Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[razzelflabben]

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


Even Richard Dawkins says God is possible.



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

Ed

Been there done that, maybe you should reread this thread to get started and up to speed.

 

[Tomk80]

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?

Okay, this is again a prime example of communication going wrong, and really Razzel, I cannot see the cause anywhere else then with you.

Context of the discussion: Edx was trying to show you that all your arguments that you have used in the past to express your doubts with common ancestry are creationist arguments.

Now, in that context the original point made by Edx was that you said that the theory of evolution is only a theory. You have done nothing to argue against this, so I have to assume for now that this is correct. You have said that the theory of evolution is only a theory.

Now, the point Edx is making is not, and has never been, that the theory of evolution is anything other then a theory. The point he is making is that by saying this, in this sentence structure, you are claiming that the theory of evolution can become anything other then a theory and that this 'other' can be scientifically 'higher' or more valid than a theory. That is the claim you made, because of the sentence structure you made it in.

Look at your direct answer to this in the above context:

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

This doesn't address the original point made, namely your statement that 'evolution is only a theory'. There are two ways you could have addressed the point made that would have indicated that you understood that scientific theories are not 'lower' or 'higher' then other forms of scientific knowledge, those options being:
1: explaining that you thought scientific theories could become something else in the past, but do not think that anymore.
2: explain that you meant that the theory is a theory and not something else, but that whether it is a theory or a fact has no influence on it's merit (although you would then have to explain why you used the word 'only').
3: contest the claim that you said evolution was only a theory.

Perhaps some other courses would have been available. Bottom line is that you should have explained that you understand that 'theory' is the highest attainable step in science. But, as your response shows, you didn't do that. So either you fail to see the meaning of 'only' in the sentence structure which you use it, or there is some other reason for you not to address the important part of the claim made. I don't know, but it seems that you have missed the actual point Edx was making, because even in your last response, you haven't actually addressed that point.

 

[razzelflabben]

Okay, this is again a prime example of communication going wrong, and really Razzel, I cannot see the cause anywhere else then with you.

Context of the discussion: Edx was trying to show you that all your arguments that you have used in the past to express your doubts with common ancestry are creationist arguments.

Now, in that context the original point made by Edx was that you said that the theory of evolution is only a theory. You have done nothing to argue against this, so I have to assume for now that this is correct. You have said that the theory of evolution is only a theory.

Now, the point Edx is making is not, and has never been, that the theory of evolution is anything other then a theory. The point he is making is that by saying this, in this sentence structure, you are claiming that the theory of evolution can become anything other then a theory and that this 'other' can be scientifically 'higher' or more valid than a theory. That is the claim you made, because of the sentence structure you made it in.

Look at your direct answer to this in the above context:

Bimbo, so I am saying that in context with the discussion, that a theory remains just that, therefore to claim it to be fact or truth is an overstatement because theory must remain just that, theory, it cannot change into a law, a hypothesiss, a fact, a truth, an eitoeu390. It is and always will remain (unless falsified along the way) a theory. The context remember is a discussion in which evolution was claimed to be fact. And I said no, evolution is only a theory. Sounds like I have a pretty good grasp of what a scientific theory really is, a theory. Put it into context, I said, a scientific theory remains just that, a scientific theory, it never leaves that realm. Same thing ed said and the same thing you seem to be saying but because I phrased it in a way which allowed you to read creationist into what I said, then I don't understand the same thing that you understand and that I said. What of communication? What of reading things in context, what of assuming some understanding before dismissing an idea. What of all the other posts in which I said I object to the assertion that it is fact, those don't exist because I can't communicate? Cool. [/quote]

This doesn't address the original point made, namely your statement that 'evolution is only a theory'. There are two ways you could have addressed the point made that would have indicated that you understood that scientific theories are not 'lower' or 'higher' then other forms of scientific knowledge, those options being:
1: explaining that you thought scientific theories could become something else in the past, but do not think that anymore.[/quote] That would be a lie

2: explain that you meant that the theory is a theory and not something else,

said several dozen times

but that whether it is a theory or a fact has no influence on it's merit (although you would then have to explain why you used the word 'only').

fact has nothing to do with it, which is the point, a theory by definition and nature is not fact. Thus the word only

3: contest the claim that you said evolution was only a theory.

I said it and in context with the discussion was pointing out to those reading that by definition and practice, theory cannot be a known fact, only a theory. Theory is not inherintly fact, it is a conclusion or a suggestion or pick an appropriate word of what we think will happen or better stated what has happened based on the facts that we do have. Thus, theory is not fact, it is based on facts. Hum, sounds like what I said many times over.

Perhaps some other courses would have been available. Bottom line is that you should have explained that you understand that 'theory' is the highest attainable step in science.

