twinkle.

I didn't come up to you and shout liar now did I?

I was pretty damn sure you werent talking about anyone else from your description, and you said the same things about me to Aron in your debate to Aron.

If you are going to make an analogy, make it one that fits the discussion.

*sigh* whatever Razzel. Just pretend you overheard some people talking describing a situation, and then someone calling you a liar. You confront them and they say "I was talking about you, but, I could have been talking about someone else so therefore you have just admitted you are a liar!".

Interesting accusation since you have been shown posts where I accepted responsibility for being wrong, but refuse the evidence in order to insist that I never admit when I am wrong.

Oh look another thing you will never back up.

Ed

 

[Edx]

Look, I have told you repeatedly, I believe that both are viable conclusions to the evidence we currently have.

Doesnt change a thing, except "both". See below.

What does that make me? A creationist, when does a creationist believe that evolution is a viable conclusion?

It makes you a Creationist for believing that your creator created all life and that the evidence will show that, and that this "creation theory" is a viable scientific alternative theory and at least as viable as evolution theory. Do you believe in "equal time", for this creation theory of yours too? You'd have to if this were really true.

No, it pretty much so makes me what I said I was, a skeptic. Someone who think that we don't know and that either theory could be correct.

A true skeptic wouldnt believe in a God at all and if you did believe a god did it and you were scientific about this you would realise that a creation theory by divine fiat couldnt be scientific.

 

[razzelflabben]

I dont know what you are talking about. You do have it backwards. I really dont think sometimes you even know what you are replying to sometimes.

I started out the post saying that I grew up around stubborn people, you don't scare me, that has a general overall idea not a specific comment to a specific comment you made, read for meaning and deal with what is really written not what you want it yo say.

What is with this "Christian" thing you are talking about now? Its got nothing to do with Christianity.

Now ed, you and I have been in enough discussions to know that any time someone talkes about possible you get defensive of the whole christian claim of all things being possible and how wrong that arguement is, yet here, that arguement works for you and so you use it, just call it something different. You can't have your cake and eat it to, which is an old saying that doesn't make much sense but, the idea is sound and applies, you can't dismiss the idea one time then cling to it the next. Deal with it.

Something is either "practically" possible or more or less "probable" not "more possible". You can say something is a "viable possibility" when you mean "practically" possible. Thats why suddenly replacing the word viable for possible doesnt make sence, beucase you didnt keep the word viable. Like I told you before if this is just a communication error then just accept it and understand why I had a problem and we need not argue about it.

I have told you this before and you refuse to accept it, so this will be the last comment I make on this claim of yours. I needed a way of making you understand what I was saying and the only possible reason I could comprehend for you not getting it all this time later was that you didn't understand viable and so in order to understand viable, you need to go back and understand what possible is, from there you can build on what possible means to probable and then viable. It's learning to count before you can add and learning to add before you can multiply. Now I really don't care if you like it or not, it is what I did and why.

Prove it. Prove I said you were unclear with this. Come on, you keep saying these things. I said several times I understood you. I disagreed with you but not becuase of the word "viable". But you think I didnt so to try and make things "clearer" you start using the word possible? What a bad decision that was.

If you understand what I am saying, then you will not misrepresent what I have said, unless of course you are dishonest.

snip for space
"what possible is is off topic, what is possible is the topic at the present moment. "

Yep, the definition of possible is off topic, what is on topic at the moment is what is possible. Sounds clear to me, but then again, that is the nature of communication, what is clear to one is not necessarily clear to another. Which btw is why I give people the benefit of the doubt before calling them liers. But then again, you don't understand that because you can take this statement of mine, right here and use it to show that I am calling you a lier without provacation, and that makes you right. And that kind of nonesence cannot be argued logically because there is no logic in it. Deal with it.

snip for space

You are abusing my analogy. To bad it only makes you look like an ass.

again name calling, how about changing your tactics long enough to deal with the evidence? (please note this is evidence that I am sure I will be asked for in the future)

Oh thats very nice of you. Now show me where Ive shown any lack of understanding of the word, would you? Becuase Ive been saying the exact same thing.

