Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[razzelflabben]

Oh look another backhanded jab to me. What we were trying to get you to understand in that discussion is that when someone says "evolution", you need to look at the context they use it to see what they are talking about. If you see a cosmologist talking about the "evolution of galaxies", he isnt talking about biological evolution, OBVIOUSLY. If you see a biologist referring to evolution of cockroach species, you know he is refering to biological evolution. Theres nothing dishonest about that, and its not at all difficult to understand.

BAckwards jab, interesting, I didn't even remember you being part of that discussion. Interesting.

Context is well understood and I have begged you all to look at the context of which things are given but context is only good when it works to your advantage or it isn't context at all, it is instead manipulation.

 

[Edx]

ed, you are numbing. If I didn't understanding how could I possibley accept that common ancestry is possible?

So you dont understand what the word "possible" means either now? Anything is "possible", I dont have to understand a religion or scientific idea to know its possible.

If I am teaching my children geometry and I say to them you don't yet know what 1 means, I bet they will disagree with me, what do you think? There are understoods before one can go on and all I tried to do is get aron to understand what I already knew so we could move on into the meat. But you both insissted that since I understood what you were saying that I didn't understand the basics. If I do that with my kids, oh well, I respect my kids, wish I could say the same for you. Time to get over it.

But you didnt understand the basics. You would keep saying you agreed with what we were saying and then make some argument or other and in that proving you didnt to begin with. We then have to go back and explain the basics which you are very resistant to, apparently, becuase you refuse to accept you dont understand it.

wasn't given the chance, we had to learn how to count to 10 remember?

Yes I do. Thats becuase you kept showing you didnt know how to or really understand what the "numbers" represented every time you tried to make a point. Thats why you needed to be taught the basics again, or you sure werent ever going to understand any more complex reasoning.

tried that didn't work I guess you missed that part of the discussion.

Yes, I suppose I must have missed it. All I saw was Aron asking you repeatedly to answer important questions and you giving pedantic excuses why you werent going to.

First off, it is not evidence against evolution it is evidence that questions the conclusion of commn ancestry,

Commen ancestry is part of the theory of evolution. Dont start this nonsence again.

secondly, I was to busy tying to explain that I know how to count to 10 to even talk about addition and subtraction much less anything higher.

No a more appropriate anaology is like you explaining complex quadratic equations incorrectly because you didnt understand basic addition and subtraction, and refusing to accept that or learn why it matters.

I dont understand what this question is supposed to mean. When you start rambling like this you very quickly make even less sence than normal.

Yep, perception coming in again. Are we having fun yet?

See, why couldnt you have just clarified your question? Why did you have to write some nonsence like this?

aron is a big boy now, he can call anyone he wants anything he wants, I have no issue with that, but just because he wants to call someone a lier doesn't mean I have too or that I have to automatically accept that they are liers.

Which is the point I have made that I haven't made because you don't think I have. Right?

I dont think you have, correct. He can show someone lied. But you apparently think that someone can lie, while also not being a liar. Its very simple Razzel, if you didnt mean to decieve someone or you didnt mean to tell a falsehood, then its NOT a lie at all. But if you lie or have lied, then you are a liar by defualt.

If a Creationist says theres no scientific responce to some argument, even though you can prove that he knows there is, and lots of it, thats a lie. If a Creationist says no one wants to debate him, but you can prove that they do and will he just refuses to, thats also a lie. If a Creationist pretends that his $250,000 challenge is asking for evidence for evolution, when it can be shown that its actually asking people to scientifically prove theres no possibility god had anything to do with it and that it can be shown that he is a aware of that, then he is lying (and being deceptive and dishonest) because he presents he "challenge" that way.

And if I show you and evidence that I said one thing and you twist it to say something else are you a lier?

If I intentionally twisted your words then I am a liar, yes. However, I cant twist your words if you are this vague and contradictory.

Example:

Me: ...you have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion of commen ancestry.

You: Again, no, what I have a problem with is the idea that common ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

Me: Again, yes, since the mainstream scientific conclusion IS that commen ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion.

You: And I question that based on very common evidence

You really think this exchange makes your position make sence?! You really think it clarifies things? How am I supposed to misrepresent that? I could only ever misunderstand you, but you refuse to be clear, and in my opinion you do that on purpose.

What ever ed, you put me in a no win situation because you don't want to know what I believe and why,

I put you in a no win situation because you accused me specifically and literaly of admitting that I tell lies to porve my points. You said that.

Now I want you to back up that claim. Its no win for you because you know full well I never said that or even implied it.

You misrepresented my views, yes that constitues you as telling a lie, but that does not automatically make you a lier now does it?

If I did do that, yes it would. If someone tells a lie (a willfull distortion of the truth) then of course they are also a liar.

You have lied many times in that you have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said and my views and on more than one occasion you have claimed to know more about what I believe than I do myself,

Oh look another claim about me you know full well you cant back up.

which again by definition would make what you have said to be a lie, a false statement. But, I am not calling you a lier,

Yes of course you are! If I say Kent Hovind lied about his education, lied about his taxes, lied about evolution, how on earth am I not calling him a liar?!

I said that I have seen evidence that questions the conclusion of common ancestry being the only viable conclusion.

Which goes against what the mainstream scientific opinion is, exactly.

Let me ask you this, if you still don't know what I have said or believe, much less what my problem is, how could you possible think that you got it right all this time ago?

How can I know what you really believe if you are so bad at communicating that to anyone? What I do know is what Ive been saying. That you chop and change and say one thing one minite and contradict yourself the next. And then theres your bizzare personal definitions of selected words which contribute, add to that your inability to remember or follow the flow of conversation and your weird memory when it comes to understanding what someone else is saying. Like, its never a bit wrong, its always demonstratably so different theres no way you could have gleaned that out of their posts.

To have a problem with common ancestry would mean that I don't agree with it, I don't know if I agree with it or not, I'm still out on the issue

How does this make sence to you?

An agnostic can say that he has a problem with believing in God, but this doesnt mean he DOESNT agree with it, thats why he is agnostic, it just means he has a problem with it.

You also have a problem with the mainstream scientific opinion about commen ancestry. You say you believe evidence could support another viable scientific conclusion, which would by definition make it evidence against commen ancestry.

therefore, scientifically, looking at all the evidence and weighing it fairly, I don't know what to believe. It is really pretty simple, I don't know I can see both sides of the issue and have not yet made a determination to which is truth.

But 1, you refused to look at or understand or try and discuss the evidence for commen ancestry with Aron (or anyone else). And 2, you still show whenever you try and discuss the science you claim you understand, that you have deep misunderstandings about the basics of the subject. 3. So, you dont know both sides.

Now you have told me before that this isn't really what I believe so I will brace myself for another of your "lies"

No, thats not what I told you at all.

You are misrepresenting me just like you always do because you apparently read what you want to see and never what I actually write.

So, sure, you do believe that you understand the topic just like you said above. Theres no doubt about that! But what I always said was that you didnt understand, not that you didnt believe.

Cant you see the difference there?

I didn't ask for the evidence because I don't care, I have heard the claims on both sides, and I haven't asked for evidence for either because I don't Care. Let me put it to you another way I DON'T CARE I don't find calling people liers conducive to finding truth and so let me say it one more way I DON'T CARE do you get it yet? I don't care, it doesn't help us to know truth, what it does is resort to name calling and neg. coments that can't really be known to be lies by anyone but the person being accussed. So the reason then that I didn't ask for evidence would be.......Hint: I DON"T CARE

Right, so you dont care if Creationists can be shown to be willyfully dishonest, deceptive on purpose and making statments that they already know to be false before they say them. Or perhaps you only object to him using the word "liars".

And if demonstration of that knowledge has already been made, it is belittling and degrading not respectful.

But if demonstration of that knowledge has NOT already been made, it is necessary the child learns. It doesnt matter if it finds that disrespectfull or not.

Either the child learns how to count or it will never understand the logic of addition or subtraction, it doesnt matter how much it screams and shouts that it understands addition perfectly, and then goes on to say that 2+2=5. It still needs to first understand what 2 represents, and then what + and = means.