Tried about a million different ways but fell on deaf ears.

But, as your response shows, you didn't do that. So either you fail to see the meaning of 'only' in the sentence structure which you use it, or there is some other reason for you not to address the important part of the claim made. I don't know, but it seems that you have missed the actual point Edx was making, because even in your last response, you haven't actually addressed that point.

I have addressed it many times in a multitude of different ways and was unaware that we were suppose to go on for pages about it again. I tried to cut to the chase to avoid another drawn out discussion in which ed had ample oppertunity to either understand or question but never did he do either, all he has ever done is accuse me of not understanding and trying to "teach" me that when I say that evolution is a theory I don't know that evolution is a theory. And yes, I used the word only to signify that theory is the only thing that it will ever be, in context of the discussion, the alternitive would be fact, but that is not the only thing it could become if we are allowed to call it other than what it is, a theory. IOW's if we are allowed to call it fact, then what stops us from calling it law, or hypothesis or nonsense or falsified or anything else we want to call it. It is only what it is, a theory.

 

[Tomk80]

Bimbo, so I am saying that in context with the discussion, that a theory remains just that, therefore to claim it to be fact or truth is an overstatement because theory must remain just that, theory, it cannot change into a law, a hypothesiss, a fact, a truth, an eitoeu390.

With which you did not respond to the actual point Edx was making, which was that you were apparantly placing theory as lower than anything else. That was apparant from your use of the word 'only' in front of theory as well as from your later posts, where you stated that 'some evolutionists hold it up as something more', which cannot be the case as there is nothing 'higher' or 'more' then theory in science.

It is and always will remain (unless falsified along the way) a theory. The context remember is a discussion in which evolution was claimed to be fact.

And here sufaces another problem, because evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that allele frequencies change over time within a population. This is an observed fact. The theory of evolution explains why this happens.

And I said no, evolution is only a theory. Sounds like I have a pretty good grasp of what a scientific theory really is, a theory. Put it into context, I said, a scientific theory remains just that, a scientific theory, it never leaves that realm. Same thing ed said and the same thing you seem to be saying but because I phrased it in a way which allowed you to read creationist into what I said, then I don't understand the same thing that you understand and that I said. What of communication? What of reading things in context, what of assuming some understanding before dismissing an idea. What of all the other posts in which I said I object to the assertion that it is fact, those don't exist because I can't communicate? Cool.

I'll do all those things, but you need to be clear about it. In this case, you weren't. Not in the course of this discussion anyway. Reading back again, with what you wrote just now, I still see no possible way that I could have reached a different conclusion than that you did not understand what a theory is. In normal discourse, 'only a bla' is very often referred to in a dismissive way, and you are the first I have encountered in these discussions to have used it in the way you say, creationists and evolutionists I've talked to all included.

That would be a lie

I said 'several options' Razzel. I am not saying you should take those that do not apply.

said several dozen times

And that's the point. I don't know whether you said it anywhere else, but you definitely did not on this thread. The post I'm now replying to is the first where you actually explained what you meant in a way that seems to project what you actually meant.

fact has nothing to do with it, which is the point, a theory by definition and nature is not fact. Thus the word only I said it and in context with the discussion was pointing out to those reading that by definition and practice, theory cannot be a known fact, only a theory.

Which still was clear nowhere in this discussion, untill this post.

Theory is not inherintly fact, it is a conclusion or a suggestion or pick an appropriate word of what we think will happen or better stated what has happened based on the facts that we do have. Thus, theory is not fact, it is based on facts. Hum, sounds like what I said many times over. Tried about a million different ways but fell on deaf ears. I have addressed it many times in a multitude of different ways and was unaware that we were suppose to go on for pages about it again. I tried to cut to the chase to avoid another drawn out discussion in which ed had ample oppertunity to either understand or question but never did he do either, all he has ever done is accuse me of not understanding and trying to "teach" me that when I say that evolution is a theory I don't know that evolution is a theory.

And there would have been a very simple way of doing this.

"I did not mean that a theory is 'higher' then a fact. I tried to say that evolution is not also a fact or a law, but that a theory is the only thing evolution is.", for example.

They would then have tried to explain to you that evolution is in fact both a fact and a theory, instead of explaining what a theory is.

And yes, I used the word only to signify that theory is the only thing that it will ever be, in context of the discussion, the alternitive would be fact, but that is not the only thing it could become if we are allowed to call it other than what it is, a theory. IOW's if we are allowed to call it fact, then what stops us from calling it law, or hypothesis or nonsense or falsified or anything else we want to call it. It is only what it is, a theory.

And in this, you again seem not to know what a theory is. How would calling it a fact be an alternative? And if calling it a fact would be an alternative, how would this somehow allow us to call it a law, hypothesis or anything else?