If you insist on misrepresenting my views, there are two options, 1. you don't understand my views or 2. you understand them but want to lie in order to paint a picture that is false to make your point. I choose 1 above because that is my preference. If you want us to accept 2 above, then I would think you would need to admit to lieing and appologize so that we all know where you stand. (note, for future cases of evidence that I am not calling you a lier, but offering it as a possible while accepting the other possible as my claim)

snip for space
No, I told you thats not correct several times. Stop ignoring me. You agreeing with some aspect of Evolution theory isnt an argument, we would agree in this case, so what would be the problem? I said your arguments against Evolution theory were Creationist arguments. So again show me an argument that hasnt been told by Creationists, which is what I asked for.

actually you asked me for one of my arguements that was not a creationist arguement, in fact I have shown you several in that I corrected false accusations of my argueemtns in a previous post of yours, but we move on because you apparently can't back up your claim.

Because its not an argument, and I did back up my claim so dont say I "refuse" to.

you backed up your claim with false accusations or misrepresentations of my arguements. Which in essence is not backing it up at all.[/quote]


Not according to the law. What makes Behe a Creationist is because he believes that natural forces alone cannot account for the complex molecular structures he talks about, he believes supernatural intervention was required to design these structures, and he also believes that this design is a scientific theory. THATS what makes him Creationist. [/quote] I think that if you are going to claim that an evolutionist that believes that a supernatural intervention was required is a creationist, then we need to find a definition of creationist we can agree with because that ain't it.

No I dont fail becuase you said thats what the evidence points to: a creator. But not even just a "creator", you believe he created in a way thats different to common ancestry, that the scientific evidence can be shown to be against common ancestry and support this other "creation" theory of yours instead.

actually, if you actually read my posts, I said that both are viable conclusions of the evidence, therefore I believe that both are possibles and that both have potential of being falsified. And btw, just as the evidence that supports creation can be shown to be against common ancestry, the opposite is true as well, the evidence that supports evolution is evidence that can be against creation. In order to look at the evidence objectively, one must apply the same logic to both. Deal with it and please note this comment for future insistance of claims pointing them out ahead of time should dramatically reduce time looking them up for you.

So its not even the way Behe believes in a creator (at least the ID guys were smart enough to call it "designer") since he accepts common ancestry, and not even the way a theistic evolutionist believes in a creator since TEs doesnt have a problem with the mainstream scientific view.

WEll, I am still waiting for you to show how when I accept that evolution can be truth, that I have a problem with common ancestry, how much longer will it take for you to get around to evidenceing this claim?

Yes well of course you do. You think your 'Creation theory' can be shown to be at least as viably correct scientifically as common ancestry.

Don't think I said anything about as viable, only viable In fact, when no one is testing the theory, it would be pretty dog gone hard to have as much evidence for.

This makes you at least a believer in Intelligent Design, and that has been ruled as religious belief and unscientific in the Dover trial and therefore unconstitutional and illegal to teach.

whooooo nellie, correction

1. I believe that both are viable therefore, I am either an evolutionist and a creationist (IDer) or I am neither, to label me as only one is a misrepresentation of what I actually do believe. Deal with it and please get it right in the future.

2. Where did I say anything about teaching creation? This is a new discussion, are you out of ideas for twisting my words that you have to create a new strawmwan or is this another tactic for trying to present me as being something I am not with false accusations.?

Ive given examples of why people calling you a Creationist and saw you as a Creationst.

full to the brim with false and misleading claims

Aside from your ignorence of the scientific method you believe there is evidence against common ancestry.

as well as evidence for common ancestry and evidence against creation as well as evidence for creation. Wow,

You believe in creation by a creator and believe this not only can be studied scientifically but is another viable scientific alternative to common ancestry.

I believe that there is evidence to support the idea of a creator and that it can be scientifically studied. So far your batting 1,000 and after all the discussions we have had.

Fine, heres a good example. I showed you a couple of major errors you made when you were talking to Aron that showed a ignorence of how science worked. You said I had taken it out of context, I asked you to show me where. You ignored me.

Well, first of all, you ignore every bit of evidence I present, so I have gotton to the point where I simply don't waste my time on your prodding anymore, secondly, you have the context, you can read it in context, and have ample opertunity to do so if you really cared about what I am actually saying vs. what you think you want me to say.

