Start communicating

razzelflabben · Apr 25, 2005

It has recently come to my attention that part of the reason that creationist and evolutionists cannot effectively communicate is that there are many different understandings for the same words. So when one person says for example evidence, the other person may not understand it the same way. To help aid communication between the two groups, I wanted to start this thread discussing different understandings of commonly used words or ideas. Because this is not meant to be a debate I would like to ask everyone to refrain from judgements, arguements, critisisms, debates, etc. If you want to debate an idea presented, please start another thread. In other words, ideas and understandings are safe on this thread, if you are unclear as to someones view, please be curtious and non threatening when asking for clarification and let's start communicating. Here are some of the words I would like to see defined by you. It would help to leave our technical definitions in exchange for your ideas as often times interpretations are also subjective.

Creation
Evolution
The theory of creation
The theory of evolution
Speciation
Kind
Theory
Evidence
Scientific method

That's probably to much to start with so feel free to pick and choose. Thanks in advance for keeping this calm and non judgemental.

Valkhorn · Apr 25, 2005

It has recently come to my attention that part of the reason that creationist and evolutionists cannot effectively communicate is that there are many different understandings for the same words

.

Not really. The main reason is that Creationists start with an assumption and try to make up facts to go along with it. Evolutionists take the facts and try to fit a valid theory to it.

You can see why there is a big problem with creationism there.

So when one person says for example evidence, the other person may not understand it the same way.

Not exactly. Most of the time evidence just falls on deaf ears or on those who are unwilling to understand it or educate themselves about it.

To help aid communication between the two groups, I wanted to start this thread discussing different understandings of commonly used words or ideas. Because this is not meant to be a debate I would like to ask everyone to refrain from judgements, arguements, critisisms, debates, etc. If you want to debate an idea presented, please start another thread. In other words, ideas and understandings are safe on this thread, if you are unclear as to someones view, please be curtious and non threatening when asking for clarification and let's start communicating. Here are some of the words I would like to see defined by you. It would help to leave our technical definitions in exchange for your ideas as often times interpretations are also subjective.

While I don't agree with your premise I'll define these words for you:

Creation - the act of creating something

Evolution - a scientific theory which suggests that there is a change in gene frequency and alleles over time and over generations within a given population of organisms.

The theory of creation - there is no theory of creation. When refering to 'creationism' as a literal interpretation of Genesis, it's an assumption that has NEVER been backed up by any physical evidence.

The theory of evolution - see 'Evolution' above.

Speciation - when one group of one species becomes separated by another group of the same species and changes individually enough so that group A can no longer breed with group B. Species can also a highly subjective term.

Kind - there is no concrete definition for this. The only way I've heard creationists to determine 'kinds' was to place an animal in front of a five year old and to let them decide what it is.

Theory - an explaination that fits evidence to the point where it can be used to predict things and to predict how things will work.

Evidence - something that leads to an eventual conclusion

Scientific method - taking the evidence of something, finding out what is factual and what is not, and drawing a conclusion from it. There are also individual stages of this, but you can easily look this up in google.

Ledifni · Apr 25, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Creation
Evolution
The theory of creation
The theory of evolution
Speciation
Kind
Theory
Evidence
Scientific method

That's probably to much to start with so feel free to pick and choose. Thanks in advance for keeping this calm and non judgemental.

But you have to understand something -- this board is for scientific debate about Evolution vs. Creationism. The reason that definitions are often confused is because creationists like to use nonscientific definitions. However, when we are arguing the question of whether creationism is science, the scientific definitions of the above terms are the proper definitions to use. There is no possibility for debate here, or for developing more acceptable definitions. If creationists use religious definitions, they can provide support for creationism within a religious framework, but they still haven't shown that creationism has anything whatsoever to do with science, and their definitions are therefore invalid for this forum.

razzelflabben · Apr 25, 2005

Valkhorn said:
.

The theory of evolution - see 'Evolution' above.

So then you see no difference between evolution and the theory of evolution, correct? Then where does common ancestry come into the picture or do you not believe in common ancestry?

Speciation - when one group of one species becomes separated by another group of the same species and changes individually enough so that group A can no longer breed with group B. Species can also a highly subjective term.

If species is a highly subjective term, can you narrow down your understanding of it, on a personal level? Thanks

Kind - there is no concrete definition for this. The only way I've heard creationists to determine 'kinds' was to place an animal in front of a five year old and to let them decide what it is.