I am at this point thinking that you do understand that you know what a theory is. That it is a theory because it explains a set of facts. However, statements like the above do give the impression that this might not be the case. The bolded phrase in particular, as well as the ones following. Even your explanation of the word theory in this post comes close, but just misses to accurately describe the meaning of theory.

 

[Edx]

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

If you were clear the first time we wouldnt be arguing over the word.

.you have never asked me what I understood

Yes I have, but its not enough for you to say you understand it if you show you actually do not.

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.

I did understand you, then you started using the word "possible" all of a sudden which didnt make any sence. Thats why I asked you if you see a difference between the two words. But you ignored that question, and took a long time for you to address it.

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.

Interesting sentence. Im tired to having to translate your mangled posts. Please write this more clearly.

No, you said your arguements.

Yes, your arguments against evolution. You claiming you have no problem with common ancestry isnt why people were calling you a Creationist. I already told you that.

What false accusations?

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

But I bet you cant even be bothered to cite one example.

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.

I said Behe accepted common ancestry, not all of evolution theory. He believes an Intelligent supernatural designer tinkered with his creation supernaturally, and that "design" can be studied in nature. Thats what makes him a Creationist.

I know, and Ive said that several times.

No sir you have not,

Yes I have. How many times do I have to repeat that you believe there is another viable conclusion other than common ancestry? Please follow the flow of conversation.

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. Okay, I believe both are viable conclusions, argue both, and that makes me a creationist.

Intelligent Design is a kind of fringe Creationism, but its still Creationism. A lot of the Dover trial was over "designer" not necessarily being a "creator god", and they were so concered about the word creator that they slowly changed a Creationist textbook over the years to put "designer" in the place of "creator". But you literally said creator, which is why I said you are even more of Creationist than they are. But you also think your creation theory doesnt require common ancestry which is why you are arguing against theistic evolutionists position as well. So if not through common ancestry how else do you think God created all life?

Your creation theory isnt science and has no objective scientific evidence whatsoever, which is what Glaudys would agree with. She still believes God created, but she accepts that 1. No "supernatural" magic intervention was required. 2. You cant study design scientifically. Thats why she isnt a Creationist.

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

I dare you to find even one example where I have done that to you. I bet you cant find even the smallest implication anywhere in my posts. I told you quite specifically why people thought of you as a Creationist, but you dont listen to me.

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".

To say you "dont know" is fine. Evolution theory is one of the most well supported fields in science. So you are just ignorent. Thats fixable, potentially. But you cant say you are a skeptic then say you believe a God created. You cant say you know anything about god, becuase god isnt objectively verifiable.

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.

see above already did and you ignored i tot accuse me of not doing it.

No you didnt. You just told me it was out of context.

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? So, you agree with me then and your objection is just your enjoyment of argueing.

See you keep doing it. Evolution is a theory, thats the only part you understand. But what you dont understand that it can it can never be anything more than a theory because theory is the best you can get in science. A Law is not better than a theory either, as it is a different thing.

I thought your accusation was that I enjoyed argueing.

It was meant as less of an accusation more of an observation. I cant prove you enjoy being as difficult and as obtuse as you are.

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,

No, read the words Im actually writing. The only way you can stop admitting your error is to pretend Im saying something different so pay attention this time.

We both agree that evolution is a theory, yes, but you say that evolution is only a theory and make out that a Law is higher state of fact than a theory. This shows you dont understand what a theory in science is. Please do read what people actually write.

And you wonder why I tire of you?

You wonder why I tire of you when you say I take you out of context then say the exact same thing again?

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 through explaining how you think it could be sorted differently you show you dont know understand how its sorted and why its sorted that way to begin with.

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.

Again with the word "possible". If you mean "viable possibility" then you would be wrong. There is only one viable scientific way, and the reasons why is what people were trying to get you to understand.

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.

Its not that you say it isnt a Law, I know you say it isnt a law. Its that you say a Law is better than a theory. If you understood what those terms meant in science you'd know why you'd be wrong to think that.

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.

None of those rule out God, becuase you cant falsify one becuase a God is said to bend natural laws.

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.

Nope, all you can do is falsify some stories humans have written about them. The gods themselves can still exist for the reason I say above, and we have no way to scientifically falsify them. But logic says we have no reason to consider them either.

So that belief then defines creationist?

I've told you sereral times why people see you as a Creationist, and why your belief about a creation theory being a viable scientific alternative theory to common ancestry defines you as one for me as well.

Hum, I thought a creationist was someone who believed that God "magically" created life.

Even if you see a difference between magic and the supernatural either way they do not follow natural laws and therefore cannot be studied scientifically. A Creationist is someone who believes God created with the supernatural.