But when I asked you to back something up you said about me you ignore me completely. You dont even bother. You dont even try. Occasionally you give me excuses as to why you cant be bothered though.

see above

Really? So you dont think saying that common ancestry is only a theory is a good point? And when you made out that a law is of higher rank than a theory you werent really saying that?

again, you misrepresent what I was saying. I was making the point that evolution is a theory, nothing more nothing less, some evolutionists you included make it out to be more than a theory. In reallity, it is simply a theory. Now unless you have evidence to show it to be other than a theory, the discussion is over, me in the right. So what evidence do you have so show the theory of evolution other than theory? The law of evolution? the hypothesis of evolution? the fact of evolution? or any other label you want to put on it, all the teachings on evolution label it a theory. plain, simple, and consistant with my claim.

snip for space
I challenge you to tell me what your point was in that thread. What were you trying to say about fossils? And how does it relate to common ancestry and your "creation" theory. I am betting that it will still show an demonstratable lack of knowledge. So go on. Show everyone you understand.

Well since this is the second time on this very thread, I will make it the last and you will be ignored unless you actually show some signs of understanding or attempt at such. I asked the question what would happen if the fossil record was sorted differently, would it evidence the same thing? To this I was asked how else it could be sorted to which I tried to offer some possibles and I was told that I didn't understand how it was sorted because I was offering different possible ways to sort. Bottom line, I asked the question, if we sort the fossil evidence differently, how would that affect our conclusion of common ancestry? please note for evidence in the future that the comment is open ended, thus allowing for a no change possibility. and that nowhere do I indicate that I don't understand how it is sorted or that sortng it differently would indeed change the condlusion, only asking questions. Big difference from your claims. But

See above.


snip for space


And of course you do have a problem with common ancestry. After all you keep telling me you want to discuss the evidence against it and what you believe shows your creation theory is also scientifically viable, dont you?

you keep saying this but I don't think you mean what you say you mean, I believe that common ancestry is a viable conclusion to the evidence, so show me where I have a problem with common ancestry.

anip for space


Ive done it lots of times. You keep telling me you do, then contradicting yourself like you have again now. For instance you keep saying you want to discuss the evidence against common ancestry that points to another viable scientific conclusion you believe exists, which have recently learnt is your "creation" theory, but of course, you arent a Creationist either...

I'm a skeptic, I have told you this

snip for space




I was pretty damn sure you werent talking about anyone else from your description, and you said the same things about me to Aron in your debate to Aron.



*sigh* whatever Razzel. Just pretend you overheard some people talking describing a situation, and then someone calling you a liar. You confront them and they say "I was talking about you, but, I could have been talking about someone else so therefore you have just admitted you are a liar!".



Oh look another thing you will never back up.

Ed

Now, last item I will address on this thread, A proper analogy would be that you hear a discussion between me and another person in which you hear me say, "I was involved in a situation in which you were told something that was not true and you believed it, I don't blame you for that, I blame the person who told you something that was not true."

You then, come along and say "why did you call me a lier, I demand you provide evidence showing that I lied and I want an apology too." Now unless you are the only other person I have talked to (and I assure you you are not) there is nothing in my comment that would label you as the "lier" or suggest I was talking to you apart from your own conscience. Which is why I commented the way I did, because your posts show a quilty conscience, ease your conscience and appologize of deal with it and move on.

 

[razzelflabben]

Doesnt change a thing, except "both". See below.



It makes you a Creationist for believing that your creator created all life and that the evidence will show that, and that this "creation theory" is a viable scientific alternative theory and at least as viable as evolution theory. Do you believe in "equal time", for this creation theory of yours too? You'd have to if this were really true.

Well, you have it a bit backwards, I have reviewed the evidence and found it to evidence a creator, but this is about as close as you get to anything I say, so I will take it and run.

A true skeptic wouldnt believe in a God at all and if you did believe a god did it and you were scientific about this you would realise that a creation theory by divine fiat couldnt be scientific.

Not so, a true skeptic would believe that God is a possible and btw, we are not talking about being a skeptic in everything only in our origins, so make sure you understand this when you demonstrate how little you understand what I am telling you.

Also, a true skeptic would believe that if God is who He claims, then He would indeed be testable. Not so with every god/gods but true with God. In fact, most gods provide some form of interaction with man that could be tested if the god was real. That ability to test is what defines scientific method.

 

[Edx]

Now ed, you and I have been in enough discussions to know that any time someone talkes about possible you get defensive of the whole christian claim of all things being possible and how wrong that arguement is, yet here, that arguement works for you and so you use it, just call it something different.