Thanks but that is breaking the rules of the thread, the question is what is your understanding of the word kind. Is your understanding then, that there is not understanding or is your understanding that it is equivalent to setting an animal in front of a 5 year old and let them decide what it is? BTW, my eldest at 5 could probably do this better than most adults that I know but that is totally off topic. Thanks for the contributions.

Theory - an explaination that fits evidence to the point where it can be used to predict things and to predict how things will work.

So then you see theory as explaining what we already have observed rather than something that comes before the observation? Is that what I am reading here?

Evidence - something that leads to an eventual conclusion

Scientific method - taking the evidence of something, finding out what is factual and what is not, and drawing a conclusion from it. There are also individual stages of this, but you can easily look this up in google.

I don't understand, I must have read something wrong, can you clarify this as well, if evidence is an process, how can we take that process and use it to find out what is factual and what is not. There are no conclusions in something that is ongoing. BTW, the point of the thread is to get individuals to discuss their understanding of the words, not simply to look them up on the web and quote the definition.

LittleNipper · Apr 25, 2005

Ledifni said:
But you have to understand something -- this board is for scientific debate about Evolution vs. Creationism. The reason that definitions are often confused is because creationists like to use nonscientific definitions. However, when we are arguing the question of whether creationism is science, the scientific definitions of the above terms are the proper definitions to use. There is no possibility for debate here, or for developing more acceptable definitions. If creationists use religious definitions, they can provide support for creationism within a religious framework, but they still haven't shown that creationism has anything whatsoever to do with science, and their definitions are therefore invalid for this forum.

What the Christian should know has been revealed by GOD. Who the Christian should place first is GOD. Scientific terms must be only applied to what is actually observed by the individual in its entirety. This does not apply to opinion nor interpretation of data. Evoluionists have never seen the progressive change of apes into humans. All that they have are ancient skulls that may belong to extinct apes. Evolutionists are drawing unscientic conclusions based in naturalistic thinking and not in observerable fact.

razzelflabben · Apr 25, 2005

Ledifni said:
But you have to understand something -- this board is for scientific debate about Evolution vs. Creationism. The reason that definitions are often confused is because creationists like to use nonscientific definitions. However, when we are arguing the question of whether creationism is science, the scientific definitions of the above terms are the proper definitions to use. There is no possibility for debate here, or for developing more acceptable definitions. If creationists use religious definitions, they can provide support for creationism within a religious framework, but they still haven't shown that creationism has anything whatsoever to do with science, and their definitions are therefore invalid for this forum.

I fear you are missing the point. The point is, how can we start communicating and stop argueing? It seems to me that the first place to start in this communicating thing is to identify what we are saying and not to assume that we all are saying the same thing. For example, evolution, has many different degrees and ideas, in fact when we look up the definition we see that many things can and do evolve, things like ideas and lang. In fact, I am hoping that this thread will evolve into a communicate board. So dispite our understanding of the words, we all have different pictures or images, different ideas that come to mind when these different words are used. It is important if I am expecting to have a meaningful communication to understand how the words are being used. That is the point of this thread, to open the lines of communication and to start people off on the same page. So far, I am greatly disappointed in the evolutionist attempt to be non judgemental as I asked for in the OP. We'll see if the creationist do any better.

Pete Harcoff · Apr 25, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Evoluionists have never seen the progressive change of apes into humans. All that they have are ancient skulls that may belong to extinct apes. Evolutionists are drawing unscientic conclusions based in naturalistic thinking and not in observerable fact.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you can dismiss anything in the past or that is unobserved directly. It's a rather impractical way to view things, imho.

razzelflabben · Apr 25, 2005

LittleNipper said:
What the Christian should know has been revealed by GOD. Who the Christian should place first is GOD. Scientific terms must be only applied to what is actually observed by the individual in its entirety. This does not apply to opinion nor interpretation of data. Evoluionists have never seen the progressive change of apes into humans. All that they have are ancient skulls that may belong to extinct apes. Evolutionists are drawing unscientic conclusions based in naturalistic thinking and not in observerable fact.

So does this mean that your understanding for evidence is what is directly observed?

razzelflabben · Apr 25, 2005

Pete Harcoff said:
The problem with this line of reasoning is that you can dismiss anything in the past or that is unobserved directly. It's a rather impractical way to view things, imho.

So are you then saying that history cannot be scientifically observed?

Pete Harcoff · Apr 25, 2005

razzelflabben said:
So are you then saying that history cannot be scientifically observed?