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

Only two replies ago I showed that you were. You said it to Aron.

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.."

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

All you have done is claim I had no reason to think you were talking about me. Even if that were the case, which it isnt, you still did called me a liar, because you were talking about me. So how about you deal with that?

 

[Edx]

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

Even Richard Dawkins says God is possible.



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

Ed

Been there done that, maybe you should reread this thread to get started and up to speed.

Oh look you cant be bothered to address anything in this post so you are just going to hand wave it away.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

With which you did not respond to the actual point Edx was making, which was that you were apparantly placing theory as lower than anything else. That was apparant from your use of the word 'only' in front of theory as well as from your later posts, where you stated that 'some evolutionists hold it up as something more', which cannot be the case as there is nothing 'higher' or 'more' then theory in science.

I spent a lot of time last night considering what you said, that it was my error, to that end, I looked up the definition of only, there are three possibles
1.unquestionably the best
2.alone in a class or category
3.few, as in one of the only areas not yet explored

Now of these possibles only 1 and 2 are viable in context. If we assume that I know something about science, then only 2 above is valid. So then we either ask or look at the context in which it was offered. The context says that the claim of fact was made. Therefore if I do know something as I have demonstrated but has been ignored in exchange for calling me a creationist, (of which I repeatedly addressed eds concern but was ignored at the time of discussion)then even without questioning, the only viable conclusion would be 2 above, alone in a class or category. Thus evolution is only a theory, not a fact, not a law, not a hypothesis, but only, alone in a class or category, a theory. What happened to logic?

Here is the part of the equasion that is overlooked. I am labeled a creationist and we all know that creationists don't have a clue about science or they wouldn't be creationists and so therefore, Razz must mean 1 above because it is the only way we can show that she has no understanding of the subject matter. Now, I think it fair to accept responsibility for using a phrase that is common among the creationists, but in not being clear as to the meaning I was appling to it, I think is not mine to accept and communication would have asked me what definition I was intending, not to insist I was using another.

And here sufaces another problem, because evolution is both a fact and a theory. The fact of evolution is that allele frequencies change over time within a population. This is an observed fact. The theory of evolution explains why this happens.

Now in context of the use of the word evolution, the theory of evolution is not in fact, fact, it is evolution that is fact. IOW's, evolution, the process can and is fact, at least to a degree, the theory of evolution which is what the context says we are talking about, how that evolution happens, is and always will be theory unless or until such time as it is evidenced to be false. Thus it is misleading to say evolution is both a fact and a theory, because evolution is a fact, but the theory of evolution is a theory. it is about percise meaning of words, ask ed about that one, I am sure he remembers that discussion.

I'll do all those things, but you need to be clear about it. In this case, you weren't. Not in the course of this discussion anyway. Reading back again, with what you wrote just now, I still see no possible way that I could have reached a different conclusion than that you did not understand what a theory is. In normal discourse, 'only a bla' is very often referred to in a dismissive way, and you are the first I have encountered in these discussions to have used it in the way you say, creationists and evolutionists I've talked to all included.

and yet it is a percise meaning for a percise communication. This is why it is always better to ask before making assumptions. And BTW, in case you haven't noticed, I am not your typical evolutionist, creationist, christian, etc. I enjoy challenging people and ideas, which might be why subconsciencly I choose a phrase that is often used differently.

I said 'several options' Razzel. I am not saying you should take those that do not apply.

others have asked me to, I appologize. [quoe]


And that's the point. I don't know whether you said it anywhere else, but you definitely did not on this thread. The post I'm now replying to is the first where you actually explained what you meant in a way that seems to project what you actually meant.[/quote] after pages and pages on another thread, you get to the point that there is no hope

Which still was clear nowhere in this discussion, untill this post.


And there would have been a very simple way of doing this.

"I did not mean that a theory is 'higher' then a fact.

said that, was ignored

I tried to say that evolution is not also a fact or a law, but that a theory is the only thing evolution is.", for example.

They would then have tried to explain to you that evolution is in fact both a fact and a theory, instead of explaining what a theory is.

Well, since I did what you suggested and I still was told that I didn't understand theory, it would seem to me that you are wrong as to what the reaction would have been. This is why I loose hope and get to the point in which I don't try anymore, because no matter what I say or how I say it, I can't possibly know what I know. It gets tiring and old after a while.

And in this, you again seem not to know what a theory is. How would calling it a fact be an alternative? And if calling it a fact would be an alternative, how would this somehow allow us to call it a law, hypothesis or anything else?

The point is that it can't be anything else, it can only be a theory because that is how science works, so you can imply anything you want, it all comes down to one thing, The theory of evolution is and will remain a thoery.