Im not changing any argument. Ive always said that all things are possible. Even Richard Dawkins says all things are possible, even the tooth fairy. But just becuase something is possible doesnt mean we have any reason to consider it. It doesnt mean anything is necessarily a viable possibility.

so this will be the last comment I make on this claim of yours. I needed a way of making you understand what I was saying and the only possible reason I could comprehend for you not getting it all this time later was that you didn't understand viable and so in order to understand viable, you need to go back and understand what possible is, from there you can build on what possible means to probable and then viable.

Except you didnt ask me if I understood the word viable, you just started suddenly using the word possible in the place of viable and then reacted as if they both meant the same thing and I was being unreasonable when I questoned it. So if this is what you were really trying to do, you sure picked a bad way of trying to get your point accross.

If you understand what I am saying, then you will not misrepresent what I have said, unless of course you are dishonest.

If I have misunderstood you it is because you are so bad at communicating what your point is.

Yep, the definition of possible is off topic, what is on topic at the moment is what is possible. Sounds clear to me, but then again, that is the nature of communication, what is clear to one is not necessarily clear to another. Which btw is why I give people the benefit of the doubt before calling them liers.

So why then did you not just write that the first time? That would have made sence. How did you expect someone to understood what you actually wrote?

If you had written that the first time I would have replied saying that its obviously on topic since we cant talk about a word if you dont know what it means or we cant agree on its definition.

But this is all superfluous. Now I know what you mean we dont need to talk about it anymore.

again name calling, how about changing your tactics long enough to deal with the evidence?

Look at what I was replying to. ALL you do is name call and talk down to people. And you have the cheek to talk to me about my "tactics"? I think my irony meter just exploaded.

If you insist on misrepresenting my views, there are two options, 1. you don't understand my views or 2. you understand them but want to lie in order to paint a picture that is false to make your point. I choose 1 above because that is my preference.

If I am "insisting" on misrepresenting you, then that makes me a liar by default. So are you saying I am insisting" on "misrepresenting" you or not? Either its honest mistake, or its dishonest. If its dishonest it makes it a lie, and therefore you are calling me a liar.

(note, for future cases of evidence that I am not calling you a lier, but offering it as a possible while accepting the other possible as my claim)

You have already called me a liar several times. You've said Ive lied, then said you arent calling me a liar. How you think you can lie without necessarily being a liar is beyond me.

No, I told you thats not correct several times. Stop ignoring me. You agreeing with some aspect of Evolution theory isnt an argument, we would agree in this case, so what would be the problem? I said your arguments against Evolution theory were Creationist arguments. So again show me an argument that hasnt been told by Creationists, which is what I asked for

actually you asked me for one of my arguements that was not a creationist arguement, in fact I have shown you several in that I corrected false accusations of my argueemtns in a previous post of yours, but we move on because you apparently can't back up your claim.

And you keep ignoring me... What you gave me is not an argument against Evolution. Like I asked you before: Find one argument of yours against the mainstream scientific position on evolution that isnt a Creationist argument.

Because its not an argument, and I did back up my claim so dont say I "refuse" to.

you backed up your claim with false accusations or misrepresentations of my arguements. Which in essence is not backing it up at all.

What false accusations?

I think that if you are going to claim that an evolutionist that believes that a supernatural intervention was required is a creationist, then we need to find a definition of creationist we can agree with because that ain't it.

Read what the Discovery Institute, of which Behe is a senior fellow, say about Evolutionists. An "Evolutionist" accepts mainstream scientific opinion on evolution, so Behe isnt an Evolutionist. He believes an Intelligent Designer (his god) tinkered with his creation, becuase he thinks its too complex to have evolved using natural mechanisms. He believes you can study that design scientifically. This is Creationism, and this is why is considered a Creationist.

No I dont fail becuase you said thats what the evidence points to: a creator. But not even just a "creator", you believe he created in a way thats different to common ancestry, that the scientific evidence can be shown to be against common ancestry and support this other "creation" theory of yours instead.

actually, if you actually read my posts, I said that both are viable conclusions of the evidence

I know, and Ive said that several times.

So its not even the way Behe believes in a creator (at least the ID guys were smart enough to call it "designer") since he accepts common ancestry, and not even the way a theistic evolutionist believes in a creator since TEs doesnt have a problem with the mainstream scientific view.

WEll, I am still waiting for you to show how when I accept that evolution can be truth, that I have a problem with common ancestry, how much longer will it take for you to get around to evidenceing this claim?

Read what you are replying to. You want me to evidence the fact that you believe a God created even more than a TE or Behe do?

1. I believe that both are viable therefore, I am either an evolutionist and a creationist (IDer) or I am neither, to label me as only one is a misrepresentation of what I actually do believe. Deal with it and please get it right in the future.

I know you keep saying both are viable, but when we look at everything else you say its clear you are a Creationist in an even more dramatic way than Behe is

Ive given examples of why people calling you a Creationist and saw you as a Creationst.

full to the brim with false and misleading claims

Im telling you how people see you. If you dont like how people see you maybe you should change your behaviour.

as well as evidence for common ancestry and evidence against creation as well as evidence for creation.

Like I said you manage to hold these contradictory thoughts in your head.

Wow, I believe that there is evidence to support the idea of a creator and that it can be scientifically studied.

Just like ID people. and thats what makes you are Creationist just like them. Not as much as a YEC or an OEC mind you but a Creationist none the less.

Fine, heres a good example. I showed you a couple of major errors you made when you were talking to Aron that showed a ignorence of how science worked. You said I had taken it out of context, I asked you to show me where. You ignored me

Well, first of all, you ignore every bit of evidence I present, so I have gotton to the point where I simply don't waste my time on your prodding anymore, secondly, you have the context, you can read it in context, and have ample opertunity to do so if you really cared about what I am actually saying vs. what you think you want me to say.

Im not going to do your work for you! You cant even tell me what the context WAS becuase you are so blindingly lazy to even go back and see what it was. I read it in context, and you were wrong then and its still wrong now and apparenlty you still dont understand.

again, you misrepresent what I was saying. I was making the point that evolution is a theory, nothing more nothing less, some evolutionists you included make it out to be more than a theory. In reallity, it is simply a theory. Now unless you have evidence to show it to be other than a theory, the discussion is over, me in the right.

See you still dont understand! Even when you explain it again. How you think what I said before was out of context I have no idea because you are still saying the same thing

The only way a scientific theory can be anymore than a "theory" is if we somehow attainted absolute knowledge. And we cant and never have attainted absolute knowledge and science isnt even equipped to deal with what that is or know what it would look like even if we did get it. A theory is the highest state of investigation in science. Theres nothing greater than a theory, not even a "Law" which its a different thing.

I await your claim that you understand all this already, and further await you to further demonstrate that you still dont.

So what evidence do you have so show the theory of evolution other than theory?

As I say above, Evolution will always be a theory no matter how much evidence we uncover about it. We cant attain absolute knowledge, so consequently all science is theory.

The law of evolution?

A law, which I have told you last time and then again above, is not greater than a theory, its something else.

So several times Ive told you this same thing, so to avoid admitting your mistake you are going to have to again ignore me, tell me Im again misrepresenting your position and then again say the same thing as you did here and we can repeat this fun little game.

and that nowhere do I indicate that I don't understand how it is sorted or that sortng it differently would indeed change the condlusion, only asking questions.

You dont need to say you dont understand something to show you dont undertstand something. Thats what people were trying to get you to understand, that you didnt understand why it was sorted the way it is, and why your ideas just wouldnt work. But as always you are too caught up trying to claim that you understand everything already to listen. As we can see above on what a scientific theory is, you say I take you out of context and that I misrepresent you on this issue and then you go right ahead and show you still dont understand in the same exact way as you didnt before!

Big difference from your claims.

What do you think my claims are?

I believe that common ancestry is a viable conclusion to the evidence, so show me where I have a problem with common ancestry.

I already gave you an example ages ago but you ignored it. Here I'll cut and paste it for you:

If you believe Steady State theory of the universe is another viable scientific conclusion to the Big Bang, then you have a problem with some of the evidence for the Big Bang, by definition.

If you believe Steady State theory of the universe is another viable scientific conclusion to the Big Bang you also dont agree with the mainstream scientific opinion on the matter, since the mainstream scientific opinion is that Steady State theory is not a viable theory anymore and all the evidence we have points to the Big Bang as the only viable conclusion .

I'm a skeptic, I have told you this

Yea, you are a skeptic not a Creationist even though you believe God created all life not through common ancestry but by some other supernatural means, and that this and/or design can be scientifically studied and is viable scientific theory? Sounds like a Creationist to me.