And if I say to you I understand the conflict and why it happens what I don't understand is why we are still there, then to what puspose would there be to go into the history between the two countries?

Well how would you expect to understand why the US is still in Irac if you dont know any of the history surrounding the conflict?

great analogy except for one thing, I understand geometry, I don't understand how proofs work. In ohter words it is a misrepresentation of what I have a problem with.

Sheesh, you'll call anything a misrepresentation, wont you? Im trying to use maths to make an analogy about why you need to understand basics in order to grasp more complex reasoning. You cant expect to be taught more complex music theory if you dont have a good enough grasp the basics either.

Not really the same thing.

3 impled dishonesty, whereas you could just have a rather different personality on the internet. And dont think that doesnt happen.

That would still require evidence that is lacking so from someone who claims evidence as authority you are still in a pickle

.
Im not going to guess what this means, what are you talking about now?

No, you first implied I was dishonest to Aron. Then you literally said to me that I had "admitted" that I spread lies to prove my points

How is it possible that if you still don't understand my views that you could have possibly represented my views correctly to aron all this time ago? I have to see this explaination.

First, you are not replying to what you quoted.

Second, all I said to Aron was that you had a problem with the evidence for commen ancestry. Right now you are still saying you do, but now you go ahead and contradict yourself in the next breath and say you dont just so you can call it a misrepresentation.

See above. You claimed that I told you that I was spreading lies to prove my points.

WEll, we are talking about lies and misrepresentations and you bring yourself into the discussion and specifically a dispute between you and I many moons ago, that sounds to me like an admission of lie. I quess the bottom line is if it looks like a lie and is sounds like a lie, and it smells like a lie, it must be a lie. Now, you seem to have admitted it, an appology is all that is left.

Dont dodge this Razzel. You specifically said that I TOLD you that I lie to prove my points. You didnt say that it could look that way, you said I "ADMITTED" it. So, where did I do that?

 

[Edx]

BAckwards jab, interesting, I didn't even remember you being part of that discussion. Interesting.

No whats interesting is that you forgot. We discussed it at length in the first thread I encountered you, the one called Start Communicating.

Context is well understood and I have begged you all to look at the context of which things are given but context is only good when it works to your advantage or it isn't context at all, it is instead manipulation.

This makes no sence at all, and its interesting that you are always so sly about alluding to something someone did and implying some form of dishonesty on their part but never actually coming out and saying it. Too bad you did specifically come out and say it many times in this thread.

 

[Tomk80]

Tom, I have yet to see a person made to teach that ever stopped just because they were no longer hired by a school to teach. Doesn't work that way. But, I also understand what you are saying and to a point agree. The problem is in not understanding and accepting that it is more than just a profession. I am not disagreeing with you, I am adding to the understanding.

But Razzel, I never stated anywhere that someone who stopped being a teacher actually stopped 'teaching' in the larger sense of the word. I stated that he stopped being a teacher. I understand and accept that for many teaching is more then a profession. But not all people who teach are teachers.

Not so, any more than it is obvious that I was not clear in fact many people I know would say point blank I was as clear as they come. That means that either you were lieing or there was a communication problem. I personally suggest a communication problem, your definition labels it lie.

And the rest I'll snip on the lying issue, so I can give you the opportunity this statement from me:
"That's not what I said. Please represent my view accurately."

Was a lie. By the definition of Aron-Ra, I must have known that the question I responded to from you was not rhetorical and by Aron-Ra's definition, you should be able to show this from the things I have previously written. In other words, to justify the above (that according to my (or more accurately, Aron's) definition, that statement is a lie, you have to be able to show that I previously have made a written statement on this thread where I showed that I was aware that you made that statement as a question for clarification rather then a rhetorical question.

But, the bet was in colleges and universities not institutions in general. Make sure you understand the bet before you jump in. There are labs all over the world.

And they are all part of the scientific system. Unless you know one that falls outside it? You objected to the statement by Rmwilliams that for at least a reasonably large part of avenues of scientific discoveries, one needs to be part of the scientific system. Nobody was talking about universities or colleges specifically. If you were doing so, you should have clarified that.

I understand and accept that other religions might be right, only to be told later that I don't accept that other religions might be right. Now in what way was my comment not clear? How else might it be interpreted other than that I think other religions might be right?

This I did find interesting, so maybe you can give me the post number (roughly). I'd rather not read the whole thread, it has become rather long.

I don't know what you are talking about, it is the same point I made and you seemed to agrue with me like you disagreed, so I clarified repeatedly in an attemp to be clear. I never heard you say different, but you argued with me as if you didn't agree. But again, we come to perspective and that is not an absolute now is it?[/quote]
But yet every time you made statements like these:
"What I suggested is that that knowldege didn't have to come from traditional sources."

But, for example in the case of high energy physics, knowledge has to come form traditional sources. That was the statement I was arguing against every single time. That was also the point Rmwilliams made and which you objected against. And every single time you first say you agree, but then make a statement like the above again. So what is it Razzel. Does knowledge in some cases need to come from traditional sources, or doesn't it? You keep going back and forth between the two positions in your own posts, so how do you expect me to get your point?

And that is why perspective is important in any accusation of lieing now isn't it? (intended as both rhetorical and none rhetorical(I never thought it would come to this in a discussion where posts would always need clarifiers))[/quote]
In the definition as Aron used it from the start, you would need to demonstrate from previous statements of mine that I knew that the question was not rhetorical, but then turned around and treated it as such. That is objective, and that you cannot do in my posts.

Maybe and maybe it was not clear to you because of your perspective, or preconcieved notions. Hum? I wonder, I can only test one of the two options and the test result is always been clarity on my part, at least on issues after pages and multiple posts, not necessarily the first time out though many of those come back clearly written as well.

Yet every single person you talk to on this board gets in the same lengthy confused back-and-forths like this one and none of those people you talk with can actually get a hook on your actual position. How do you explain that Razzel?

 

[razzelflabben]

So you dont understand what the word "possible" means either now? Anything is "possible", I dont have to understand a religion or scientific idea to know its possible.

What the heck does any of this have to do with religion?

But you didnt understand the basics. You would keep saying you agreed with what we were saying and then make some argument or other and in that proving you didnt to begin with. We then have to go back and explain the basics which you are very resistant to, apparently, becuase you refuse to accept you dont understand it.

Wrong, get over it.

Yes I do. Thats becuase you kept showing you didnt know how to or really understand what the "numbers" represented every time you tried to make a point. Thats why you needed to be taught the basics again, or you sure werent ever going to understand any more complex reasoning.

Wrong, get over it

Yes, I suppose I must have missed it. All I saw was Aron asking you repeatedly to answer important questions and you giving pedantic excuses why you werent going to.

Wrong, get over it

Commen ancestry is part of the theory of evolution. Dont start this nonsence again.

Yep it is, but it isn't the evolution or the theory of evolution and as I remember, you insist on percise wording in order to extract any real meaning from someone such as myself. You should exercise the same.

No a more appropriate anaology is like you explaining complex quadratic equations incorrectly because you didnt understand basic addition and subtraction, and refusing to accept that or learn why it matters.

Only in your mind, because you think you know me better than I know myself. Isn't that right, you have said so before so I am going to assume you were not lieing when you said it.

See, why couldnt you have just clarified your question? Why did you have to write some nonsence like this?

I dont think you have, correct. He can show someone lied. But you apparently think that someone can lie, while also not being a liar. Its very simple Razzel, if you didnt mean to decieve someone or you didnt mean to tell a falsehood, then its NOT a lie at all. But if you lie or have lied, then you are a liar by defualt.

Okay, slowly so you can get this. If we can't know anothers heart we can't know if they actually lied or not, therefore we cannot call them a lier. To bad we are autable, the effect is better. Now we can say that the information was false and therefore a lie as in false information, you know, not truth.

If I intentionally twisted your words then I am a liar, yes. However, I cant twist your words if you are this vague and contradictory.

Example:

Me: ...you have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion of commen ancestry.

No problem with it, I understand it, I understand where it comes from, etc., I have no problem with it, I don't agree however that it is the only viable conclusion. That isn't a problem unless you want to claim that everyone has to agree with everyone else all the time. That would explain some of your comments, but is a butt poor idealism to live.

You: Again, no, what I have a problem with is the idea that common ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

Must I also point out to you that no where in your comment did you say it was the only viable conclusion? My problem is not with the conclusion but with the assertion that it is the only viable conclusion. Big difference and so far very...clear and consistant.

Me: Again, yes, since the mainstream scientific conclusion IS that commen ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion.

First time you have asserted only viable and so I then must deal with this assertion which by the way you lacked consistancy to point. (Are we having fun yet?)

You: And I question that based on very common evidence

Left out some stuff here but such is common with you. I state pretty clearly here that I base my opinion on common evidnce, not obscure bizzare, made up stuff but on basic, common evidence and understandings. Sounds consistant to me and about as clear as english lang will allow.

You really think this exchange makes your position make sence?! You really think it clarifies things? How am I supposed to misrepresent that? I could only ever misunderstand you, but you refuse to be clear, and in my opinion you do that on purpose.

I put you in a no win situation because you accused me specifically and literaly of admitting that I tell lies to porve my points. You said that.

Yep, and you have and still are. See above as an example. but you will never admit it, so it's time to move on. You are forgiven like it or not.

Now I want you to back up that claim. Its no win for you because you know full well I never said that or even implied it.

It's no win for me because you refuse to accept that anything I say could have truth. That's your problem not mine, Deal with it.

If I did do that, yes it would. If someone tells a lie (a willfull distortion of the truth) then of course they are also a liar.


Oh look another claim about me you know full well you cant back up.



Yes of course you are! If I say Kent Hovind lied about his education, lied about his taxes, lied about evolution, how on earth am I not calling him a liar?!




Which goes against what the mainstream scientific opinion is, exactly.



How can I know what you really believe if you are so bad at communicating that to anyone? What I do know is what Ive been saying. That you chop and change and say one thing one minite and contradict yourself the next. And then theres your bizzare personal definitions of selected words which contribute, add to that your inability to remember or follow the flow of conversation and your weird memory when it comes to understanding what someone else is saying. Like, its never a bit wrong, its always demonstratably so different theres no way you could have gleaned that out of their posts.

Don't know what to tell you, the only people who seem to see me this way is the evolutionist on this forum who want me to rubber stamp everything thry say, and I simple won't do that.

How does this make sence to you?

An agnostic can say that he has a problem with believing in God, but this doesnt mean he DOESNT agree with it, thats why he is agnostic, it just means he has a problem with it.

You also have a problem with the mainstream scientific opinion about commen ancestry.

Not with common ancestry, with the conclusion that it is the only viable conclusion. You honestly don't see a difference between a conclusion and the assertion that that conclusion is the only possible. Wow That truely boggles my mind.

You say you believe evidence could support another viable scientific conclusion, which would by definition make it evidence against commen ancestry.

Yep, it questions the conclusion of common ancestry.

But 1, you refused to look at or understand or try and discuss the evidence for commen ancestry with Aron (or anyone else).

Yeah sure let's go with that, all these months and I refuse to discuss any of this, okay, evidence shows otherwise but let's not burst your bubble just yet.

And 2, you still show whenever you try and discuss the science you claim you understand, that you have deep misunderstandings about the basics of the subject.

yeah sure okay, what ever you say, it's the only way to get you to move on, to agree with everything you say no matter what the evidence suggests.

3. So, you dont know both sides.

Which is why I can effectively argue for or against both sides, oops, that would be like disagreeing with you and I was so hoping we could move on, sorry, sure you are right again (notice a hint of sarcasm?)

No, thats not what I told you at all.

You are misrepresenting me just like you always do because you apparently read what you want to see and never what I actually write.

So, sure, you do believe that you understand the topic just like you said above. Theres no doubt about that! But what I always said was that you didnt understand, not that you didnt believe.

Correction dear one, several times now you have tried to tell me what I believe and what I don't even to the point of calling me a creationist after I told you point blank that I wasn't. That by definition. constitutes a lie. Deal with it

Cant you see the difference there?

Right, so you dont care if Creationists can be shown to be willyfully dishonest, deceptive on purpose and making statments that they already know to be false before they say them. Or perhaps you only object to him using the word "liars".

What I am saying is that name calling doesn't help any of the discussion and understanding of the two camps and therfore should be left out of the discussion completely.

But if demonstration of that knowledge has NOT already been made, it is necessary the child learns. It doesnt matter if it finds that disrespectfull or not.

Either the child learns how to count or it will never understand the logic of addition or subtraction, it doesnt matter how much it screams and shouts that it understands addition perfectly, and then goes on to say that 2+2=5. It still needs to first understand what 2 represents, and then what + and = means.

Which is a misrepresentation of my post once again, hum, a pattern has emerged. The point was that he has already demonstrated a working knowledge of counting and adding and subracting, etc Oh, I keep forgetting that when I say something like they have demonstrated a working knowldege of.... that doesn't mean that I am talking about a child who has demonstrated a working knowledge, because saying that the child has demonstrated a working knowledge is vague and unclear. (more sarcasm)

Well how would you expect to understand why the US is still in Irac if you dont know any of the history surrounding the conflict?

Oh, so I am again being to vague and unclear when I say that if I already understand why the us and Irac are fighting, that that means I already know the history of why the us and irac are fighting, I am starting to figure you out, no matter what I say, I am vague and unclear because that way you can blame me and put me in a no win situation and thus accuss me falsely and deny any responsibility in effective communication. Got it, move on, life is too short for this kind of nonesense.

Sheesh, you'll call anything a misrepresentation, wont you? Im trying to use maths to make an analogy about why you need to understand basics in order to grasp more complex reasoning. You cant expect to be taught more complex music theory if you dont have a good enough grasp the basics either.

.
Im not going to guess what this means, what are you talking about now?



First, you are not replying to what you quoted.

Second, all I said to Aron was that you had a problem with the evidence for commen ancestry.

But I don't which is the whole probem, I have a problem with the assertion that it is the only viable conclusion. How much clearer can I make it?

Right now you are still saying you do, but now you go ahead and contradict yourself in the next breath and say you dont just so you can call it a misrepresentation.

Try this one more time ed, I have no problem with the evidence for common ancestry or the conclusion of common ancestry, I do have a problem with the assertion that common ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

Once agian now
1. I have no problem with the evidence for common ancestry
2. I have no problem with the conclusion of common ancestry
3. I have a problem with the assertion that common ancesrty is the only viable conclusion.

Now you try it, repeat what I just said and see how close you can come.

Dont dodge this Razzel. You specifically said that I TOLD you that I lie to prove my points. You didnt say that it could look that way, you said I "ADMITTED" it. So, where did I do that?

Again, you brought our discussion into the discussion about lieing. You would have had no reason to do so except that you considered it a lie. Otherwise it would have been out of place in the discussion. Thus an admission of lie.

 

[razzelflabben]

No whats interesting is that you forgot. We discussed it at length in the first thread I encountered you, the one called Start Communicating.

I remember the discussion well, I just didn't remember you being the one discussing it with me.

This makes no sence at all, and its interesting that you are always so sly about alluding to something someone did and implying some form of dishonesty on their part but never actually coming out and saying it. Too bad you did specifically come out and say it many times in this thread.

Okay, you don't understand me, let's try it another way, when you only see context when it works to your advantage, it isn't context at all but manipulation. Is that more clear now? How about, when you refuse to look at the context of a given statement unless you are advantaged by it, then context becomes manipulation instead of actual context.

 

[razzelflabben]

But Razzel, I never stated anywhere that someone who stopped being a teacher actually stopped 'teaching' in the larger sense of the word. I stated that he stopped being a teacher. I understand and accept that for many teaching is more then a profession. But not all people who teach are teachers.

Yeah we agree, and I see it the same for scientists, just because they are not emplyed as a scientist doesn't automatically mean they are not still scientists

And the rest I'll snip on the lying issue, so I can give you the opportunity this statement from me:
"That's not what I said. Please represent my view accurately."

doing the best I can.

Was a lie. By the definition of Aron-Ra, I must have known that the question I responded to from you was not rhetorical and by Aron-Ra's definition, you should be able to show this from the things I have previously written. In other words, to justify the above (that according to my (or more accurately, Aron's) definition, that statement is a lie, you have to be able to show that I previously have made a written statement on this thread where I showed that I was aware that you made that statement as a question for clarification rather then a rhetorical question.

and the point from the beginning is that we can't know anothers heart, even if you had made a statement earlier, you could claim it to have been sarcasm or something else, even that someoene else typed it for you, that is the point, we can't know the heart, (which I hear evolutionists complain about all the time, that creationist make excuses)which leaves us short when we try to call others liers. And in fact, my kids do type things for me to see if they can muck me up, and sometimes I do use sarcasm, point being that these possibles can and do happen. Meaning the burden of proof is unimaginably high, higher than you or aron either one are making it. And that is the point, do you want to claim it is unclear as well?

And they are all part of the scientific system. Unless you know one that falls outside it? You objected to the statement by Rmwilliams that for at least a reasonably large part of avenues of scientific discoveries, one needs to be part of the scientific system. Nobody was talking about universities or colleges specifically. If you were doing so, you should have clarified that.

I specified education facilities. yes.

This I did find interesting, so maybe you can give me the post number (roughly). I'd rather not read the whole thread, it has become rather long.

I forget exactly without looking it up of which I plainly refuse at the moment, I am only on right now to calim down before going to bed and looking it up wouldn't help. If I forget remind me. I believe it is somewhere in the "beginning-middle" of the discussion on possibles of god/gods/God, somewhere in the part about what God refers to and the change between the typed word god and the long drawn out god/gods/God for clarity. During that evolution of discussion.

But yet every time you made statements like these:
"What I suggested is that that knowldege didn't have to come from traditional sources."

But, for example in the case of high energy physics, knowledge has to come form traditional sources.

Tradional scources in context meaning institutions of learning. Does that clarify it?

That was the statement I was arguing against every single time. That was also the point Rmwilliams made and which you objected against. And every single time you first say you agree, but then make a statement like the above again. So what is it Razzel. Does knowledge in some cases need to come from traditional sources, or doesn't it? You keep going back and forth between the two positions in your own posts, so how do you expect me to get your point?

I see it as in context, you apparently don't so to clarify, and thank you for asking, I am talking about colleges and universities

Yet every single person you talk to on this board gets in the same lengthy confused back-and-forths like this one and none of those people you talk with can actually get a hook on your actual position. How do you explain that Razzel?

I have put forth my best quess based on the evidence because it only happens with the evolutionists here, that would suggest that rubber stamping is important to communication based on preconcieved ideas and notions about what someone is or says.

Put it to you this way, if I say that I am a skeptic, that I don't believe we know our origins that I see possibles in evolution and creation and an evolutionist comes back and says you are a creationist because you don't understand common ancesrty, you got to wonder at some point where the notion comes from that I am a creationist, don't you? (both rehotorical and not)

I accept that some things I have said you might not follow well, that is the problem with communication, what we think is clear isn't always clear to others (works both ways by the way) but when something is directly stated, like I fully accept that other religions might have it right, only to be told that I don't believe that other religions might be right, I think the communication failure is not mine, the evidence simply isn't there to support such accusations.

Now as theories go, my husbands theory is that you all aren't ready for well thought out philosophical logical discussion. I have a problem with this theory in that logic is a natural part of science. But we know that when we enter a discussion with an idea/belief, that we automatically read that idea and belief into the discussion anywhere we can. Thus, when aron knew that I believed in God, all he could see is that I believed in God nothing about how I got there or what I believed about that God, etc. In fact, this idealism was further demonstrated by aron when he commented about me dismissing his time contemplating and studying other religions. In essence he projected his life experiences of others who believe in God onto my comments and ideas without really understanding who I am. An idea that is flately false, in fact, I appreciate anyone willing to look at and examine what they believe and why. But because he had this idea in his head, it is what he saw on the screen, didn't matter what I said. It is a common communication phenomina, and makes the logical sense when looking at all the evidence.

I have run into so very many evolutionists that think that if you are not a whole hog evolutionist you must be a creationist and vise versa. The truth is, there are other options as well, but when ones view is only one or the other, then you will read all statements with those evolutionist/creation glasses on and not really see the communication that is happening which is the truely sad part of the whole thing.

Well, I will probably be accussed of being arrogant, or lieing, or stupid, or not clear or something like that for this post, but I have cooled down a bit and I am off to bed. Take it for what it is, my conclusions based on the evidence, and have a wonderful evening.

 

[Aron-Ra]

2 : to create a false or misleading impression
--Merriam Webster

which you have done many times now.

See that? Every time you accuse me of lying, I bold it in red. Then when you contradict that statement again in the same post, I bold it in blue. This way everyone can readily see what you're doing.

What I am saying is that I don't accuss people of lieing, your criteria does indeed label you as one.

See what I mean? This was funny at first but now its getting sad.

 

[Aron-Ra]

It isn't the definition of lie that we disagree on, it is how it is determined that someone is lieing or a lier that we disagree on. And there are two variable in intent, 1. the heart condition which we cannot know, how would you go about setting up a test to see someones intent?

I already told you; simply show that the person in question already knew a particular claim was false before they declared it to be true. That's easy enough to do on a discussion board when everyone's arguments are archived in writing.

2. perspective, that being how another interprets what is said or how it is said or for what purpose of etc. Both these variable affect the determination of lie and as yet I have not seen a test that would identify either note intent here, what is the test to determine intent?

Just like I just said. Show that someone knew their statement was false before they claimed it.

intent again. again intent, still waiting for the test.

See above. I would give you specific examples to illustrate how easily this can be done, but you're being so obtuse, it obviously wouldn't do any good.

My definition is the same, our test for determining it is different.

Yes, you don't have a way to do that at all. I do.

Misrepresentation of what I have said, the definition of lie is not the problem, the criteria for determining what is and is not a lie is the problem.

Then I didn't misrepresent you after all.

And yes, I have used that word many times now, criteria is not equal to defintion. So the question is not did you misrepresent my ideas, that is an absolute yes.

Absolutely not. I haven't made any attempt to represent or misrepresent you at all.

The question is what was your intent in doing so. What test do we use?

If you can't back the accusation, don't make the accusation. If you don't know what test you could use, then shaddup.

Mine says what was stated was false, therefore a lie, but that doesn't automatically make you a lier because to be a lier, one must deal with intent and your definitions state such as well.

Yes, which means that a false statement by itself is therefore not a lie until or unless the claimant already knew it was false.

You've been so inconsistent throughout this thread that you contradict yourself constantly.

The evidence says otherwise, I thought you were an evidence kind of guy?!

I am, that's why I went to such trouble earlier to prove that "the evidence" agrees with me entirely, and not with you at all.

Please stop long enough to understand what I am saying to you. It is not the definition but rather the criteria for determining what is a lie and what is not. This very defintion comes into intent and that is not testable to my knowledge I'd love to hear the test if you care to lay it out for us. as stated already many times, your perception is different than mine and you are still misrepresenting what I am saying which is starting to get under my skin a bit.

Then stop imagining that, because that hasn't been happening.

If you want some consistancy, then understand what has been clearly stated many times now and stop trying to change my arguement to fit your agenda. That would be a start in the honorable person catagory. Now I can accept that you are not intentionally misrepresenting what I am saying, but I cannot except that you are so out of touch with reality as to not know that on some level you are doing so. Deal with it.

On the contrary, you are out of touch with reality just for pretending I am. For example, I never tried to change your argument. I've yet to hear what your argument even is despite the fact that I've asked you for a specific citation many times, and specified the criteria I was looking for before I asked you the first time. So there's no excuse for you trying to change the argument now.

Which is on some level intent isn't it? Hummm perception again. Thanks for asking what I actually said and why it is refreshing. I said you were on the top of the list because I don't call people liers therfore the discussion would be based on what you yourself view or better wording what criteria you use to determine a lier and you are bound to be caught in that trap. Someone who so easily calls others liers is more times than not guilty of the same when using the same criteria, it's simple math really. And you have shown such once again. If we apply your criteria to your words and apply consistantly your criteria, you are indeed a lier. That is the point, you will always be caught in your own web if you never offer grace to those you judge. Deal with it.

I already did. In case you hadn't noticed the link I gave you earlier, I had already submitted this thread for peer review, and included a poll for readers to determine whether either of us has lied. Thus far, 100% of everyone who cast a vote in that agrees you did in fact accuse me of lying, and most readers think I've cought you lying in the process.

Hum, just what I said, we cannot know the intent therefore cannot call others liers so easily.

Then stop doing so until you figure out how to prove the intent the way I do.

by your perspcetive not mine. I am not lying to you in fact, I have had people tell me that I am almost too honest, but I don't expect you to understand that, you seem too intent on proving me wrong to actually hear what I am saying and understand it with any clarity.

That would be yet another failure in your perception.

"[Science's] only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts -- no matter how fond of it we are -- must be discarded or revised." Science is not perfect. It is often misused. It is only a tool, but it is the best tool we have -- self-correcting, ever changing, applicable to everything."
--Carl Sagan; Cosmos, "Who Speaks for Earth"

Had this discussion before and as a scientist and not a philosopher I fear it is over your head.

Sagan was both a scientist and a philosopher, as am I.

If your authority is science, then your faith is in science even with it's skeptisism. Quite simple really.

Quite impossible really. Try to wrap your head around this idea. Faith is, essentially, a belief that you hold to be accurate, and you hold that with conviction. But you weren't compelled to believe that way due to any submission to logical probabilities or evidentiary arguements. You choose to believe as you do, and you are stoicly confident that your belief is true even though not one bit of it can be verified in any way at all. You could be completely wrong, and logically, you'd have to be at least partly wrong, if not mostly so. But you think you're completely right, again, even though we can't really measure the accuracy of any of your faith-based beliefs. They assumed without question, adopted without reason, and defended without reservation.

The rational, scientific perspective is just the opposite, as the quote detailed. I would gladly declare that Carl Sagan is my authority, and he himself said not to trust authority. We can't choose what to believe either. What we believe is an obligate condition accorging to the facts as we understand them, and the one thing we're certain of is that we must be wrong about something somewhere. The core difference between us is that we have a means to find out where those errors are to improve our understanding. Faith prohibits that. Everything Sagan said in that quote stands as the antithesis of faith, but that's all obviously over your head since you're apparently neither a scientist nor a philosopher.

 

[razzelflabben]

The first post in which I directly stated accepting other possibles than mearly God was in post 426. 456 again hints at it. 468 is also pretty clearly stated as I reread it with the assumption that I don't know what I believe, how would I then read the post. (I am trying to do that this time around so as to clearly state where there might be a miscommunication)469 also speaks of my acceptance of other possibles than what my personal belief dictates. Now, I have seeded throught 50 pages and found a minimum of 4 posts which should leave no question of my acceptance of other religious ideas as possibles, and I can think of at least one more which I don't see a reason to look for given the evidence is already there, if you need more let me know. What I am most interested in at the moment is how could you possibly read those posts and still not understand that I accept other religions as possibles? I read them as a skeptic and still understood it. I am really trying to understand the accussations levied, but see no grounds for said accussations.

 

[razzelflabben]

See that? Every time you accuse me of lying, I bold it in red. Then when you contradict that statement again in the same post, I bold it in blue. This way everyone can readily see what you're doing.
See what I mean? This was funny at first but now its getting sad.

Too bad that you don't understand the difference between saying something that is false, a lie and being a lier as in your hearts intent. But alas, I fear I cannot help you to understand this.

 

[razzelflabben]

I already told you; simply show that the person in question already knew a particular claim was false before they declared it to be true. That's easy enough to do on a discussion board when everyone's arguments are archived in writing.
Just like I just said. Show that someone knew their statement was false before they claimed it.
See above. I would give you specific examples to illustrate how easily this can be done, but you're being so obtuse, it obviously wouldn't do any good.
Yes, you don't have a way to do that at all. I do.
Then I didn't misrepresent you after all.
Absolutely not. I haven't made any attempt to represent or misrepresent you at all.
If you can't back the accusation, don't make the accusation. If you don't know what test you could use, then shaddup.
Yes, which means that a false statement by itself is therefore not a lie until or unless the claimant already knew it was false.
I am, that's why I went to such trouble earlier to prove that "the evidence" agrees with me entirely, and not with you at all.
Then stop imagining that, because that hasn't been happening.
On the contrary, you are out of touch with reality just for pretending I am. For example, I never tried to change your argument. I've yet to hear what your argument even is despite the fact that I've asked you for a specific citation many times, and specified the criteria I was looking for before I asked you the first time. So there's no excuse for you trying to change the argument now.
I already did. In case you hadn't noticed the link I gave you earlier, I had already submitted this thread for peer review, and included a poll for readers to determine whether either of us has lied. Thus far, 100% of everyone who cast a vote in that agrees you did in fact accuse me of lying, and most readers think I've cought you lying in the process.
Then stop doing so until you figure out how to prove the intent the way I do.
That would be yet another failure in your perception.
Sagan was both a scientist and a philosopher, as am I.
Quite impossible really. Try to wrap your head around this idea. Faith is, essentially, a belief that you hold to be accurate, and you hold that with conviction. But you weren't compelled to believe that way due to any submission to logical probabilities or evidentiary arguements. You choose to believe as you do, and you are stoicly confident that your belief is true even though not one bit of it can be verified in any way at all. You could be completely wrong, and logically, you'd have to be at least partly wrong, if not mostly so. But you think you're completely right, again, even though we can't really measure the accuracy of any of your faith-based beliefs. They assumed without question, adopted without reason, and defended without reservation.

The rational, scientific perspective is just the opposite, as the quote detailed. I would gladly declare that Carl Sagan is my authority, and he himself said not to trust authority. We can't choose what to believe either. What we believe is an obligate condition accorging to the facts as we understand them, and the one thing we're certain of is that we must be wrong about something somewhere. The core difference between us is that we have a means to find out where those errors are to improve our understanding. Faith prohibits that. Everything Sagan said in that quote stands as the antithesis of faith, but that's all obviously over your head since you're apparently neither a scientist nor a philosopher.

Such venom over nothing. I carefully worded every post so as to not accuss you of lieing. I was percise, you know the same kind of percision that science deals with. And yet you accuss me. I will not accept it no matter who agrees with you. I have already said to you that polls can and are biased and therefore of no real use, but you didn't hear any of that, just as you didn't admit that evolutionists ever lie, right, take a look at post 341 then tell me that againl. Thanks. Or that I said that I accept the possibilities that other religions are right, see all the posts in my previous post. But to people who see things through the same glasses you do, I will indeed be wrong, because I couldn't be right no matter how percise or clearly things are stated. Get over it.

Now about lieing, you stated that only creationists lie, but in post 341, you indicate that evolutionists are also subject to unscrupulous views. Is that a lie, didn't you speak one thing and then change your charge to suit your arguement? I thought that was the very criteria for a lie? Hum? Is it time to call you a lier yet? Of course not, because the polls say that you didn't lie.

 

[Tomk80]

Yeah we agree, and I see it the same for scientists, just because they are not emplyed as a scientist doesn't automatically mean they are not still scientists

Fair enough.

doing the best I can. and the point from the beginning is that we can't know anothers heart, even if you had made a statement earlier, you could claim it to have been sarcasm or something else, even that someoene else typed it for you, that is the point, we can't know the heart, (which I hear evolutionists complain about all the time, that creationist make excuses)which leaves us short when we try to call others liers. And in fact, my kids do type things for me to see if they can muck me up, and sometimes I do use sarcasm, point being that these possibles can and do happen. Meaning the burden of proof is unimaginably high, higher than you or aron either one are making it. And that is the point, do you want to claim it is unclear as well?

I never said it was unclear. My point was all along that, according to Aron's definition, to claim something is a lie the burden of proof is actually high enough to rule these out. According to Aron's definition, my statement would not have been a lie because that statement wasn't preceded by clear statements that I knew differently. If you claim that this is not true, than you'll have to demonstrate this using his criteria. So far, you are not doing that and thus your point will not come over.

I specified education facilities. yes.

But that is the point, you didn't. And because the discussion before you entered in was not specifically about education facilities but about contributing new knowledge to a field of science and how this was all but impossible for some fields, do you think it is strange that I misunderstood you on that?

I forget exactly without looking it up of which I plainly refuse at the moment, I am only on right now to calim down before going to bed and looking it up wouldn't help. If I forget remind me. I believe it is somewhere in the "beginning-middle" of the discussion on possibles of god/gods/God, somewhere in the part about what God refers to and the change between the typed word god and the long drawn out god/gods/God for clarity.

If I have time I'll try to find it somewhere there.

During that evolution of discussion. Tradional scources in context meaning institutions of learning. Does that clarify it? I see it as in context, you apparently don't so to clarify, and thank you for asking, I am talking about colleges and universities

But you never clarified that untill very late in the discussion if at all. And that is what caused the confusion.

I have put forth my best quess based on the evidence because it only happens with the evolutionists here, that would suggest that rubber stamping is important to communication based on preconcieved ideas and notions about what someone is or says.

Put it to you this way, if I say that I am a skeptic, that I don't believe we know our origins that I see possibles in evolution and creation and an evolutionist comes back and says you are a creationist because you don't understand common ancesrty, you got to wonder at some point where the notion comes from that I am a creationist, don't you? (both rehotorical and not)

I accept that some things I have said you might not follow well, that is the problem with communication, what we think is clear isn't always clear to others (works both ways by the way) but when something is directly stated, like I fully accept that other religions might have it right, only to be told that I don't believe that other religions might be right, I think the communication failure is not mine, the evidence simply isn't there to support such accusations.

Now as theories go, my husbands theory is that you all aren't ready for well thought out philosophical logical discussion. I have a problem with this theory in that logic is a natural part of science. But we know that when we enter a discussion with an idea/belief, that we automatically read that idea and belief into the discussion anywhere we can. Thus, when aron knew that I believed in God, all he could see is that I believed in God nothing about how I got there or what I believed about that God, etc. In fact, this idealism was further demonstrated by aron when he commented about me dismissing his time contemplating and studying other religions. In essence he projected his life experiences of others who believe in God onto my comments and ideas without really understanding who I am. An idea that is flately false, in fact, I appreciate anyone willing to look at and examine what they believe and why. But because he had this idea in his head, it is what he saw on the screen, didn't matter what I said. It is a common communication phenomina, and makes the logical sense when looking at all the evidence.

I have run into so very many evolutionists that think that if you are not a whole hog evolutionist you must be a creationist and vise versa. The truth is, there are other options as well, but when ones view is only one or the other, then you will read all statements with those evolutionist/creation glasses on and not really see the communication that is happening which is the truely sad part of the whole thing.

Well, I will probably be accussed of being arrogant, or lieing, or stupid, or not clear or something like that for this post, but I have cooled down a bit and I am off to bed. Take it for what it is, my conclusions based on the evidence, and have a wonderful evening.

Fair enough. I disagree with the above on a number of points, but I won't go into that here. Maybe if something like this goes on again I'll take a look back at this. At this point it would take up too much of my time.

 

[Tomk80]

See that? Every time you accuse me of lying, I bold it in red. Then when you contradict that statement again in the same post, I bold it in blue. This way everyone can readily see what you're doing.
See what I mean? This was funny at first but now its getting sad.

Damn you for having me agree with Razzel, but if someone says "I don't think you are a liar but according to your own criteria you are"

it isn't an accusation of lying. Rather it's making the point that the criteria are wrong according to that person.

Now, this would indeed require that this person shows how you criteria label you a liar, but that sentence is not inherently contradictory, neither does it accuse you of lying.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Let me ask you this, did Jesus really exist?

Neither of us knows for sure. I think he probably did, but was likely so different from the image painted of him as to have him rejected by the very organizations established in his name.

How about buddah?

The character of Shakyamuni Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, probably was based on a real person, but was again doubtless very different than the legends written about him. In fact, I would would guess that if Jesus and Siddhartha both read some of the myths written about them, they wouldn't even realize who those tails were talking about.

Was Mahomad real?

He was the most likely by far, but we still don't really know. We can't even be sure if his biographer existed, or Salman the Persian, the first non-arab Muslim who was supposedly directed to Muhammad by none other than Jesus in the flesh. Throughout the history of journalism, people tend to embellish stories of their most popular characters until the real details are lost in a cloud of myth. Since there's no evidence in any of these cases, we'll never know what the real story is with any of them.

All religions that I can think of, are rooted in truth, evidence to some degree.

No degree. If you can't measure it somehow, you can't prove its really there. To believe in something which is both known to be impossible according to every natural law, and which can neither be quantified nor qualified in any way, and more than that, but to take that blind speculation and assert it as if it were confident knowledge and easily verified, -that requres faith because there's not a shred of evidence anywhere near it. Its also likely not to be true at all no matter how loudly one proclaims to "know" their "absolute truth". After all, lots of religions claim to know what no one even can know, and they all declare the certainty of their convictions even though they can't all be true at the same time. Religion and logic don't know each other.

Therefore to remove from faith all possibles of evidence, we remove religion from faith. In other words, just because it isn't required doesn't mean it is eliminated.

Nor was it ever involved in the first place.

One's perspective affects how that evidence is viewed.

If it affects whether it can be viewed at all, then it doesn't count as evidence, because evidence has to be objectively demonstrable some way.

You should really should have a dictionary with you so that we have some common ground. Because words like evidence, proof, lie, truth, religion, rationalism, and faith all seem to mean something very different in your mind.

If there were proof in religion, then why are there over 200 conflicting denominations just within Christianity?

For two main reasons, 1. all have varying degrees of truth or evidence and 2. the evidence is viewed differently depending on the perspective of the person viewing it thus different conclusions are drawn.

I know you won't realize this, but you just disproved your own claim, and revealed that there is no proof in religion after all.

again perspective which if you remember is exactly why I can't call someone I lier just because they did not say something that was truth. This in my personal life translates into all religions could be right

Impossible.

or all could be wrong.

And probably are. Again you've just shown there is no proof in religion.

Many religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticise implicit faith as being irrational. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or evidence."

First it is dealing with faith being critisized which is not defintion at all then it reverts to belief which for rationalists is indeed supportable by logic or evidence, I don't understand the problem or how it changes what I said, in fact it seems to support what I said.

No ma'am, as always you're wrong. You said faith was defined as being totally dependant on evidence, and now imply that faith is rational too. But every definition available anywhere screams the very opposite. Faith is not dependant on evidence at all and is considered by rationalists to be irrational because of that. Not one segment of any of that supports anything you've said, and all of it stands against you.

A rationalist is someone who is opposed to faith, and critizes faith as ir-rational, insisting that all beliefs should be based on reason instead. Theravada Buddhists are a good example of religious rationalists.

Right, but what you claim is not the same thing as the definiton of a word. Nothing in the definiton of faith removes the possibility of evidence, the difference is that the rationilist requires it, the others don't. The definition however does not say, evidence cannot exist in faith, it says it is not required.

The definition says it is NOT based on evidence and is independant of it. That's means, whether possible or not, faith considers evidence irrelevant, which it does, and I can show you where other creationists on this board have admitted that.

Now I am not sure how to be more clear in my view, you fail to show a definition of faith that removes the possibility of evidence and in fact if you did, you would automatically be removing religion from the idea of faith.

You're still not making any sense.

Every one of these definitions proves that faith is definitely NOT defined as "totally dependant on evidence" which you said it was.

No, another misrepresentatin of what I said, I said that evidence was not included or excluded, either are possible.

This is an example of a lie. Because here you deny ever saying that, but anyone here can just scroll back to post # 616 of this thread, and see for themselves that you really said that. And given the fact that I cut-and-paste this from your own post, it isn't possible that you didn't know you said or that you simply forgot about it. You know you said it, but you say you didn't. That's a lie.

Actually every definition you provided backs my belief on the actual definiton of faith, deal with that.

I already did. Every definition disproves your belief of what that definition is.

No definition says that faith cannot be based on evidence in fact it says that evidence is not required to have faith.

Evidence is irrelevant to faith, it simply doesn't matter to faith at all.

If you think that I am wrong, show a definition that disagrees with me, one will do, but you need to show at least one.

I've already given you several, but of course you won't admit anything that doesn't suit you.

and when you do, I will show you that faith is not part of religion for the same reason, so in short, you are wrong unless you misrepresent what I am saying of which by your criteria would label you a lier. Either way I will watch with anticipation how you get out of the corner you painted yourself in.

Since I never lied and never painted myself into anything, then all I need do is realize that I'm dealing with someone who does lie, and does so deliberately, and who will not be reasoned with under any circumstances. Thus, already having proven my point to everyone else reading this, I am free to leave this conversation on top. Do not expect me to ever read anything you ever post again.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Damn you for having me agree with Razzel, but if someone says "I don't think you are a liar but according to your own criteria you are"

it isn't an accusation of lying. Rather it's making the point that the criteria are wrong according to that person.

She didn't quote the whole statement. In a previous comment in the very same post, I gave a definition of a lie, and she said I had done exactly that many times. If you doubt whether she accused me of lying more explicitly than that, review the links and bolded red words I quoted from her here. If you still think she never accused me of that, then cast your vote in the poll the other way. But so far, everyone agrees with me. You will too when you see the rest of her accusations.

 

[Edx]

What the heck does any of this have to do with religion?

You said you had to understand the evidence for commen ancestry or you wouldnt think it was possible. But anything is possible, including any religious idea. I dont have to agree theres evidence for it to know its "possible". Wether its "probable" is another question completely.

But you didnt understand the basics. You would keep saying you agreed with what we were saying and then make some argument or other and in that proving you didnt to begin with. We then have to go back and explain the basics which you are very resistant to, apparently, becuase you refuse to accept you dont understand it.

Yes I do. Thats becuase you kept showing you didnt know how to or really understand what the "numbers" represented every time you tried to make a point. Thats why you needed to be taught the basics again, or you sure werent ever going to understand any more complex reasoning.

Yes, I suppose I must have missed it. All I saw was Aron asking you repeatedly to answer important questions and you giving pedantic excuses why you werent going to.

Wrong, get over it. Wrong, get over it Wrong, get over it

Oh really, great responce Razzel. Really great.

Commen ancestry is part of the theory of evolution. Dont start this nonsence again.

Yep it is, but it isn't the evolution or the theory of evolution and as I remember, you insist on percise wording in order to extract any real meaning from someone such as myself. You should exercise the same.

The reason why I insisted in precise wording from you was because whenever you talked about some scientific idea you always showed you had a confused and muddled version of it. Because "evolution" can mean different things to some people it become necessary for you to specify what you were talking about. That was the only reason we did that, as usualy it isnt necessary. Even most Creationsts arent as pedantic and semantical as you are.

No a more appropriate anaology is like you explaining complex quadratic equations incorrectly because you didnt understand basic addition and subtraction, and refusing to accept that or learn why it matters.

Only in your mind, because you think you know me better than I know myself. Isn't that right, you have said so before so I am going to assume you were not lieing when you said it.

I never said I know you better than you know yourself. I think this is another example of you claiming I said something I did not and you knowing full well you cant back up.

But ignoring thatl; Imagine you are a teacher trying to explain fractions to a child, and it keeps saying that 2+2=5. You keep saying that this wrong and it doesnt understand. So you say you have to go back and explain how addition works, and it acts all insulted after you do, the child says of course it understands all that and then proceedes to tell you that 4+4=9.

Right now you are acting like that child that cant add, the child that keeps getting things wrong and when his teacher tells him he doesnt understand tells his teacher thathe doesnt know him better than he knows himself! That wouldnt make sence then and it doesnt make sence now.

In other words, if you really do understand the science you have been talking about you do not show it! But this is all we have to go on. So if you understand the subjects you speak of really, we have no way of knowing that and no way to read your mind.

I dont think you have, correct. He can show someone lied. But you apparently think that someone can lie, while also not being a liar. Its very simple Razzel, if you didnt mean to decieve someone or you didnt mean to tell a falsehood, then its NOT a lie at all. But if you lie or have lied, then you are a liar by defualt.

Okay, slowly so you can get this. If we can't know anothers heart we can't know if they actually lied or not, therefore we cannot call them a lier. To bad we are autable, the effect is better. Now we can say that the information was false and therefore a lie as in false information, you know, not truth.

But you've said people have lied, but that they arent liars. You've said poeple have told lies, but that you arent going to call them liars.

But if you've determined someone has lied that makes them a liar, becuse a lie is a willfull distortion of the truth meant to decieve. But if they never meant to decieve, if they never meant to tell a falsehood, this is not a lie and they cannot be called a liar.

So you cant go around saying someone lied, or has told lies and say you arent going to call them a liar. You already have!

Me: ...you have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion of commen ancestry.

No problem with it, I understand it, I understand where it comes from, etc., I have no problem with it, I don't agree however that it is the only viable conclusion. .

But just like I told you before, the mainstream scientific conclusion IS that commen ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion. If you dont agree with that, you obviously dont agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion.

Must I also point out to you that no where in your comment did you say it was the only viable conclusion?

Why does that matter? I figured you'd have worked that by now seeing as how no mainstream scientific source supports the positions you've been taking. Do you have anything to show that the mainstream scientific opinion is of anything but idea that commen ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion? Its been the mainstream scientifc opinion for decades now. Dont you follow the news? You do know Intelligent Design ISNT mainstream right? That cant be what you are referring to can it?

My problem is not with the conclusion but with the assertion that it is the only viable conclusion. Big difference and so far very...clear and consistant.

Yes, that would make sence if you didnt contradict yourself so often.

You say you have no problem with the evidence for commen ancestry and you say you have no problem with the mainstream scientific opinion about commen ancestry, which in that case by the way both of us should agree. But then you say you dont agree its the only viable scientifc conclusion and that the evidence could be shown to support another viable scientific conclusion. This contradicts both previous statements!

First time you have asserted only viable and so I then must deal with this assertion which by the way you lacked consistancy to point.

What inconsisteny? I said you have a problem with the mainstream scientific opinion in this matter, and then you say you dont. So I show you you do, becuase the mainstream scientific opinion is not the same as yours, and you accuse me of ommiting that the first time round as well as continuing to say you dont have a probelm with the mainstream scientific opinion! And you call me inconsistent?

Left out some stuff here but such is common with you.

No I didnt leave anything out, and this is once again another jab at my honesty you know you arent going to back up.

I state pretty clearly here that I base my opinion on common evidnce, not obscure bizzare, made up stuff but on basic, common evidence and understandings. Sounds consistant to me and about as clear as english lang will allow.

Read the conversation back. You questioned my last statement that the mainstream scientific opinion is that commen ancestry is the only viable conclusion, on "common evidence". So what are you saying there? That common evidence" shows that this isnt the mainstream scientific view? Or that the "common evidence" shows common ancestry isnt the only viable scientific conclusion? Either way it makes no sence as a responce.

I put you in a no win situation because you accused me specifically and literaly of admitting that I tell lies to porve my points. You said that.

Yep, and you have and still are. See above as an example. but you will never admit it, so it's time to move on. You are forgiven like it or not.

I love it!

1. You tell me that I "admitted" to you that I tell lies to prove my points.

2. You refuse to show me where I said that.

3. You say that you arent calling me a liar just that you said I lied.

4. You just now said that I still am "admitting "to you that I tell lies to prove my points, and you say you forgiven me for it! How nice!..

5. ..Especially since you still havent ever shown me where I ever said that!

It's no win for me because you refuse to accept that anything I say could have truth.

Its no win for you becuase you refuse to back up your allegation that I admitted that I tell lies to prove my points, and you know I never said any such thing and thats why you cant do it even though I've repeatedly asked you to. Do you accuse people of things in real life this way too?

the only people who seem to see me this way is the evolutionist on this forum

Have you looked at the other discussions? Do evolutionists have the same trouble with other Creationists that they have with you? Even the really nutty ones make themselves crystal clear compared to you. Or do you consider yourself so special we all treat you differently?

You also have a problem with the mainstream scientific opinion about commen ancestry.

Not with common ancestry, with the conclusion that it is the only viable conclusion. You honestly don't see a difference between a conclusion and the assertion that that conclusion is the only possible.

When did anyone say commen ancestry is the only "possible" conclusion?

Cant you see the difference between these two statements?

1. Commen ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

2. Commen ancestry is the only possible conclusion.

Wow That truely boggles my mind.

What boggles my mind is that you've actually replaced the word "viable" we've been using to describe the conclusion of commen ancestry and replaced it with "possible". This makes what we've said completely different. You know you've turned our position into a strawman dont you? You know a strawman is a misrepresentation dont you? This is the kind of problems I was talking about. And once more its out of your bizzare ever changing personal definitions of words.

You say you believe evidence could support another viable scientific conclusion, which would by definition make it evidence against commen ancestry.

Yep, it questions the conclusion of common ancestry.

You agree to this? You just told me you didnt have a problem with the evidence for commen ancestry.

How can we understand what you believe when you apparently cant make up your mind?

But 1, you refused to look at or understand or try and discuss the evidence for commen ancestry with Aron (or anyone else).

Yeah sure let's go with that, all these months and I refuse to discuss any of this, okay,

Thats right, you dont. You talk in endless circles trying to make people think you already understand everything. Thats not really discussing evidence.

And 2, you still show whenever you try and discuss the science you claim you understand, that you have deep misunderstandings about the basics of the subject.

yeah sure okay, what ever you say, it's the only way to get you to move on, to agree with everything you say no matter what the evidence suggests.

What evidence? The only time I rememeber you showing you might have understood something is after someone has spent ages explaining something to you, you insisting you already understood it, then going ahead trying to make an argument about the same topic and show you still didnt get it.

3. So, you dont know both sides.

Which is why I can effectively argue for or against both sides,

Since you dont understand our "side", no I dont believe you could. If you accepted evolution yet still had the same fundamental misunderstandings as you show, you'd still have to be corrected constantly and likely do a lot more harm than good debating Creationists.

(notice a hint of sarcasm?)

No dear I dont. Everything you write is of course pure eloquence

No, thats not what I told you at all.

You are misrepresenting me just like you always do because you apparently read what you want to see and never what I actually write.

So, sure, you do believe that you understand the topic just like you said above. Theres no doubt about that! But what I always said was that you didnt understand, not that you didnt believe.

Correction dear one, several times now you have tried to tell me what I believe and what I don't

You keep saying that, and you keep failing to back yourself up.

 

[Edx]

even to the point of calling me a creationist after I told you point blank that I wasn't. That by definition. constitutes a lie.

I called you a Creationist becuase you were using all of the Creationist arguments. When you said you werent a Creationist, I said that based on what you were saying you sounded like one. You always miss that part dont you?

What I am saying is that name calling doesn't help any of the discussion and understanding of the two camps and therfore should be left out of the discussion completely.

So you do only object to the word "liars". Correct? Because it certianly does help to show that some people make statements they know are false before they said them. It shows how credible the sources are for Creationists. What Aron asked you to do was show something comparable for Evolution sources. Thats the reason for it.

But if demonstration of that knowledge has NOT already been made, it is necessary the child learns. It doesnt matter if it finds that disrespectfull or not.

Either the child learns how to count or it will never understand the logic of addition or subtraction, it doesnt matter how much it screams and shouts that it understands addition perfectly, and then goes on to say that 2+2=5. It still needs to first understand what 2 represents, and then what + and = means.

Which is a misrepresentation of my post once again, hum, a pattern has emerged. The point was that he has already demonstrated a working knowledge of counting and adding and subracting, etc

Not a misrepresentation. You are still working off the assumption that the child HAS shown a working understanding of the basics. Im saying you are like the child that refuses to accept it doesnt understand. That it refuses to accept that 2+2 doesnt equal 5, and refuses to accept that geometry does make sence. But it will never understand geometry until it does, but it never will if it already believes it understands it all.

if I say to you I understand the conflict and why it happens what I don't understand is why we are still there, then to what puspose would there be to go into the history between the two countries?

how would you expect to understand why the US is still in Irac if you dont know any of the history surrounding the conflict?

Oh, so I am again being to vague and unclear when I say that if I already understand why the us and Irac are fighting,

Read the exchange again please. I didnt say you were vague and unclear in this case, I just thought it didnt make sence to ask that question.

I asked you how you can expect to understand the reasons why the US could still be there if you have no idea what the history is between the two countries?

that that means I already know the history of why the us and irac are fighting,

You asked me why you need to know the history between the two countries in order to know why the US is still in Irac. My answer is that while you will probably never know the exact reasons, you can get a much better idea and grasp on the situation if you understand the history behind the conflict.

So in other words, complex reasoning will be based on basic reasoning. If you dont have a good enough grasp of the basics you wont have any chance of really understanding anything more complex.

Honestly can you not figure out why I make these analogies? They arent just some random offtopic subject because I get bored.

Second, all I said to Aron was that you had a problem with the evidence for common ancestry.

But I don't which is the whole probem, I have a problem with the assertion that it is the only viable conclusion. How much clearer can I make it?

Earlier in this post I said that since you think the evidence could support another viable scientific conclusion, this would be evidence against common ancestry. You agreed to that. But if you did agree to that this would mean by definition you have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry. How can it be clear if you constantly contradict yourself!

Once agian now
1. I have no problem with the evidence for common ancestry

1. If you believe the evidence could be shown to support another viable scientific conclusion, it would be evidence against common ancestry...

2. I have no problem with the conclusion of common ancestry

And you also say you have no problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion on common ancestry.

But the mainstream scientific conclusion IS that common ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion.

3. I have a problem with the assertion that common ancesrty is the only viable conclusion.

See 1. Since you believe the evidence could support another scientific conclusion you must have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry.

Therefore, you contradict yourself.

Dont dodge this Razzel. You specifically said that I TOLD you that I lie to prove my points. You didnt say that it could look that way, you said I "ADMITTED" it. So, where did I do that?

Again, you brought our discussion into the discussion about lieing. You would have had no reason to do so except that you considered it a lie. Otherwise it would have been out of place in the discussion. Thus an admission of lie.

I came into this discussion primarily becuase you implied to Aron that I lied to you. I didnt like being accused of dishonesty, so thats why i replied.

But according to you... "you are the one who admitted you were the one spreading lies to prove a point, "

So stop playing these games Razzel. If someone said that about you, what would you think they meant? If someone said that about someone you know, what would you think they meant?

You made that up about me and you know I never said any such thing, and you know full well you cant back any of it up. This claim of yours can only be called dishonest, becuase I never said or implied it in any way whatsoever. Theres literally no way you could have gleaned that out of my posts.

Ed

 

[Edx]

Such venom over nothing. I carefully worded every post so as to not accuss you of lieing. I was percise, you know the same kind of percision that science deals with. .

You didnt accuse Aron of lying even though you said stuff like this?

You really should stop with your lies...your statement was a lie....


A lie is an willfull intent to decieve, and/or tell a falsehood while already knowing its not true. Calling someone a liar is just describing someone that lies. If you say someone lied it is saying someone has told a lie in the past. And since you said Aron lied many many many times, you are of course by definition also calling him a liar.

 

[razzelflabben]

Fair enough.


I never said it was unclear. My point was all along that, according to Aron's definition, to claim something is a lie the burden of proof is actually high enough to rule these out. According to Aron's definition, my statement would not have been a lie because that statement wasn't preceded by clear statements that I knew differently. If you claim that this is not true, than you'll have to demonstrate this using his criteria. So far, you are not doing that and thus your point will not come over.

And so aron saying in one post that he has met evolutionist that we unscrupulous then denying that evolutionists what? Has the burden of proof been met?

But that is the point, you didn't. And because the discussion before you entered in was not specifically about education facilities but about contributing new knowledge to a field of science and how this was all but impossible for some fields, do you think it is strange that I misunderstood you on that?

Well I remember typing it, so I don't know what happened betwen my typing it and you reading it, but I appologize for any unisunderstanding.

If I have time I'll try to find it somewhere there.


But you never clarified that untill very late in the discussion if at all. And that is what caused the confusion.


Fair enough. I disagree with the above on a number of points, but I won't go into that here. Maybe if something like this goes on again I'll take a look back at this. At this point it would take up too much of my time.

agreed.