I am at this point thinking that you do understand that you know what a theory is. That it is a theory because it explains a set of facts. However, statements like the above do give the impression that this might not be the case. The bolded phrase in particular, as well as the ones following. Even your explanation of the word theory in this post comes close, but just misses to accurately describe the meaning of theory.

Agian I will consider what you are saying but find it a flawed assumption being that I have explained it a million different ways and I am still labeled as not understanding and so when I summarize that shows a lack of accuracy. How differently would you view me if I wasn't always having to repeat and reword the things that should have been clear from the start. No I am not talking about the use of the word only but the explaination therefore that when worded as you did was still wrong, for pages and pages and days and months and years and eternity (yeah that was an exageration but certainly felt like an eternity.)

 

[Tomk80]

I spent a lot of time last night considering what you said, that it was my error, to that end, I looked up the definition of only, there are three possibles
1.unquestionably the best
2.alone in a class or category
3.few, as in one of the only areas not yet explored

Now of these possibles only 1 and 2 are viable in context. If we assume that I know something about science, then only 2 above is valid. So then we either ask or look at the context in which it was offered. The context says that the claim of fact was made. Therefore if I do know something as I have demonstrated but has been ignored in exchange for calling me a creationist, (of which I repeatedly addressed eds concern but was ignored at the time of discussion) then even without questioning, the only viable conclusion would be 2 above, alone in a class or category. Thus evolution is only a theory, not a fact, not a law, not a hypothesis, but only, alone in a class or category, a theory. What happened to logic?

Here is the part of the equasion that is overlooked. I am labeled a creationist and we all know that creationists don't have a clue about science or they wouldn't be creationists and so therefore, Razz must mean 1 above because it is the only way we can show that she has no understanding of the subject matter. Now, I think it fair to accept responsibility for using a phrase that is common among the creationists, but in not being clear as to the meaning I was appling to it, I think is not mine to accept and communication would have asked me what definition I was intending, not to insist I was using another.

Except that we do not know how much you know about science, regardless of whether you are a creationist or not. And when using the word 'only' in such a sentence structure, in daily used english this refers to meaning 1 of your dictionary definition. So when you just as it as that, the default position to take is that you meant meaning 1, unless you clarify. You did not clarify anywhere, untill very late. Even when it should have been clear to you from the direction of the discussion that clarification is necesary, you did not bring any.

Now in context of the use of the word evolution, the theory of evolution is not in fact, fact, it is evolution that is fact. IOW's, evolution, the process can and is fact, at least to a degree, the theory of evolution which is what the context says we are talking about, how that evolution happens, is and always will be theory unless or until such time as it is evidenced to be false. Thus it is misleading to say evolution is both a fact and a theory, because evolution is a fact, but the theory of evolution is a theory. it is about percise meaning of words, ask ed about that one, I am sure he remembers that discussion.

And in scientific discussion, the meaning of the word 'evolution' when talking about biology is the either the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution. If someone talks about 'evolution', without any other context added as you did in your response, it can both mean the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution.

and yet it is a percise meaning for a percise communication. This is why it is always better to ask before making assumptions. And BTW, in case you haven't noticed, I am not your typical evolutionist, creationist, christian, etc. I enjoy challenging people and ideas, which might be why subconsciencly I choose a phrase that is often used differently.

I am not assuming anything about you Razzel. But if you use phrases in ways other then how they are normally used, this leads to miscommunication. But you cannot lay the blame for this at others, Razzel, whether they make assumptions or not. If you use words in a different way than is normally done in a language, you are the one with whom the cause of miscommunication is situated. You cannot expect people to somehow go into a completely different mode of language when talking to one person.

others have asked me to, I appologize.

Thanks.

after pages and pages on another thread, you get to the point that there is no hope said that, was ignored

Well, since I did what you suggested and I still was told that I didn't understand theory, it would seem to me that you are wrong as to what the reaction would have been. This is why I loose hope and get to the point in which I don't try anymore, because no matter what I say or how I say it, I can't possibly know what I know. It gets tiring and old after a while.

You didn't say that on this thread. In fact, a number of the posts you gave imply the that you mean the exact opposite.

The point is that it can't be anything else, it can only be a theory because that is how science works, so you can imply anything you want, it all comes down to one thing, The theory of evolution is and will remain a thoery.

The problem is that the wording you choose doesn't seem to reflect that you would understand why this is so. I have illustrated that in my last post. That is the reason why people keep trying to correct you, Razzel, because even if you have that understanding, it is not reflected in what you write.

Agian I will consider what you are saying but find it a flawed assumption being that I have explained it a million different ways and I am still labeled as not understanding and so when I summarize that shows a lack of accuracy. How differently would you view me if I wasn't always having to repeat and reword the things that should have been clear from the start. No I am not talking about the use of the word only but the explaination therefore that when worded as you did was still wrong, for pages and pages and days and months and years and eternity (yeah that was an exageration but certainly felt like an eternity.)

But the problem remains, Razzel, that at least in this thread you have not portrayed a clear understanding of what a theory is. Sure, you have said that the theory of evolution cannot be anything else but a theory, but it's not like this is a claim that is never made by people who do not understand the word theory (in fact, it is a claim as often made by people who do not understand evolution as those who do). In this thread, you have not portrayed such an understanding and your wording implies a misunderstanding of it. As you yourself stated in your reply, you often use words differently then others. And here lies the problem. If you use words differently than most others, you are not in a position to blame others for the misunderstandings that arise because of that.

 

[razzelflabben]

If you were clear the first time we wouldnt be arguing over the word.

sure we would because you can't accept anything I say as truth or knowledge

Yes I have, but its not enough for you to say you understand it if you show you actually do not.

even if I cut and paste something that an evolutionist says that is applauded, I am told that I show lack of understanding, interesting isn't it.

I did understand you, then you started using the word "possible" all of a sudden which didnt make any sence. Thats why I asked you if you see a difference between the two words. But you ignored that question, and took a long time for you to address it.

and I explained why I used the word and you refused to accept the truth of the matter so that you could insist that I didn't know what I know. Move on

Interesting sentence. Im tired to having to translate your mangled posts. Please write this more clearly.

I have two choices, A and B, of these choices, I tell you right up front I choose A, so you supposedly read my post and say make a choice, do you choose A or B. Now being that I already clearly stated that I choose A, I have to question and wonder what possible advantage you would have for asking me if I choose A or B. What do you gain by asking me what I have already clearly stated? And if you are going to say that I was not clear, then I must ask you to tell me a clearer way to say I choose A.

Yes, your arguments against evolution. You claiming you have no problem with common ancestry isnt why people were calling you a Creationist. I already told you that.

Actually you said that people call me a creationist because and then listed a string of false accussations of what I have said and believe. Thus, you did not answer the question asked. Why do you call me a creationist? Forget everyone else, and forget about listing all the false statements again, and tell me why you personally label me a creationist.

But I bet you cant even be bothered to cite one example.

as I have said many times now, and I will not say it again, take any post in which you represent something I said and odds are it will be a false representation of what I actually said.

I said Behe accepted common ancestry, not all of evolution theory. He believes an Intelligent supernatural designer tinkered with his creation supernaturally, and that "design" can be studied in nature. Thats what makes him a Creationist.

And you still haven't defined evolutionist and creationist for us.

Yes I have. How many times do I have to repeat that you believe there is another viable conclusion other than common ancestry? Please follow the flow of conversation.

It is what comes after this that I have problems with.

Intelligent Design is a kind of fringe Creationism, but its still Creationism. A lot of the Dover trial was over "designer" not necessarily being a "creator god", and they were so concered about the word creator that they slowly changed a Creationist textbook over the years to put "designer" in the place of "creator". But you literally said creator, which is why I said you are even more of Creationist than they are. But you also think your creation theory doesnt require common ancestry which is why you are arguing against theistic evolutionists position as well. So if not through common ancestry how else do you think God created all life?

different discussion Bottom line, is that since I look at the evidence and not the labels and accussations, and what I am told to believe, I can argue any of the positions.

Your creation theory

what is MY creation theory? You keep saying this, but I don't know what it means, when did I come up with a theory?

isnt science and has no objective scientific evidence whatsoever, which is what Glaudys would agree with. She still believes God created, but she accepts that 1. No "supernatural" magic intervention was required. 2. You cant study design scientifically. Thats why she isnt a Creationist.

we can discuss this any time some of this other stuff is cleared up. We start by asking what it would look like if a creator did create our world.

I dare you to find even one example where I have done that to you. I bet you cant find even the smallest implication anywhere in my posts. I told you quite specifically why people thought of you as a Creationist, but you dont listen to me.

I listened, but they were all false statements of my arguements and beliefs, so you didn't really answer the question at all, what you did is post some creationist arguements and called them mine. I don't have to own what is not mine and therefore, you still have to back up your claim

To say you "dont know" is fine. Evolution theory is one of the most well supported fields in science. So you are just ignorent. Thats fixable, potentially. But you cant say you are a skeptic then say you believe a God created. You cant say you know anything about god, becuase god isnt objectively verifiable.

come again! Is this like aron's arguement on the other thread where the total arguement is if you don't agree with me you are wrong? Man the arrogance, to think that you alone know truth. amazing look at the human nature elament of discussion. Fasinating look at beliefs and faith.

No you didnt. You just told me it was out of context.

I've put it in context for you before and you ignored it to insist you were right.

See you keep doing it. Evolution is a theory, thats the only part you understand. But what you dont understand that it can it can never be anything more than a theory because theory is the best you can get in science. A Law is not better than a theory either, as it is a different thing.


It was meant as less of an accusation more of an observation. I cant prove you enjoy being as difficult and as obtuse as you are.


No, read the words Im actually writing. The only way you can stop admitting your error is to pretend Im saying something different so pay attention this time.

We both agree that evolution is a theory, yes, but you say that evolution is only a theory and make out that a Law is higher state of fact than a theory.

never suggested much less stated that law was above anything, only that a theory cannot be and included a stirng of other possibles as well.

This shows you dont understand what a theory in science is. Please do read what people actually write.


You wonder why I tire of you when you say I take you out of context then say the exact same thing again?


And through explaining how you think it could be sorted differently you show you dont know understand how its sorted and why its sorted that way to begin with.

What pray tell does sorting it differently have to do with understanding how it is sorted now? If I tell my son to sort the boxes and cans and he sorts them by number of items and I say try sorting them by tin and paper, how have I demonstrated that I lack understanding of how he is sorting them currently? Haven't I done the opposite, haven't I shown an understanding of what he is doing by acknowledging that there are different ways and suggesting a different way not the same way?

Again with the word "possible". If you mean "viable possibility" then you would be wrong. There is only one viable scientific way, and the reasons why is what people were trying to get you to understand.

Can't show me why until you deal with the evidence that would suggest other viables, and you are so afraid of it, you won't even take the time to find out what that evidence is.

Its not that you say it isnt a Law, I know you say it isnt a law. Its that you say a Law is better than a theory.

Never said it, never suggested it.

If you understood what those terms meant in science you'd know why you'd be wrong to think that.

I don't think it, so I must understand it huh?

None of those rule out God, becuase you cant falsify one becuase a God is said to bend natural laws.

different discussion, after we finish this one maybe

Nope, all you can do is falsify some stories humans have written about them. The gods themselves can still exist for the reason I say above, and we have no way to scientifically falsify them. But logic says we have no reason to consider them either.

see above

I've told you sereral times why people see you as a Creationist, and why your belief about a creation theory being a viable scientific alternative theory to common ancestry defines you as one for me as well.

So your definition of creationist is anyone who thinks that creation is a viable option? Interesting, not consistant with other definitions I have heard, but interesting none the less. So then your are one of the people I have met that thinks that if you are not an evolutionist ditto head, you are creationist by default. Thanks for being honest in your belief, now if you could honestly portray my arguements and views we would be off and running.

Even if you see a difference between magic and the supernatural either way they do not follow natural laws and therefore cannot be studied scientifically. A Creationist is someone who believes God created with the supernatural.

If, a creator exists, then we could expect and test that creation to see if it is consistant with something that is created. theoretically anyway.

Only two replies ago I showed that you were. You said it to Aron.

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.."

way after you brought yourself into the discussion because as previously admitted to, at the time of the assertion that I called you a lier, I didn't even recall what the discussion was suppose to be about. Thus this comment could not have been the one you use to assert that I called you a lier. It would be an impossibility, Deal with it

All you have done is claim I had no reason to think you were talking about me. Even if that were the case, which it isnt, you still did called me a liar, because you were talking about me. So how about you deal with that?

Actually, what I said is that aron was told a lie (a false assertion) (of which is fact), and that brought about false assertions of his own. Thus no where in the comment did I call you a lier, or aron a lier only what you said as being a lie (false statement) I don't know your heart, I don't know why you told this lie, (false statement) you may be guilty of being a lier, I don't know, I can theorize, but I can't know, so if I can't know, then why would I say I do know? You might, I wouldn't it is all about being honest and that honesty is why I believe what I do about origins, because I accept what I don't or can't know in exchange for believing myself to be right in my theories. Deal with it.

 

[razzelflabben]

Except that we do not know how much you know about science, regardless of whether you are a creationist or not. And when using the word 'only' in such a sentence structure, in daily used english this refers to meaning 1 of your dictionary definition. So when you just as it as that, the default position to take is that you meant meaning 1, unless you clarify. You did not clarify anywhere, untill very late. Even when it should have been clear to you from the direction of the discussion that clarification is necesary, you did not bring any.

WEll first let me say percisely, you can't know by someones belief what they know and do not know which is why you ask and not assume, secondly, this discussion is very old and was addressed in depth many times over and still, ed isn't getting it and it hurts me to think that you finally do understand but instead of saying ed your wrong here and helping me get through to him, you continue to assert that I should have been clearer. Communication is a two way street, errors alway mean that something should have been clearer, that is a given, but that it has to go on and on forever, blaming instead of both sides accepting responsibility for falures, is wrong. I accept that I could have been clearer and I was long before this, now, it is time to drop it or take personal responsibility for not asking for clarity and assuming what was not. It might also be a good time to explain to ed the error of his interpretation.

And in scientific discussion, the meaning of the word 'evolution' when talking about biology is the either the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution.

yep, which is why context and perciese meaning is vtal when talking to people who disagree in part or in whole with you.

If someone talks about 'evolution', without any other context added as you did in your response, it can both mean the fact of evolution or the theory of evolution.

Interesting, because I said this before and was told that the meaning in context was not both, so what you are really saying is that context doesn't make a bit of difference what makes the difference is what the interpreter wants to read into it? See ed and I have been round and round on this one and he totally disagrees with you, so either you and he disagree, or what you are saying is that context can mean anything the interpreter wants it to mean without any reason or clarification necessary. Sorry I don't buy that conclusion and I am hoping you don't either.

I am not assuming anything about you Razzel. But if you use phrases in ways other then how they are normally used, this leads to miscommunication. But you cannot lay the blame for this at others, Razzel, whether they make assumptions or not. If you use words in a different way than is normally done in a language,

correction, not normally used in lang. about origins, definitions show them common in lang. the problem you have is how they are used in the normal discussions of evolution and creation. It is this normal origins usage that created much miscommunication on both sides which is why I started the thread about communication, to show that words can have different meanings and assuming one meaning over the other can lead to communication failures, but that point was discarded for reading into what I was saying what was not there. What I am saying is that, just because you don't normally use a word this way doesn't mean that it is not the proper word to use for meaning. And in fact, in the case of evolution only being a theory, I can't think of a more appropriate word and being that many here think I already am too wordy, I try to use words that are appropriate for meaning and condense understanding. apparently that doesn't work either.

you are the one with whom the cause of miscommunication is situated.

I ahve accepted the responsibility that belongs to me.

You cannot expect people to somehow go into a completely different mode of language when talking to one person.

I am not asking them to, I am asking them to consider the context and the appropriate meaning thereof, this is an understood part of communication and if context is not enough, then one asks for clarity.

Thanks.


You didn't say that on this thread. In fact, a number of the posts you gave imply the that you mean the exact opposite.

I have ignored much on this thread because it is ancient history that has no end if ed has his way. Just like when I say I choose A and he goes on about me choosing A or B, there will never be an end because he can't accept that I said I choose A

The problem is that the wording you choose doesn't seem to reflect that you would understand why this is so.

Correction, your interpretation of my posts indicate that I don't understand, the words are clear that I do, why, because words, like it or not have multiply meanings.

I have illustrated that in my last post. That is the reason why people keep trying to correct you, Razzel, because even if you have that understanding, it is not reflected in what you write.

And you didn't recall me saying I accept the possiblity of god/gods/God even though I directly said it 4 times without even looking. Why is that? Is it unclear when I say that I accept that other gods' and religions might be right. Maybe I am unclear when I say that I don't call people liers, that really means that I think everyone here is a lier right? I could go on and on, but that is worthless because you don't want to accept it anyway. I have moments of not being clear, it is a common problem with commuication, no big deal. But it certainly isn't every time I make a post which is what I am accussed of time and time again. I am often very clear and yet misrepresented and accussed falsely, but you do not take responsibility for that or defend me when I am clear, why? If you are above reproach, why not correct others when it is clearly stated, or take responsibiltiy for misreading when it was directly stated? I will take what is mine, and have done so, what is not mine I will not take.

But the problem remains, Razzel, that at least in this thread you have not portrayed a clear understanding of what a theory is. Sure, you have said that the theory of evolution cannot be anything else but a theory, but it's not like this is a claim that is never made by people who do not understand the word theory (in fact, it is a claim as often made by people who do not understand evolution as those who do).

Ah so because some come here and make the satement without understanding theory, then everyone who says evolution is a theory doesn't understand what it means. This is the kind of nonesense I am talking about. You (meaning anyone) cannot have preconcieved ideas and read that into posts expecting to have effective communication. It doesn't work that way. Effective communication can only happen when we accept each individual apart from our preconcieved ideas and beliefs of what they are or what they are saying. You made my point, so am I clear enough now?

In this thread, you have not portrayed such an understanding and your wording implies a misunderstanding of it. As you yourself stated in your reply, you often use words differently then others.

Differently than people on this board use them, not commonly used meanings.

And here lies the problem. If you use words differently than most others, you are not in a position to blame others for the misunderstandings that arise because of that.

I use the common meanings of the words, but not always the way the evolutionists and creationist use them That means, that the blame is two fold, not one sided.