A proper analogy would be that you hear a discussion between me and another person in which you hear me say, "I was involved in a situation in which you were told something that was not true and you believed it, I don't blame you for that, I blame the person who told you something that was not true."

You didnt say "something that was not true", you said I "lied".

You then, come along and say "why did you call me a lier, I demand you provide evidence showing that I lied and I want an apology too." Now unless you are the only other person I have talked to (and I assure you you are not)

But you did say you were talking to me. You said it to Aron.

So you did call me a liar.

there is nothing in my comment that would label you as the "lier" or suggest I was talking to you apart from your own conscience.

Or, I knew the kind of thing you'd accuse me of. You complained about it to Aron in much the same way IN your debate with Aron. So I had reason to think you were talking to me. But either way you DID call me a liar, since you were.

 

[Edx]

It makes you a Creationist for believing that your creator created all life and that the evidence will show that, and that this "creation theory" is a viable scientific alternative theory and at least as viable as evolution theory. Do you believe in "equal time", for this creation theory of yours too? You'd have to if this were really true.

Well, you have it a bit backwards, I have reviewed the evidence and found it to evidence a creator, but this is about as close as you get to anything I say, so I will take it and run.

You cant backtrack now Razzel, you said this creation theory of yours WAS the viable alternative scientific theory you have been on about.

Not so, a true skeptic would believe that God is a possible and btw,

Even Richard Dawkins says God is possible.

Also, a true skeptic would believe that if God is who He claims, then He would indeed be testable. Not so with every god/gods but true with God. In fact, most gods provide some form of interaction with man that could be tested if the god was real. That ability to test is what defines scientific method.

Tell me one way a God could be scientifically falsified or verified. It cant be done, even hypothetically, thats why its not scientific.

Ed

 

[Tomk80]

The only way a scientific theory can be anymore than a "theory" is if we somehow attainted absolute knowledge. And we cant and never have attainted absolute knowledge and science isnt even equipped to deal with what that is or know what it would look like even if we did get it. A theory is the highest state of investigation in science. Theres nothing greater than a theory, not even a "Law" which its a different thing.

This is not true Edx. Even if we know with absolute certainty that a theory is true, it is still a theory. This is because a theory is an explanatory framework for facts we have. Even if an explanatory framework is absolutely, 100% correct, it is still an explanatory framework.

In the same way a fact is always a fact and not all facts are 100% true. Facts can be less strongly supported then theories even (yes, I know you know this, but I just felt like being a pedantic for a minute).

 

[Edx]

This is not true Edx. Even if we know with absolute certainty that a theory is true, it is still a theory. This is because a theory is an explanatory framework for facts we have. Even if an explanatory framework is absolutely, 100% correct, it is still an explanatory framework.

In the same way a fact is always a fact and not all facts are 100% true. Facts can be less strongly supported then theories even (yes, I know you know this, but I just felt like being a pedantic for a minute).

Yes, I do know this . If we knew with absolute certainty that a theory was correct it would still be a theory like you said, but also like I said, it is becuase science isnt set up to deal with something like that. I was trying to explain to Razzel what it would take for a theory not to be a theory anymore, but that since absolute knowledge is hypothetical, science doesnt have anything to call a theory that we know is absolutely correct.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

Im not changing any argument. Ive always said that all things are possible. Even Richard Dawkins says all things are possible, even the tooth fairy. But just becuase something is possible doesnt mean we have any reason to consider it. It doesnt mean anything is necessarily a viable possibility.

Okay then, all that argueing was for nothing, you just like to argue. Got it. Time to move on.

Except you didnt ask me if I understood the word viable, you just started suddenly using the word possible in the place of viable and then reacted as if they both meant the same thing and I was being unreasonable when I questoned it. So if this is what you were really trying to do, you sure picked a bad way of trying to get your point accross.

I thought that was your rule of communication, you have never asked me what I understood even when it was demonstrated to you. You are very confusing sometimes. So you don't want to be asked what is understood and what is not and you can't bring yourself to ask others what they mean or understand but, when you are caught in your own trap, you want to be asked. Interesting tactic! If it was ethical or reasonable, I might try it but I find it ..... repulsive.

If I have misunderstood you it is because you are so bad at communicating what your point is.

So why then did you not just write that the first time? That would have made sence. How did you expect someone to understood what you actually wrote?

If you had written that the first time I would have replied saying that its obviously on topic since we cant talk about a word if you dont know what it means or we cant agree on its definition.

First off, that is why reasonable people ask for clarity of things they don't understand, secondly, if the understood definition is the same, then it is not the topic of discussion.

But this is all superfluous. Now I know what you mean we dont need to talk about it anymore.

Look at what I was replying to. ALL you do is name call and talk down to people. And you have the cheek to talk to me about my "tactics"? I think my irony meter just exploaded.


If I am "insisting" on misrepresenting you, then that makes me a liar by default. So are you saying I am insisting" on "misrepresenting" you or not? Either its honest mistake, or its dishonest. If its dishonest it makes it a lie, and therefore you are calling me a liar.

Okay, I thought you were reading my posts, so when I say to you that I accept 1 above, you then can say to me that I need to decide if I am going to accept 1 or 2 above and stop calling you a lier. Interesting concept. It appears more and more like you are dillusional or simply can't read, which is it?

You have already called me a liar several times. You've said Ive lied, then said you arent calling me a liar. How you think you can lie without necessarily being a liar is beyond me.

And you keep ignoring me... What you gave me is not an argument against Evolution. Like I asked you before: Find one argument of yours against the mainstream scientific position on evolution that isnt a Creationist argument.

No, you said your arguements.

What false accusations?

come on, the posts are so full of them I could point to ever post you write in relation to me.

Read what the Discovery Institute, of which Behe is a senior fellow, say about Evolutionists. An "Evolutionist" accepts mainstream scientific opinion on evolution, so Behe isnt an Evolutionist. He believes an Intelligent Designer (his god) tinkered with his creation, becuase he thinks its too complex to have evolved using natural mechanisms. He believes you can study that design scientifically. This is Creationism, and this is why is considered a Creationist.

what the heck do I care about Behe? or the Discovery Institue? You said that Behe believed in evolution but that God was involved in that process. Now you seem to be contridicting yourself. From my understanidng of the definitions of evolution and creation, they are not the same thing and you are the first person I have run accross that seems to think they are. What do you think the definitions are?

I know, and Ive said that several times.

No sir you have not, and by the way, it isn't a contridiction in beliefs or understanding, it is an acceptance that we simply don't know what truth is. You need to understand it before you can hope to correctly represent it.

Read what you are replying to. You want me to evidence the fact that you believe a God created even more than a TE or Behe do?

Well first off, I have told you that I believe that God created, but the process of that creation is still up for grabs. Therefore, that would fit better in a theistic approach, not a creationist approach. I dare you to call Glaudys a creationist because she believes that God did it through the process of evolution.

I know you keep saying both are viable, but when we look at everything else you say its clear you are a Creationist in an even more dramatic way than Behe is

Okay, I believe both are viable conclusions, argue both, and that makes me a creationist. Again, I think you need to present your definitions for evolutionist and creationist they don't seem to fit the standard definitions.

Im telling you how people see you. If you dont like how people see you maybe you should change your behaviour.

I could accept this if and only if, the accussations of what I have said we honest representations of what I have said. Look at it this way, If I say, ed believes that the world just magically appeared because he said all things are possible therefore ed is a creationist, would you take offense? Why? This is what you and others have done with me, you misrepresent me, then label me according to this false representation and I am suppose to say, sure you all are right I'm a moron. Ain't going to happen, and I will continue to insist that I am represented accurately until such time as you actually do so.

Like I said you manage to hold these contradictory thoughts in your head.

Not contridictory at all, but rather an acceptance that we still don't know what truth is. It is not contridictory to say, we still don't know, it is an acceptance of lack of evidence to know without "reasonable doubt".

Just like ID people. and thats what makes you are Creationist just like them. Not as much as a YEC or an OEC mind you but a Creationist none the less.

see above

Im not going to do your work for you! You cant even tell me what the context WAS becuase you are so blindingly lazy to even go back and see what it was. I read it in context, and you were wrong then and its still wrong now and apparenlty you still dont understand.

already did and you ignored i tot accuse me of not doing it. This bull$%&^ is why I ignore your insistance of backing up my claims, because you ignore all the evidence in exchange for clinging to your beliefs.

See you still dont understand! Even when you explain it again. How you think what I said before was out of context I have no idea because you are still saying the same thing

The only way a scientific theory can be anymore than a "theory" is if we somehow attainted absolute knowledge. And we cant and never have attainted absolute knowledge and science isnt even equipped to deal with what that is or know what it would look like even if we did get it. A theory is the highest state of investigation in science. Theres nothing greater than a theory, not even a "Law" which its a different thing.

so when will you show me the theory of evolution being something other than a theory? That is the only way you will be able to get out of this claim of yours of what I have said. Where is it understood that the theory of evolution is anything other than a theory?

I await your claim that you understand all this already, and further await you to further demonstrate that you still dont.

As I say above, Evolution will always be a theory no matter how much evidence we uncover about it. We cant attain absolute knowledge, so consequently all science is theory.

So, you agree with me then and your objection is just your enjoyment of argueing. I thought your accusation was that I enjoyed argueing. Here I am and I again ask you to note for future evidence of claims made, that I say that the theory of evolution is theory and you say no you are wrong, you don't understand science or law, the theory of evolution is a theory. This is your arguement for the sake of arguement because you just said the same thing I said, but all the time, you disagree with me even though we agree. And you wonder why I tire of you?

A law, which I have told you last time and then again above, is not greater than a theory, its something else.

So several times Ive told you this same thing, so to avoid admitting your mistake you are going to have to again ignore me, tell me Im again misrepresenting your position and then again say the same thing as you did here and we can repeat this fun little game.

see above

You dont need to say you dont understand something to show you dont undertstand something. Thats what people were trying to get you to understand, that you didnt understand why it was sorted the way it is,

what I have said abundant times now, is that not only do I understand how it is sorted, I have no problem with how it is sorted, it's cool, I simply have a question not about how it is sorted but about what would happen if we sorted it differently.

and why your ideas just wouldnt work.

what idea? that we can sort things differently? Interesting, so we teach people for years that there is more than one way to skin a cat, two sides to every story, different ways to the same end, but when it comes to sorting the fossil record there is only one possible way to sort. Interesting. So why teach children that there is more than one way to a given end. Aron might also be interested in this philosophy in that it would eliminate several religions from possible.

But as always you are too caught up trying to claim that you understand everything already to listen.

Present something I don't already know about the sorting of fossils and see how differently the discussion goes.

As we can see above on what a scientific theory is, you say I take you out of context and that I misrepresent you on this issue and then you go right ahead and show you still dont understand in the same exact way as you didnt before!

Right, I don't understand that the theory of evolution is a theory and not a law or a hypothesis or etc. because I say that the theory of evolution is a theory and not a law or hypothesis or etc. A claim that you agree with but disagree with because I said it and show that I dont' understand it because it is the same thing you say and you understand it. Okay then, all this circular reasoning is making me dizzy, we need to move on.

What do you think my claims are?

what have we been argueing about for pages now?

I already gave you an example ages ago but you ignored it. Here I'll cut and paste it for you:

If you believe Steady State theory of the universe is another viable scientific conclusion to the Big Bang, then you have a problem with some of the evidence for the Big Bang, by definition.

If you believe Steady State theory of the universe is another viable scientific conclusion to the Big Bang you also dont agree with the mainstream scientific opinion on the matter, since the mainstream scientific opinion is that Steady State theory is not a viable theory anymore and all the evidence we have points to the Big Bang as the only viable conclusion .


Yea, you are a skeptic not a Creationist even though you believe God created all life not through common ancestry but by some other supernatural means,

see here, this is why we don't get along, I don't know how the creator created life, that is the point of being a skeptic, a skeptic says, we don't know, could be common ancestry, could be spontanious, could be alien invasion, we don't know.

and that this and/or design can be scientifically studied and is viable scientific theory? Sounds like a Creationist to me.

Yep, you got that one right, I believe that if god/gods/God are real, then they can be tested and evidenced or falsified, at least some of them can be. So that belief then defines creationist? Hum, I thought a creationist was someone who believed that God "magically" created life. Shall we look it up and see what the definition actually is or will you refuse that evidence as well?

You didnt say "something that was not true", you said I "lied".

But you did say you were talking to me. You said it to Aron.

No sir I did not

So you did call me a liar.

Or, I knew the kind of thing you'd accuse me of. You complained about it to Aron in much the same way IN your debate with Aron. So I had reason to think you were talking to me. But either way you DID call me a liar, since you were.

Moving on, suggestion: deal with your own conscience before accusing me falsely. The evidence supports what I have said.