No. We can form conclusions about what happened in the past based on observation. However, that is only possible within a certain philosophical framework (i.e. the universe exists, has existed, is relatively consistent, etc). If you abandon that framework, then you can make up any ideas you want about anything. But with no objective framework with which to test such ideas, there's no way to determine which ideas are correct.

For example, LittleNipper argued that since we haven't (directly) observed human evolution, we can't form any reliable conclusions about it. But by that reasoning, the same must be true about anything we can't or haven't observed. And as a consequence, we've just rendered a huge chunk of human knowledge as completely un-reliable.

razzelflabben · Apr 25, 2005

Pete Harcoff said:
No. We can form conclusions about what happened in the past based on observation. However, that is only possible within a certain philosophical framework (i.e. the universe exists, has existed, is relatively consistent, etc). If you abandon that framework, then you can make up any ideas you want about anything. But with no objective framework with which to test such ideas, there's no way to determine which ideas are correct.

Okay, I think I am getting it, so then philosophy and science are the same or are they just closely related?

For example, LittleNipper argued that since we haven't (directly) observed human evolution, we can't form any reliable conclusions about it. But by that reasoning, the same must be true about anything we can't or haven't observed. And as a consequence, we've just rendered a huge chunk of human knowledge as completely un-reliable.

As to this part of the post, I reread littlenipprs post and see nothing in it that says that we can't draw any conclusions without direct observation , at least on the issue of evolution vs. creation.

littlemipper quote: What the Christian should know has been revealed by GOD. Who the Christian should place first is GOD. Scientific terms must be only applied to what is actually observed by the individual in its entirety. This does not apply to opinion nor interpretation of data. Evoluionists have never seen the progressive change of apes into humans. All that they have are ancient skulls that may belong to extinct apes. Evolutionists are drawing unscientic conclusions based in naturalistic thinking and not in observerable fact.

Littlenipper, can you clarify what you are saying for us? Thanks

Valkhorn · Apr 25, 2005

I fear you are missing the point. The point is, how can we start communicating and stop argueing?

No I think you are missing the point. The arguing will only stop when creationists actually listen.

This is a science forum in the strictest sense. Evolution is a science topic - as is the origins of man. Anything else is philosophy and theology.

Philosophy and theology can be argued until the end of time, science usually moves forward and finds some sort of progress. Philosophy only finds means to something else which may or may not solve problems

Valkhorn · Apr 25, 2005

Okay, I think I am getting it, so then philosophy and science are the same or are they just closely related?

Why don't you research it and find out?

You do a lot of assuming before you actually research something from an objective source. When one tries to base everything off of subjective opinions, its easy to get confused - so that may be your trouble.

razzelflabben · Apr 25, 2005

Valkhorn said:
No I think you are missing the point. The arguing will only stop when creationists actually listen.

This is a science forum in the strictest sense. Evolution is a science topic - as is the origins of man. Anything else is philosophy and theology.

Philosophy and theology can be argued until the end of time, science usually moves forward and finds some sort of progress. Philosophy only finds means to something else which may or may not solve problems

Okay, but this proves my point, Pete Harcoff, who appears to be an evolutionist, also appears to see a close connection of some kind between science and philosophy while you apparently don't. Understanding this, helps us to better be able to understand each other and what we are saying to each other.

razzelflabben · Apr 25, 2005

Valkhorn said:
Why don't you research it and find out?

You do a lot of assuming before you actually research something from an objective source. When one tries to base everything off of subjective opinions, its easy to get confused - so that may be your trouble.

Thanks for listening and attempting to communicate with those who you assume disagree with you. Unfortunately we don't all have the same science books to look at and we all know that scientific definitions have changed over time, so your comments though acceptable in light of this threads OP do little to help us communicate. Your participation has been helpful and I would like to thank you for your contributions. Thanks

Pete Harcoff · Apr 25, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Okay, I think I am getting it, so then philosophy and science are the same or are they just closely related?

No, philosophy and science are two different things. Science, however, is based on certain philosophical assumptions.

For example, it's assumed that the universe and its contents exist. If I look at something like the Sun, I assume it exists. I can observe it, make measurements about its physical properties (mass, temperature, and so on), and from this I can make conclusions about it. But the underlying premise is the assumption that it exists.

But what if it doesn't exist? What if the Sun is nothing more than an illusion and all these observations I make about the Sun are based on that illusion? If you abandon the basic philosophical assumption that the Sun exists, you can then make up literally anything you want. The problem is that these ideas are inherently untestable and therefore, don't carry much weight.

It's the same with other sciences. We conclude that humans and chimps share a common ancestor because the evidence points to this conclusion. It could be that this isn't the case and that the evidence is a fabrication. But how would you test that idea? If I argued that humans were poofed into existence 100 years ago and that any evidence to contrary is part of this illusion, could you prove me wrong?

As to this part of the post, I reread littlenipprs post and see nothing in it that says that we can't draw any conclusions without direct observation , at least on the issue of evolution vs. creation.

His objection, however, was that "Evoluionists have never seen the progressive change of apes into humans". He appears to be implying that since it wasn't witnessed directly, we can't form any conclusions based on evidence after the fact.

razzelflabben · Apr 25, 2005

Pete Harcoff said:
No, philosophy and science are two different things. Science, however, is based on certain philosophical assumptions.

For example, it's assumed that the universe and its contents exist. If I look at something like the Sun, I assume it exists. I can observe it, make measurements about its physical properties (mass, temperature, and so on), and from this I can make conclusions about it. But the underlying premise is the assumption that it exists.

But what if it doesn't exist? What if the Sun is nothing more than an illusion and all these observations I make about the Sun are based on that illusion? If you abandon the basic philosophical assumption that the Sun exists, you can then make up literally anything you want. The problem is that these ideas are inherently untestable and therefore, don't carry much weight.

It's the same with other sciences. We conclude that humans and chimps share a common ancestor because the evidence points to this conclusion. It could be that this isn't the case and that the evidence is a fabrication. But how would you test that idea? If I argued that humans were poofed into existence 100 years ago and that any evidence to contrary is part of this illusion, could you prove me wrong?

So then philosophy is only part of science when it results in the testable? Is that about it?

His objection, however, was that "Evoluionists have never seen the progressive change of apes into humans". He appears to be implying that since it wasn't witnessed directly, we can't form any conclusions based on evidence after the fact.

Cool, so you are asking him to clarify his position and not just assuming to know what he is saying. Thanks for keeping with the heart of the thread, it didn't sound like that at first to me, glad to see that someone is getting the ideas of not judging and critisizing but rather simply listening. Listening is an art that few people ever learn, it does my heart good to see someone making the attempt to learn the art of listening.

Edx · Apr 25, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Thanks but that is breaking the rules of the thread, the question is what is your understanding of the word kind. Is your understanding then, that there is not understanding or is your understanding that it is equivalent to setting an animal in front of a 5 year old and let them decide what it is?

He cannot answer the question any other way. The Creationist idea of a "kind" is not a scientific term and Creationists refuse to define it in any meaningfull way.

So then you see theory as explaining what we already have observed rather than something that comes before the observation? Is that what I am reading here?I don't understand, I must have read something wrong, can you clarify this as well, if evidence is an process, how can we take that process and use it to find out what is factual and what is not. There are no conclusions in something that is ongoing.

A theory is a model, it explains and holds facts and evidence and makes predictions. Go here for more on the scientific method, but you can find more information simply by searching in google.
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm

The reason why the process is ongoing is that science assumes there is always more to learn. This is why we had the Theory of Gravity by Newton, but it wasnt totally correct which is why Einstein revised it last century. In the same way Darwin wasnt totally wrong, but he wasnt totally correct either which is why "Darwinian" theories arent the modern Theory on Evolution. Its pointless attacking problems in Darwins theory, just as its pointless attacking problems in Newtons theory of Gravity. See?

Ed

Norseman · Apr 25, 2005

It doesn't matter how many times we put up EVOLUTION!=ATHEISM!=ABIOGENESIS!=POKEMON!=NON-SELF-REPLICATIVE STRUCTURAL EVOLUTION!=LIBERALISM!=A RELIGION

It just never sinks in.

MartinM · Apr 25, 2005

Norseman said:
EVOLUTION!=ATHEISM!=ABIOGENESIS!=POKEMON!=NON-SELF-REPLICATIVE STRUCTURAL EVOLUTION!=LIBERALISM!=A RELIGION

You do realize that you've allowed, for example, EVOLUTION=ABIOGENESIS=A RELIGION, yes?

Start communicating

Contributor

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Contributor

Contributor

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Contributor

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Contributor

Contributor

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Contributor

Senior Veteran

EAC Representative

GondolierAce

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency