Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

I did not and do not claim that we have observed speciation going on indefinitely. I said the conclusion of common ancestry is based on evidence, not an assumption. We have observed evidence of universal common ancestry. We have not observed speciation going on indefinitely.

WEll, I have asked many different people for this evidence and so far all I have found is assumptions. But we can deal with that when we have finished looking at the story of creation on the other thread. I think it would be a good opertunity to simply look at what science can and does know and not what we think we know don't you. What do you think, do away with all the "teachings" beliefs, arguements, and simply look at the evidence for what it is. It's a discussion I would enjoy how about it?

Nor do we need to in order to establish universal common ancestry. What we need is evidence for which there is no other logical explanation. And we do have that evidence.

see above, I have been looking for this evidence for quite some time know since the claim has been repeatedly made. But what I have failed to obtain is this evidence that is claimed. Until that evidence is presented, the claims are hollow.

You didn’t. That’s for sure.
But you did say it was a logical conclusion based on an assumption. That is incorrect. It is a based on evidence.

In the past you as well as others have been asked to provide this evidence and the only thing any of you has presented is inferrances. Why is that? In a discussion about sciences understanding of our origins, all I am interested in is the evidence and not the inferrances of that evidence. The inferrances are important for further exploration, but the inferances are not equivelant to fact and that is what I am looking for, facts that would prove me wrong. No one can provide that evidence. Why? This thread probably isn't the place for it and I can't start another thread at the moment, but I would love to see this evidence you are claiming because so far, the only thing I can honestly say about our origins, is that science does not know for fact. In fact, that is why it is a theory but then if I make that claim I don't understand how a theory comes about or what law is and how it happens, so ignore that it is not law and deal with why it is still considered by science as a theory if it has been evidenced and considered fact.

The point of other theories was noted because if two or more theories can explain the evidence, then we cannot know which is correct and we have no scientific conclusion until more evidence settles the matter. But if universal common ancestry is the only explanation for the evidence, then it is the only scientifically valid option---unless and until someone figures out a different way to explain the evidence.

My only claim was that it was not fact. Just because I can't think up another explaination doesn't mean there isn't an explaination. IOW, we can't assume fact just because we don't know how else to explain it. That is pethetic. "It's fact because we don't know how else to explain it". Nonsense. What I claimed is that without observation, we can't claim it to be fact. As so the observations, You have had oppertunity to present observations of universal common ancestry and all you have done is show inferrances of other observations. The difference between what I am saying and what you are saying seems to be that I'm not afraid to admit that science hasn't observed universal common ancestry . I'm guessing the root of the difference is that I don't have to defend claims of fact where fact does not exist. Of course that means that creation, cloning, intelligent design, etc. are also not evidenced by science, and I can accept that, which is why my claim is and always has been that science doesn't yet know what our origins are. No big deal. Oh well, I have ranted enough when things slow down and you are ready, you can show me all this supposed evidence of universal common ancestry.

Yes, that is what you said. But it is not a conclusion based on an assumption. It is a conclusion based on evidence. So, it is a fact---unless there is some other way to account for the evidence.

Read your own words, it is a conclusion, not a fact. My claim is that it is not a fact. inferrances are not fact, and if the conclusion is based on our assumptions of the evidence, the claim of fact is even weaker yet.

 

[razzelflabben]

It is not observed as being blocked at any point either and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

The problem with this challenge is that I didn't claim that we have observed a blocked point. My claim is that scientificly, we don't know. We haven't observed if it is blocked at some point or not. So it is not fact that it goes on forever, but rather is not known.

 

[razzelflabben]

if there had been scientists around for the last 3.5billion years this would be possible, maybe. the hypothesis has no way of being confirmed, and you know it, and that is why you insist on this particular formulation of it.

science doesn't play word games in this manner, it phrases it's hypothesis so that real work can be done. It is obvious that to observe the last 3.5 B years is impossible. Does that mean that it didn't happen? no. it means that you have biased the question so that it is not answerable. shame on you, this doesn't lead either to a discussion nor to any understanding.

however my alternative way of phrasing the same question does lead to a testable hypothesis. look for a genetic stop. look for a kinds barrier. look for a reason for your speciation can not continue forever.

they could exist. for instance, a different genetic code for every kind. at the level of tRNA, make each kind have its own code. no doubt about it, a kinds barrier to further speciation.

but i am curious about why you would insist on the impossible when i've shown you a perfectly equivalent testable hypothesis. ignorance is one thing, but deliberate evasion is yet another. deal with what science can talk about. your assumption(?) of speciation can not continue forever is not only not an assumption (it is a theory with good evidence that all life is continuous at the genetic level) but your way of wording it leads nowhere but to confusion and sloppy thinking.


....

My claim is that what we don't know to be fact cannot be claimed as fact. That is the long, short, simple and conplexity of the claim. I hear so many people claim that the theory of evolution is fact, universal common ancestry is fact. The problem is, no matter how well formulated the theory is, universal common ancestry and thus the toe is not fact. No problem, or at least it shouldn't be a problem for the scientific minded, but it seems to be. why do you think that is?

Okay, next subject, you want to look for a stopping point, tell me what base line we are working with? What "control group" are we basing our study on. What does the stopping point look like and then we can look at the published evidence. What tests show a stopping point genetically?

 

[gluadys]

WEll, I have asked many different people for this evidence and so far all I have found is assumptions. But we can deal with that when we have finished looking at the story of creation on the other thread. I think it would be a good opertunity to simply look at what science can and does know and not what we think we know don't you. What do you think, do away with all the "teachings" beliefs, arguements, and simply look at the evidence for what it is. It's a discussion I would enjoy how about it?

I think it would be indeed worthwhile to look at what science knows.

see above, I have been looking for this evidence for quite some time know since the claim has been repeatedly made. But what I have failed to obtain is this evidence that is claimed. Until that evidence is presented, the claims are hollow.

I think it is more the case that you do not understand how conclusions are drawn from evidence. The evidence has been presented to you many times, but you don’t seem to be able to connect the evidence to the scientific conclusions. So you don’t see why the evidence presented is relevant.

In the past you as well as others have been asked to provide this evidence and the only thing any of you has presented is inferrances. Why is that? In a discussion about sciences understanding of our origins, all I am interested in is the evidence and not the inferrances of that evidence.

In order for evidence to have meaning, one must look at the inferences as well as the data.

The inferrances are important for further exploration, but the inferances are not equivelant to fact and that is what I am looking for, facts that would prove me wrong. No one can provide that evidence. Why? This thread probably isn't the place for it and I can't start another thread at the moment, but I would love to see this evidence you are claiming because so far, the only thing I can honestly say about our origins, is that science does not know for fact.

When you are ready to start a thread dealing strictly with the evidence and the theory of evolution, we can do that. Before then, we need some assurance that we are on the same page with scientific terminology and scientific method.

In fact, that is why it is a theory

Case in point. You are using the word “theory” here incorrectly. The word you should be using in this context is “hypothesis”. A hypothesis is an untested, unsupported theory. Evolution was once a hypothesis. But it is no longer untested or unsupported. In fact it is well-supported by the evidence. And that is why it is a theory.

but then if I make that claim I don't understand how a theory comes about or what law is and how it happens, so ignore that it is not law and deal with why it is still considered by science as a theory if it has been evidenced and considered fact.

A theory is the end point, not the beginning point, of scientific work. Scientists work toward creating a theory that explains evidence, observations and laws. So, you see you are not using scientific terminology when you speak of something being “still a theory”. Scientific ideas graduate into being theories. When they get to be theories, it means they are accepted as very probably being fact.

My only claim was that it was not fact. Just because I can't think up another explaination doesn't mean there isn't an explaination. IOW, we can't assume fact just because we don't know how else to explain it.

But science works in the present, not the future. Remember that all that science claims for any of its theories is that it is the best explanation we have given currently available evidence. So if you don’t have a better theory to offer now, or new evidence to offer now, then science is right. This theory is the best we have now.

Read your own words, it is a conclusion, not a fact. My claim is that it is not a fact. inferrances are not fact, and if the conclusion is based on our assumptions of the evidence, the claim of fact is even weaker yet.

Woah, woah. There you go again, putting words into my mouth. I did not say the conclusions were based on our assumptions of the evidence. I said the scientific conclusions are based on the evidence. The evidence. Not assumptions of the evidence. The evidence itself. Please get that through your head.

When a conclusion is the only possible conclusion, that is as close to fact as you can get. Remember, the aim of a theory is to explain evidence. The theory of evolution explains a lot of evidence. Creationism does not. ID does not. That is why the theory of evolution is science and the others are not.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think it would be indeed worthwhile to look at what science knows.

I think it is more the case that you do not understand how conclusions are drawn from evidence. The evidence has been presented to you many times, but you don’t seem to be able to connect the evidence to the scientific conclusions. So you don’t see why the evidence presented is relevant.

My claim is not if the conclusions are sound or not, but rather what science does and does not know. What is fact and what is not. Evolutionist claim fact but evidence this fact with conclusions based on evidences. Conclusions, are inferrances and depending of the chosen definition, assumptions, suggestions, speculations, etc. None of which equal fact. That is the problem. If you are going to claim that universal common ancestry is scientific fact, then I will ask you to evidence such. YOu don't. At the level we are talking (scientific fact or theory), I have no interest in what inferrances science can make because the claim is not about inferrances but rather about fact. Conculsions are inferrances. After we see fact, we can discuss how probable the inferrances/conclusions are, but the claims are for evidence/fact and not conclusions or inferrances, and so you must show the evidence and not the conclusion or inferrance since that is your claim. Or you can change your claim. Either way, you have fallen short of evidencing your claim that universal common ancestry is fact. Systematic approach, that is science, systematic. If you have evidence/fact that universal common ancestry is fact, simply present it and move on, but don't expect me to accept conclusions/inferrances as fact because put as simply as possible, they aren't.

In order for evidence to have meaning, one must look at the inferences as well as the data.

But the data can and often does speak for itself. For example, we know that we share common genes with chimps, What inferrances do we need to make to determine that the tests show that we share common genes with chimps? NONE, it stands for it's own claims. Inferrances help us to understand the evidence but inferrances may or may not be fact. And your cliam has been fact.

When you are ready to start a thread dealing strictly with the evidence and the theory of evolution, we can do that. Before then, we need some assurance that we are on the same page with scientific terminology and scientific method.

we can tackle it when these two are finished.

Case in point. You are using the word “theory” here incorrectly. The word you should be using in this context is “hypothesis”. A hypothesis is an untested, unsupported theory. Evolution was once a hypothesis. But it is no longer untested or unsupported. In fact it is well-supported by the evidence. And that is why it is a theory.

No, you are assuming I am using it wrong because you want to read the arguement differently than it is being presented. Evolution is evidenced, accepted many moons ago, what is not evidenced is universal common ancestry aka the theory of evolution. If the claim is that evolution is not evidenced, then you would be correct, the word should be hypothesis, but it is accepted that evolution (the process) is evidenced, it is the theory that is not.

A theory is the end point, not the beginning point, of scientific work. Scientists work toward creating a theory that explains evidence, observations and laws. So, you see you are not using scientific terminology when you speak of something being “still a theory”. Scientific ideas graduate into being theories. When they get to be theories, it means they are accepted as very probably being fact.

No problem. I get theory, you don't seem to when you claim that theory is fact. My challenge to you is your claim that the theory of evolution is fact, not evolution the process.

But science works in the present, not the future. Remember that all that science claims for any of its theories is that it is the best explanation we have given currently available evidence. So if you don’t have a better theory to offer now, or new evidence to offer now, then science is right. This theory is the best we have now.

I didn't dispute if the theory of evolution is the most sound theory for our origins, more on that later when the original claim is cleared up. What I claimed is that the claim that the toe is fact, is grossly exaggerated.

Woah, woah. There you go again, putting words into my mouth. I did not say the conclusions were based on our assumptions of the evidence. I said the scientific conclusions are based on the evidence. The evidence. Not assumptions of the evidence. The evidence itself. Please get that through your head.

Your right, and I didn't say that you said that conclusions ae based on our assumptions, I said that much of the evidence presented that supposedly is evidence of uca (universal common ancestry) is conclusions based on assumptions.

When a conclusion is the only possible conclusion, that is as close to fact as you can get. Remember, the aim of a theory is to explain evidence. The theory of evolution explains a lot of evidence. Creationism does not. ID does not. That is why the theory of evolution is science and the others are not.

Close to fact maybe that isn't the discussion. The discussion is what is fact. conclusions and assumptions and inferrances are not fact. We can discuss the other theories and how they match up, but we first must deal with the claims that the toe aka universal common ancestry is fact. If you don't understand the basics, you can't possibly comprehend what you are trying so hard to get me to believe. Go back to the beginning and look at it systematically.

 

[gluadys]

My claim is not if the conclusions are sound or not, but rather what science does and does not know. What is fact and what is not. Evolutionist claim fact but evidence this fact with conclusions based on evidences. Conclusions, are inferrances and depending of the chosen definition, assumptions, suggestions, speculations, etc. None of which equal fact. That is the problem. If you are going to claim that universal common ancestry is scientific fact, then I will ask you to evidence such. YOu don't. At the level we are talking (scientific fact or theory), I have no interest in what inferrances science can make because the claim is not about inferrances but rather about fact. Conculsions are inferrances. After we see fact, we can discuss how probable the inferrances/conclusions are, but the claims are for evidence/fact and not conclusions or inferrances, and so you must show the evidence and not the conclusion or inferrance since that is your claim. Or you can change your claim. Either way, you have fallen short of evidencing your claim that universal common ancestry is fact. Systematic approach, that is science, systematic. If you have evidence/fact that universal common ancestry is fact, simply present it and move on, but don't expect me to accept conclusions/inferrances as fact because put as simply as possible, they aren't.

Ok. I begin to see where you are coming from. You want a clear distinction to be made between data and what scientific conclusions can be made on the basis of the data, right?

Now, let me ask you this. You are aware, right, that science is more than a collection of data. The point of science is to determine what the data means.

Sometimes there can be various ideas of what the data means. But sometimes, there is only one possible meaning that makes sense of the data.

In the second case, where the data is fact, and the data fits into only one possible meaning, science generally considers that one possible meaning to be fact as well.

Is this what you are objecting to?

But the data can and often does speak for itself. For example, we know that we share common genes with chimps, What inferrances do we need to make to determine that the tests show that we share common genes with chimps? NONE, it stands for it's own claims.

Right. That is data, fact. No one who examines the chimp genome and the human genome will dispute that we share most of our genes.

Now the question is: what does this mean? Or to phrase it another way: how do we explain this fact?

That is where we hypothesize until we come up with a solution that best fits the evidence. At that point we have a theory based on the facts, and so well supported that it is usually treated as a fact itself, and becomes the basis for asking and answering other questions.

Inferrances help us to understand the evidence but inferrances may or may not be fact. And your cliam has been fact.

And that is why inferrences are tested: to determine whether or not they are fact. Some tests will establish beyond question that the inference is not fact. Others will establish to a very high level of confidence that the inference is probably fact (to a level of 99.99%+) and can be safely treated as fact.

No, you are assuming I am using it wrong because you want to read the arguement differently than it is being presented. Evolution is evidenced, accepted many moons ago, what is not evidenced is universal common ancestry aka the theory of evolution. If the claim is that evolution is not evidenced, then you would be correct, the word should be hypothesis, but it is accepted that evolution (the process) is evidenced, it is the theory that is not.

But you are presenting the argument incorrectly. For example, the theory of evolution is not limited to the conclusion of universal common ancestry. That is almost a footnote to the theory. The theory of evolution is primarily about the mechanisms of evolution (mutations, genetic drift, differential reproductive success, assortative mating, etc.) and speciation. In short, the theory of evolution is about the process of evolution. If it were proven that there are 20 universal common ancestors and not just one, it would not affect the theory of evolution at all, because universal common ancestry is not an essential component of the theory of evolution. It is simply a conclusion which the evidence points to.

No problem. I get theory, you don't seem to when you claim that theory is fact. My challenge to you is your claim that the theory of evolution is fact, not evolution the process.

I don't claim theory is fact. I claim that a well-supported theory, one for which the likelihood of its truth is in the neighbourhood of 99.99% may, to all intents and purposes, be treated as fact.

I didn't dispute if the theory of evolution is the most sound theory for our origins, more on that later when the original claim is cleared up. What I claimed is that the claim that the toe is fact, is grossly exaggerated.

In other words, you don't think the theory of evolution has been established to the level of certainty most scientists give it. You would allow it maybe 50% or even less certainty, right?

That is a fair statement and can only be answered by looking at the evidence and the possible ways that the evidence can be explained. I do think, however, that you need more understanding of how scientific method links fact to theory, evidence to explanation of evidence.

Your right, and I didn't say that you said that conclusions ae based on our assumptions, I said that much of the evidence presented that supposedly is evidence of uca (universal common ancestry) is conclusions based on assumptions.

And you are still wrong. It is based on evidence.

Close to fact maybe that isn't the discussion. The discussion is what is fact. conclusions and assumptions and inferrances are not fact. We can discuss the other theories and how they match up, but we first must deal with the claims that the toe aka universal common ancestry is fact. If you don't understand the basics, you can't possibly comprehend what you are trying so hard to get me to believe. Go back to the beginning and look at it systematically.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse by focusing on universal common ancestry. Getting to that conclusion depends on understanding the theory of evolution in relation to the process of evolution. That, after all, is mostly what the theory is about. It also means understanding how we get from fact to theory, and how theory is supported by evidence.

If you understand, for example, how the theory of evolution explains speciation, and how speciation explains the relationship between chimps and humans, birds and dinosaurs, whales and hippos, then you have a basis for evaluating the evidence for universal common ancestry.

Right now you are looking for evidence before you know how to give meaning to the evidence.

 

[razzelflabben]

Ok. I begin to see where you are coming from. You want a clear distinction to be made between data and what scientific conclusions can be made on the basis of the data, right?

No, what I want is for those who claim that the toe is fact to back up thier claim. Instead all they do is show evidence of speciation and thus conclusion for the toe. Conclusions don't equal fact. Remember the part of the discussion when we were talking about theory and that theory is just theory. Okay. Evolutionists try to make it sound like the toe has no theory left in it, that it is all fact. Now if you want to we can look at the history of science and find out why this idea is flawed. History is full of cases where the scientific population thought that something was fact, only to discover later that they were wrong. And these were great minds. So, what I am asking you and other evolutionists to do is call it what it is, not pretend it to be something it isn't. Is the toe theory (based on fact) or is it fact (based on theory)? You and others have claimed that the toe is fact. I challenge you to back up your claims. To which your claim is I don't understand theory or science or other stuff. If I didn't understand science or theory, why would I hold you to your claim? It is because I understand it that I challenge you to show that the toe is fact and not "just" theory. (Theory for the bagillianth time, inferrances based on empirical observations, facts). Back up your claims that toe is indeed fact.

Now, let me ask you this. You are aware, right, that science is more than a collection of data. The point of science is to determine what the data means.

Right, that is why theory is important to science.

Sometimes there can be various ideas of what the data means. But sometimes, there is only one possible meaning that makes sense of the data.

In the second case, where the data is fact, and the data fits into only one possible meaning, science generally considers that one possible meaning to be fact as well.

And history has repeatedly shown this to be a false assumption. It is something that science must deal with and is infact why so many of the scientific papers are quick to point out that the evidence is not evidence for..... but rather that is suggests....... But the evolutionist, including you, fail to acknowledge this, resorting to claims of fact instead. So if the theory of evolution is fact, and not theory, then prove it. That is all I have asked for. It should be an easy thing if I don't understand the evidence or science but you can't seem to do it why?

Is this what you are objecting to?

What I am objecting to is the claim that you and others have made at one time or another that the toe is fact. The whole point of having a theory is to offer an explaination for the observations, which in essense means that by purpose of theory, it is not nor can it be fact. Call it what it is and don't pretend it is something that it isn't and yes, you have claimed it to be fact on more than one occasion.

Right. That is data, fact. No one who examines the chimp genome and the human genome will dispute that we share most of our genes.

Now the question is: what does this mean? Or to phrase it another way: how do we explain this fact?

But you always want to come back to this, conclusions are not fact, that is why we have theory. The challenge is to back up your claim that the toe is fact. If you can't, just admit that the claim was inflated and try to refrain from making the claim in the future. If you can back up the claim that the toe is fact, then do so and stop with all the inferrance nonsense.

That is where we hypothesize until we come up with a solution that best fits the evidence. At that point we have a theory based on the facts, and so well supported that it is usually treated as a fact itself, and becomes the basis for asking and answering other questions.

see above about history of science.

And that is why inferrences are tested: to determine whether or not they are fact. Some tests will establish beyond question that the inference is not fact. Others will establish to a very high level of confidence that the inference is probably fact (to a level of 99.99%+) and can be safely treated as fact.

see above as well here.

But you are presenting the argument incorrectly. For example, the theory of evolution is not limited to the conclusion of universal common ancestry. That is almost a footnote to the theory. The theory of evolution is primarily about the mechanisms of evolution (mutations, genetic drift, differential reproductive success, assortative mating, etc.) and speciation. In short, the theory of evolution is about the process of evolution. If it were proven that there are 20 universal common ancestors and not just one, it would not affect the theory of evolution at all, because universal common ancestry is not an essential component of the theory of evolution. It is simply a conclusion which the evidence points to.

You are right, the toe is not limited to uca, however, two things are missing in your arguement here. 1. uca is the one point that is usually in question/debate 2. If the theory was only about evolution, it would be the theory of speciation and not the theory of evolution. IOW"s the theory is not limited to speciation/evolution, but goes beyond and therefore, our discussion must include this going beyond. Sorry, that is the problem with the toe being considered scientific, because it deals with history which is not scientific, but that is another discussion and for the moment we are assuming the toe to be scientific.

I don't claim theory is fact. I claim that a well-supported theory, one for which the likelihood of its truth is in the neighbourhood of 99.99% may, to all intents and purposes, be treated as fact.

You have claimed it to be fact many times now which is why I ask you to evidence your claims and you know what, I don't think I have talked to an evolutionist yet that hasn't made the claim at one time or other which is why I bring up the subject. You (all) claim that I don't understand theory if I call it "just theory" I am telling you that if you think that theory is fact, you have not understanding of what theory is. Theory is based on fact, but is not in and of itself fact. So what I am asking for is that evolutionist call it what it is. Nothing more nothing less.

In other words, you don't think the theory of evolution has been established to the level of certainty most scientists give it. You would allow it maybe 50% or even less certainty, right?

I don't know what % to give it at this time, I am still waiting for you and others to present the evidence that moves the toe to fact and not theory. The whole point of scientific theory is to offer an explaination for the evidence, it is not evidence itself. So if yours and others claims is that the toe is evidenced, I would love to see the evidence.

That is a fair statement and can only be answered by looking at the evidence and the possible ways that the evidence can be explained. I do think, however, that you need more understanding of how scientific method links fact to theory, evidence to explanation of evidence.

But you must understand this, how it can be explained is not fact, but what is possible.

And you are still wrong. It is based on evidence.

If I am wrong, then show the evidence that leaves the toe fact and not theory at all.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse by focusing on universal common ancestry. Getting to that conclusion depends on understanding the theory of evolution in relation to the process of evolution. That, after all, is mostly what the theory is about. It also means understanding how we get from fact to theory, and how theory is supported by evidence.

see above

If you understand, for example, how the theory of evolution explains speciation, and how speciation explains the relationship between chimps and humans, birds and dinosaurs, whales and hippos, then you have a basis for evaluating the evidence for universal common ancestry.

How it is explained is not "fact/evidence/truth" that is the problem. The toe is still theory. As long as it is theory, it is not fact, but rather inferrances/speculation/assumptions/guesses etc. you have claimed it to be fact, so show me the evidence that makes it fact.

Right now you are looking for evidence before you know how to give meaning to the evidence.

I understand how to theorize, that is the problem. Theory is not fact because it is inferrances on the facts and not the facts themselves. That understand of theory is why I ask you and others to show the evidence that makes the toe fact. By definition it is not fact, yet you and others have claimed such. Sometimes in the same posts where you admit that we cannot observe universal common ancestry. Your words contridict each other and I am holding you to your claims. Go figure!

 

[gluadys]

Is the toe theory (based on fact) or is it fact (based on theory)?

The theory of evolution is a theory which explains the facts of evolution and is supported by many lines of evidence. It is really important to get into your head that a theory is an explanation.

You and others have claimed that the toe is fact.

I don't know about others, but to the best of my recollection, I have never said the theory of evolution is a fact. I have said many times that evolution (meaning the observed changes in species due to mutation, natural selection and other mechanisms) is fact, because it is.

The whole point of having a theory is to offer an explaination for the observations, which in essense means that by purpose of theory, it is not nor can it be fact.

Exactly. Of course the theory can be true. And most people consider what is true to be fact. But it would be better to say the theory is well-supported by the evidence. And the theory of evolution is very well-supported by the evidence.

You are right, the toe is not limited to uca, however, two things are missing in your arguement here. 1. uca is the one point that is usually in question/debate 2. If the theory was only about evolution, it would be the theory of speciation and not the theory of evolution.

Point 2 is not correct. The theory of evolution is not only about speciation.

IOW"s the theory is not limited to speciation/evolution, but goes beyond and therefore, our discussion must include this going beyond.

Actually there is nothing beyond speciation to go to. Everything "beyond" is a matter of tracing the history of speciations, in much the same way as a geneologist traces a history of births, marriages, and deaths.

The whole point of scientific theory is to offer an explaination for the evidence, it is not evidence itself. So if yours and others claims is that the toe is evidenced, I would love to see the evidence.

Ok, you have used this word "evidenced" many times. It is not a scientific term, but I haven't bothered with it because (unusually for you) the meaning seemed clear. However, now I have to ask what you mean by this?


I would say the theory of evolution is "evidenced". By this I mean that it explains a wealth of facts and is supported by a great deal of evidence.

This does not mean that I am claiming the theory of evolution is a fact. It is a theory supported by evidence. That is what I took "evidenced" to mean.

You seem to be saying here that "evidenced" means it is a fact. Is that how you intend "evidenced" to be understood. Because if it is, I have not been interpreting your question properly. I never intended any claim that the theory of evolution is "evidenced" to include the claim that the theory is fact.

What I have meant is that the theory --as theory--is supported by evidence.

If I am wrong, then show the evidence that leaves the toe fact and not theory at all.

You will not be shown that, because that would be to confuse fact and theory. They are separate concepts. You can be shown many facts that support the theory. You can be shown that evolution is a fact. But the theory is theory. Theories never "graduate" into being fact.

OTOH, there can be so much evidence in favour of a theory that it is accepted as being true. The theory of evolution is such a theory.

 

[razzelflabben]

The theory of evolution is a theory which explains the facts of evolution and is supported by many lines of evidence. It is really important to get into your head that a theory is an explanation.

It is because I understand theory that I can make the claims I do, you need to understand this. One thing you have yet to figure out about me, and I can only assume it is because of how we first met, I am not pushing any agenda other than that people speak honestly about the issue of our origins. IOW, only what is fact is called fact, and nothing is worded in a way as to cloud that point. This would thus allow communication to prevail and maybe, just maybe there can be a compromise that would allow the arguement to fade into a discussion with more predictions and more testing and more learning and more facts, rather than a battle to see who can use thier theory to explain the most evidence the fastest thus claiming to be the better explaination. It shouldn't be a race, a manipulation, a fight, but rather a simple exchange of ideals, but that is the idalistic world, and so we trudge on...

I don't know about others, but to the best of my recollection, I have never said the theory of evolution is a fact. I have said many times that evolution (meaning the observed changes in species due to mutation, natural selection and other mechanisms) is fact, because it is.

Actually dear friend (hopefully you are not offended by me considering you a friend) there have been many times when I have been talking about the toe and as you remember and review, you will see that I rarely if ever use the word evolution when I am referring to the toe, and you are replying to the post in which I am talking about the toe and thus, you say something to the effect that evolution is fact. Now I can only assume from this that you 1. don't understand theory, 2. don't read or respond to what I am saying to you, or 3. you are talking about the toe. Now, my problem with 1 above, is that you have shown some knowledge of theory and science. In fact, a rather good understanding of such, so we can throw 1 out. The problem with 2 is that you claim that you read my posts and respond accordingly and since I have never seen someone use the terms toe to mean evolution, but that the term evolution often is used to mean toe, then I must either not believe what you are saying about addressing my posts or move on to 3. The third reason for your comments is that you have claimed that the toe is fact. Now you may not have intended to do so, but it is a claim you have made according to the above possible explainations. If you would like to offer another expolaination, we can review it, but what you must understand, is that I only make claims that I know I can back up with evidence. You seem to think less of me, thus claiming that I know nothing about science. In fact, I know enough about science to make more accurate claims than you do, because, I choose my claims very carefully and will choose my battles based on what I know I can prove. In fact, this is one place my husband gets very angry at me, because when we argue, I always win, not because I am always right, but because if I am wrong or might be wrong, I won't argue. This discussion is the same, and I suspect that is the root of the problem on this thread. You and others here are so ready to prove me wrong because I don't mimic the evolutionist arguements that you never take the time to listen to what I am claiming.

Exactly. Of course the theory can be true. And most people consider what is true to be fact. But it would be better to say the theory is well-supported by the evidence. And the theory of evolution is very well-supported by the evidence.

and you have said this before, and I agree with the above statement, the problem is that you have made other claims as well, in addition, the above can be misleading for those who do not undersand what evidence is, what fact is, what truth is, how science works, what theory is, etc. That is why this thread was started, to get people to stop making assumptions and start talking to the point that we can find out what they know and what they don't, what they are claiming and what they intend to claim, etc. What is the root of the debate? Grandious claims to the root have been provided on this thread but few if any here, have taken the time to find out the root. In fact, what is the root of the disagreement between you and I? Can you answer that question? It has been laid out many times and many ways and at times very clearly. Do you know? If you don't, how can you hope to find some understanding in our disagreements?How do you expect to have effective communication?

Point 2 is not correct. The theory of evolution is not only about speciation.

But once agian, you missed the point, 1 and 2 were possible explainations for your claims, not both are the right answer. of course point 2 is not correct,but that is why uca is included in a discussion about the toe. That is how we know, because point 2 is incorrect.

Actually there is nothing beyond speciation to go to. Everything "beyond" is a matter of tracing the history of speciations, in much the same way as a geneologist traces a history of births, marriages, and deaths.

That moves the toe into a theory of history not science. From earlier claims you have made, I don't think you want to go there because as you have admitted, history is not science. evolution/speciation can be scientific and we can approach history scientifically, but the toe when including the history of our "origins" (origins of the species), removes the theory from the realm of scientific theory and places it into the realm of history. And we have already asked a historian if history was science and the answer was NO. We already examined the possibility of history being empirical (the definition of science) and the answer was NO. What part of hisory as not being science do you want to look into next?

Ok, you have used this word "evidenced" many times. It is not a scientific term, but I haven't bothered with it because (unusually for you) the meaning seemed clear. However, now I have to ask what you mean by this?

Had a big long debate on this on this very thread, I can summerize but I fear it would start the arguement all over again rather than moving forward. And by the way, evolutionists use the term evidence when discussion science all the time and therefore should have a percise definition. How about if you try to come up with one for us since you are so much better at such things than I am.

I would say the theory of evolution is "evidenced". By this I mean that it explains a wealth of facts and is supported by a great deal of evidence.

This does not mean that I am claiming the theory of evolution is a fact. It is a theory supported by evidence. That is what I took "evidenced" to mean.

You seem to be saying here that "evidenced" means it is a fact. Is that how you intend "evidenced" to be understood. Because if it is, I have not been interpreting your question properly. I never intended any claim that the theory of evolution is "evidenced" to include the claim that the theory is fact.

What I have meant is that the theory --as theory--is supported by evidence.

I won't ask you to back up this claim because I know this to be true, and in fact, this is not where you and I disagree, nor have we ever disagreed on this claim. It is other claims you have made that I was holding you to, and I guess the only thing can say to this explaination, is, please be sure that you claims match this understanding and we will be in accord.

You will not be shown that, because that would be to confuse fact and theory. They are separate concepts. You can be shown many facts that support the theory. You can be shown that evolution is a fact. But the theory is theory. Theories never "graduate" into being fact.

Then the claim needs to stop being made and in addition to this claim no longer being made, evolutionists need to stop making thier arguements sound like they are claiming otherwise. The only claim I have ever made is that the toe is not fact. Go figure, another claim Razz has made that you admit is accurate and yet you want to argue with me because I don't know what I'm talking about. This is becoming an all to familiare pattern of these creation/evolution threads.

OTOH, there can be so much evidence in favour of a theory that it is accepted as being true. The theory of evolution is such a theory.

It can, but history has shown that what science accepts as being true often is not in fact truth which is why it is important to understand what science knows as fact/truth and what they might believe to be fact/truth. Oh no, there is that word believe again, now we will have a long agument about how our understanding of the toe is not a belief but instead fact/truth, even though theory is not fact/truth. Oh boy we get another multiple pages of debate over the proper use of a word that evolutionist don't like because it pokes a hole in the idealist world they have created for themselves, can't wait, bring it on.

 

[gluadys]

It is because I understand theory that I can make the claims I do, you need to understand this. One thing you have yet to figure out about me, and I can only assume it is because of how we first met, I am not pushing any agenda other than that people speak honestly about the issue of our origins.

I understand that better since your last post. I agree with you: facts should be called facts and theory should be called theory. Theory should not be called fact.

What I am not sure of yet, however, is whether you agree that theory can be true. It is wrong to call the theory of evolution fact. But given the evidence for it, it is not wrong to say that the theory of evolution can be treated as true.

IOW, to say that the theory of evolution is fact would not be speaking honestly.
But to say that the theory of evolution is almost certainly true is speaking honestly.

Agreed?

Actually dear friend (hopefully you are not offended by me considering you a friend) there have been many times when I have been talking about the toe and as you remember and review, you will see that I rarely if ever use the word evolution when I am referring to the toe, and you are replying to the post in which I am talking about the toe and thus, you say something to the effect that evolution is fact.

I did say “to the best of my recollection” I have followed the practice of only referring to the process and history of evolution as a fact. I don’t doubt that I have slipped up from time to time.

and I agree with the above statement,

You do? That surprises me---but pleasantly.

What is the root of the debate? Grandious claims to the root have been provided on this thread but few if any here, have taken the time to find out the root. In fact, what is the root of the disagreement between you and I? Can you answer that question? It has been laid out many times and many ways and at times very clearly. Do you know? If you don't, how can you hope to find some understanding in our disagreements?How do you expect to have effective communication?

Given the preceding statement, I am no longer sure why there is a debate between you and me. But I would hazard a guess that you believe the toc is just as well supported by the evidence as the theory of evolution and just as likely to be true. If this is so, you are wrong. But I am only making a guess at your belief here, so you will have to confirm or deny.

But once agian, you missed the point, 1 and 2 were possible explainations for your claims, not both are the right answer. of course point 2 is not correct,but that is why uca is included in a discussion about the toe. That is how we know, because point 2 is incorrect.

I am not sure what you are saying. Now you seem to be implying that speciation is not a fact, or that the theory of evolution is not about speciation at all.

The theory of evolution certainly does talk about speciation, and I agree that speciation leads by analogy to the concept of a universal common ancestor. But what I said about point 2 being incorrect is not that. I said that the theory of evolution is not limited to speciation and common ancestry or universal common ancestry. The theory of evolution is mostly about how genetics and mutations and natural selection (together with some other mechanisms) bring about changes in species over time.

That moves the toe into a theory of history not science. From earlier claims you have made, I don't think you want to go there because as you have admitted, history is not science.

History is not science. But the scientific study of history is science. That is why archeology, geology, astronomy, etc. are sciences. The actual events of evolution form the history of evolution. The scientific study of the history of evolution is science. And it tells us what the history of evolution was.

Had a big long debate on this on this very thread, I can summerize but I fear it would start the arguement all over again rather than moving forward. And by the way, evolutionists use the term evidence when discussion science all the time and therefore should have a percise definition. How about if you try to come up with one for us since you are so much better at such things than I am.

Science does use the word “evidence” very frequently, but it seldom if ever uses the word “evidenced”. I don’t know how we could have had a debate about it since I never raised this point before. It was only when you said something recently that led me to think I was not understanding your meaning that I raised it.

It is important to keep our communications clear, right? So please clarify for me what you mean by “evidenced”. And why you insist that the theory of evolution, especially in regard to a universal common ancestor has not been “evidenced”?

Then the claim needs to stop being made and in addition to this claim no longer being made, evolutionists need to stop making thier arguements sound like they are claiming otherwise.

I will make sure in the future that I refer to the theory of evolution as being “true” (rather than “fact”) because it is so well supported by the evidence, and will encourage other evolutionists to do likewise. I can’t do more than that. Is that acceptable?

It can, but history has shown that what science accepts as being true often is not in fact truth

Actual truth, and what we think is truth, may be different things. One of the important things to understand about science is that it never makes claims to knowing actual truth. All scientific truth is understood to be provisional truth. IOW it is “what we agree is truth until new evidence shows us it is not.” This is almost always explained in scientific textbooks where the scientific method is discussed, but of course, it is not repeated on every page, or in every lecture, so it may seem as if scientists are making claims of knowing for sure what is actual truth. But in fact, scientists are always presenting today’s provisional truth.

which is why it is important to understand what science knows as fact/truth and what they might believe to be fact/truth.

Now you are conflating “fact” and “truth” as if they were the same thing. They are not, quite, though it is a common error to treat them so. “Facts” of course, are always true. But “truth” is not always fact. “Fact” is a sub-category of “truth”

So we can say that evolution is a fact, and we can also say it is true.
We cannot say that the theory of evolution is a fact, but rather that it is based on and supported by facts. We can, however, say that the theory of evolution is true, because it conforms to, explains and correctly predicts factual evidence.

Oh no, there is that word believe again, now we will have a long agument

Why not save yourself a lot of trouble and say “think” instead of “believe”? “Believe” has a religious connotation not found in “think”.

 

[razzelflabben]

I understand that better since your last post. I agree with you: facts should be called facts and theory should be called theory. Theory should not be called fact.

What I am not sure of yet, however, is whether you agree that theory can be true.

I have said a multitude of times that it is possible, but the discussion is about what science knows not what science "thinks" (more about the use of the word later)

It is wrong to call the theory of evolution fact. But given the evidence for it, it is not wrong to say that the theory of evolution can be treated as true.

I agree as long as the people you are talking to understand the difference as well as the scientific understanding for the word true or truth. See what usually happens, in such discussions is that people say things that are either misunderstood or sound like something they are not. Which is why I try to be very careful to use appropriate words and phrases and clarify what I mean when using them. Few people on this forum are actual scientists, which makes the job of effective communication even harder when words can take on a different meaning when used in science then when used by lay. It seems to me that when debating in a non scientific setting, it would be wise to begin by establishing what is meant when saying that the toe is true. We will delve more into this as this post progresses.

IOW, to say that the theory of evolution is fact would not be speaking honestly.
But to say that the theory of evolution is almost certainly true is speaking honestly.

Agreed?

Not exactly, but I won't challenge it. I need to step out of the natural progression of this post to explain what I mean. Sorry, I'll do my best to not get off the post.

Fact is observation, it is what is known. No disagreements.
Truth is what we believe to be fact from a combination of things, this can include but not be limited to scientific observations, education, religion, religious background, personal convictions, what premesis we want to hold to, etc. Truth is not an absolute therefore, if you want to believe it to be true for whatever reason(s), no one has a right to tell you you are stupid, wrong, uneducated, foolish, etc. But, this understanding requires that the same rights and respects be given to other beliefs of truth based on the premesis that they come to the discussion with. What one believes can have different conclusions, and those conclusions should be respected and explored and valued. What cannot have different conclusions is facts and the facts which do not require assumptions and interpretations remain fact. If we approached the subject of "our origins" with this in mind, we would not belittle, accuse, assume, etc. what someone else thinks and knows based on the way the answer is constructed, or claim is made, but rather based on what the person says and why they say it. This premise is the heart of my desire to see actual communication come to this debate. There can be a meeting of the minds as it were, if we are willing to accept that we do not know fact as to what our origins are, and that what we believe based on our premises is worthy of respect even if they disagree.

I did say “to the best of my recollection” I have followed the practice of only referring to the process and history of evolution as a fact. I don’t doubt that I have slipped up from time to time.

As long as we are beginning to understand each other, I have no issue.

You do? That surprises me---but pleasantly.

for as much as we have talked it shouldn't surprise you.

Given the preceding statement, I am no longer sure why there is a debate between you and me. But I would hazard a guess that you believe the toc is just as well supported by the evidence as the theory of evolution and just as likely to be true. If this is so, you are wrong. But I am only making a guess at your belief here, so you will have to confirm or deny.

No, I don't believe the toc is as well supported, mostly because science does not accept it as having anything to offer our understanding of our empirical world. IOW, it can't be as well supported if no one tests it. I will also add here though that I have yet to see scientific evidence that would falsify the toc and therefore I find it to have some scientific value/merit. (Toc referring to the Gen account)This is not to say that the toc is scientific, I don't think it is, but I do think it has much to offer our search for facts about our origins. So which theory is truth/fact from a scientific standpoint, I Don't Know! Science doesn't know, even though many believe that they know truth.

I am not sure what you are saying. Now you seem to be implying that speciation is not a fact, or that the theory of evolution is not about speciation at all.

What I am saying is that speciation is not the totality of the toe. And that creates a problem for those who want to limit it to speciation or to claim the toe to be fact, etc. If the toe were limited to speciation, genetics, etc. our discussion would be quite different, but because the toe is not limited to speciation and indeed includes uca, any discussion about the toe must include an understanding of uca. We cannot try to dismiss claims of uca from discussions of uca because the theory is based on observations of genetics and speciation. The problem with the theory is that it does include uca and if it didn't would be a much much much much sounder theory because there would be little that it could not evidence.

The theory of evolution certainly does talk about speciation, and I agree that speciation leads by analogy to the concept of a universal common ancestor. But what I said about point 2 being incorrect is not that. I said that the theory of evolution is not limited to speciation and common ancestry or universal common ancestry. The theory of evolution is mostly about how genetics and mutations and natural selection (together with some other mechanisms) bring about changes in species over time.

Right and all I was saying is that a discussion about the toe, no matter what the theory is "mostly" about cannot discard uca at will because like it or not, it is a part of the theory. IOW don't try to remove uca from the discussion about toe just because it doesn't fit the point you want to make because good or bad, like it or not, the toe does include uca and any discussion thereof will understand this to be part of the theory.

History is not science. But the scientific study of history is science. That is why archeology, geology, astronomy, etc. are sciences. The actual events of evolution form the history of evolution. The scientific study of the history of evolution is science. And it tells us what the history of evolution was.

Well, I must disagree with you when you say that the scientific study of the history of evolution is science unless of course you want to use this statement broadly to mean that any scientific approach to a subject deems it science. But I fear that if we go down that road, science would need to do a lot more with the toc than it has to this point. The bottom line no matter what we call it, is that history (in this case, uca) is not scientific, but we can approach the subject using scientific method and find some of the answers we are seeking. So if history is not scientific, and you admit in this very paragraph that it isn't, why is uca included in the scientific theory of evolution? This is something I have never been able to understand and does in reality weaken the theory considerably. Can you explain why it was included? Thanks

Science does use the word “evidence” very frequently, but it seldom if ever uses the word “evidenced”. I don’t know how we could have had a debate about it since I never raised this point before. It was only when you said something recently that led me to think I was not understanding your meaning that I raised it.

Evdenced meaning that the tests have been done in the past, as soon as a test is completed, the observations are history, and thus, it has been evidenced.

The debate was about different degrees of evidence. All evidence fits on a scale one extreme is direct observation (the hardest evidence) the other extreme is circumstancial, (the weakest or softer evidence) this includes but it not limited to inferrances, assumptions, speculations, etc. So when we look at the evidence we must consider where in this line it falls and weigh it accordingly. This is not to throw out any of the evidence (which is one of the accusation made on my understanding) but rather to understanding that some evidence is strong enough to stand on it's own while others require inferrances. This is where our understanding of conclusions and fact come in. Depending on the evidence and where it falls on the scale, we can know if we have fact or conclusions. But you know what, this concept was so twisted and assumed to be saying otherwise that I don't know if I have the heart to go through it again at the moment, right now I just want to enjoy a post or two where we have some amount of communication and understanding before tackling this again. Thanks.

It is important to keep our communications clear, right? So please clarify for me what you mean by “evidenced”. And why you insist that the theory of evolution, especially in regard to a universal common ancestor has not been “evidenced”?

I think I covered this above, if not let me know

I will make sure in the future that I refer to the theory of evolution as being “true” (rather than “fact”) because it is so well supported by the evidence, and will encourage other evolutionists to do likewise. I can’t do more than that. Is that acceptable?

That's cool, I would also ask that when talking to others, you make sure they understand what you mean when you use the word truth, it can only help communication if it is done in a way that does not attack the individual as not knowing anything.

Actual truth, and what we think is truth, may be different things. One of the important things to understand about science is that it never makes claims to knowing actual truth. All scientific truth is understood to be provisional truth. IOW it is “what we agree is truth until new evidence shows us it is not.” This is almost always explained in scientific textbooks where the scientific method is discussed, but of course, it is not repeated on every page, or in every lecture, so it may seem as if scientists are making claims of knowing for sure what is actual truth. But in fact, scientists are always presenting today’s provisional truth.

That's what I'm talking about above. See evolutionists and especially the atheist evolutionists are scared of the word believe. They think they are somhow exempt from all forms of belief. When in fact, provisional truth is exactly that, belief. Let's look for a moment at why I used the word believe, I know it's a bit premature, but fits well here.
believe-accept as true; take to be true; "I believed his report"; "We didn't believe his stories from the War"; "She believes in spirits"

contrast that definition to this one of think-judge or regard; look upon; judge; "I think he is very smart"; "I believe her to be very smart"; "I think that he is her boyfriend"; "The racist conceives such people to be inferior"

Now both could apply and both would indeed be accurate, however by definition, the word believe is a much more accurate, percise definition of what you are experssing and what I have been saying. In fact, the definition couldn't get a whole lot more accurate if it was written only for this discussion. So like it or not, what you believe to be truth about our origins is indeed a belief. And though the word is often used in religious context, it is not limited to such. In fact, many people treat their belief in the toe with more zeal and conviction than many in the "church" treat their belief in the supernatural.

Now you are conflating “fact” and “truth” as if they were the same thing. They are not, quite, though it is a common error to treat them so. “Facts” of course, are always true. But “truth” is not always fact. “Fact” is a sub-category of “truth”

actually, I was using either or because I wasn't sure at that point what you actually believed, I was only guessing.

So we can say that evolution is a fact, and we can also say it is true.
We cannot say that the theory of evolution is a fact, but rather that it is based on and supported by facts. We can, however, say that the theory of evolution is true, because it conforms to, explains and correctly predicts factual evidence.

Why not save yourself a lot of trouble and say “think” instead of “believe”? “Believe” has a religious connotation not found in “think”.

see above

 

[gluadys]

It seems to me that when debating in a non scientific setting, it would be wise to begin by establishing what is meant when saying that the toe is true. We will delve more into this as this post progresses.

I quite agree. But it is not easy when people have been taught incorrectly. They have to be convinced first that what they think is erroneous before they take seriously the need to change their definitions. Also, if they have been taught to be suspicious of science, they are leery of using scientific definitions, even though that is essential to conversing about science.

Fact is observation, it is what is known. No disagreements.

It would be better put the other way around. An observation is a fact, a piece of data.

Truth is what we believe to be fact from a combination of things, this can include but not be limited to scientific observations, education, religion, religious background, personal convictions, what premesis we want to hold to, etc.

While all these things may enter into a search for truth, I would not call them truth. Truth is what conforms to reality. Scientific truth is what conforms to the reality of physical nature as shown by observation, evidence, logical inference and successful predictions.

Truth does not change with beliefs, because reality is what it is no matter what we believe.

Our knowledge of truth changes, but not truth itself. Science is a process of discovering truth, especially truth about observed facts.

What cannot have different conclusions is facts and the facts which do not require assumptions and interpretations remain fact.

Facts are not conclusions. They can be the starting point on which we base our conclusions. Or they can be evidence that our conclusions are correct. But they cannot be conclusions in themselves, because conclusions are the end point of a thought process.

This premise is the heart of my desire to see actual communication come to this debate. There can be a meeting of the minds as it were, if we are willing to accept that we do not know fact as to what our origins are, and that what we believe based on our premises is worthy of respect even if they disagree.

People are worthy of respect. But that is not necessarily true of their opinions. When their opinions are based on false premises, they need to be informed that their premises are false. When their conclusions are based on logical fallacies, they need to be informed that their logic is faulty. When their beliefs are contradicted by evidence, they need to be informed of the contradictory evidence.

I will also add here though that I have yet to see scientific evidence that would falsify the toc and therefore I find it to have some scientific value/merit. (Toc referring to the Gen account)This is not to say that the toc is scientific, I don't think it is, but I do think it has much to offer our search for facts about our origins. So which theory is truth/fact from a scientific standpoint, I Don't Know! Science doesn't know, even though many believe that they know truth.

Depending on the content of the toc (which seems to differ from person to person), there are two ways in which it is void of scientific merit.

The first and most obvious, is that most of it cannot be tested scientifically. There is no way to come to a scientific conclusion about God. So anything in toc which depends on the existence or action of God is metaphysics, not science. This doesn’t mean anything the toc says about God is wrong; just that it is not scientific and therefore has no scientific merit.

The second is when a premise of the toc is flat-out contradicted by the evidence. An example of that would be the young-earth version of creationism which has as one of its premises the recent creation of heaven and earth (e.g. in the range of 6,000 to at most 20,000 years, usually less). This premise is completely falsified by every scientific test on dating we have.

Not all creationists hold to such a young date, though, so it depends on whether the toc is seen to include this or not.

Right and all I was saying is that a discussion about the toe, no matter what the theory is "mostly" about cannot discard uca at will because like it or not, it is a part of the theory. IOW don't try to remove uca from the discussion about toe just because it doesn't fit the point you want to make because good or bad, like it or not, the toe does include uca and any discussion thereof will understand this to be part of the theory.

Right, we should neither remove universal common ancestry, nor forget the process of evolution. After all, they are closely tied together. The process of evolution leads to speciation, and speciation leads (or better, “reverts”) to universal common ancestry.

Well, I must disagree with you when you say that the scientific study of the history of evolution is science unless of course you want to use this statement broadly to mean that any scientific approach to a subject deems it science.

Yes, any subject studied scientifically is science, including the scientific study of history. The history itself is not science, but the study of history can be very scientific.

So if history is not scientific, and you admit in this very paragraph that it isn't, why is uca included in the scientific theory of evolution?

Because universal common ancestry best explains much of the evidence in regard to the history of evolution. There are many observations for which the only logical explanation is universal common ancestry.

The debate was about different degrees of evidence. All evidence fits on a scale one extreme is direct observation (the hardest evidence) the other extreme is circumstancial, (the weakest or softer evidence)

All evidence is observed. And often circumstantial evidence is “harder” than real-time observation. Real-time observation can be very subjective. Circumstantial evidence, because it doesn’t change with time and memory, is not subjective.

this includes but it not limited to inferrances, assumptions, speculations, etc.

Inferences, assumptions and speculations are never evidence. One reason real-time eye-witness evidence is often weak, is because witnesses often cannot separate their assumptions from their observations. Inferences, assumptions and speculations can never be evidence; they must always be tested against the evidence, and cast aside if they do not conform to the evidence.

This is not to throw out any of the evidence

Right, we never throw out evidence. But we do throw out inferences, assumptions and speculations which are contradicted by the evidence.

but rather to understanding that some evidence is strong enough to stand on it's own while others require inferrances.

You seem to have a faulty understanding of what evidence is. Evidence always stands on its own. Science always returns to the evidence as the ultimate judge of its ideas. Evidence doesn’t require the support of inferences. It is the basis of inferences. Inferences, on the other hand, do require the support of evidence.

What is inferred from evidence is the existence of more evidence. Finding that additional evidence supports the validity of the inference.

This is where our understanding of conclusions and fact come in. Depending on the evidence and where it falls on the scale, we can know if we have fact or conclusions.

It is not really a matter of a spectrum at all. It is a matter of different categories. Facts are what one begins with. Conclusions are what one gets to in the middle of the process. Facts are hard data. Conclusions are reached by thinking about the data. Then at the end of the process, the conclusions are checked against the facts—including both the facts one began with and those discovered in the process. This tells us whether or not the conclusion is false, or possibly true. (Note, it never tells us that the conclusion is absolutely true.)

That's cool, I would also ask that when talking to others, you make sure they understand what you mean when you use the word truth, it can only help communication if it is done in a way that does not attack the individual as not knowing anything.

By truth, I mean “that which conforms to reality”. We are continually exploring reality to find out what it is.

That's what I'm talking about above. See evolutionists and especially the atheist evolutionists are scared of the word believe. They think they are somhow exempt from all forms of belief. When in fact, provisional truth is exactly that, belief. Let's look for a moment at why I used the word believe, I know it's a bit premature, but fits well here.
believe-accept as true; take to be true; "I believed his report"; "We didn't believe his stories from the War"; "She believes in spirits"

contrast that definition to this one of think-judge or regard; look upon; judge; "I think he is very smart"; "I believe her to be very smart"; "I think that he is her boyfriend"; "The racist conceives such people to be inferior"

I still like “think”. It is less emotional. It does not carry the notion of conviction which goes with “believe”. It is more humble, expressing clearly that it is a personal opinion. It is more tentative, suggesting that the speaker is not vouching for the truth of the statement. And it is not likely to be confused with a religious persuasion.

Nobody “thinks” Jesus rose from the dead. They either believe it or they don’t believe it. And nobody “believes” the theory of evolution is true. They either hold the opinion that it is, or they hold the opinion that it is not. Those who believe Jesus rose from the dead do so on the basis of revelation, faith, conviction. Those who hold the opinion that evolution is true, need no faith or revelatio. They rely on evidence and logical thinking.

So like it or not, what you believe to be truth about our origins is indeed a belief.

That depends.

I hold two things true about the origin of humanity. One is that God created us. The other is that we evolved from an ancestor we share with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees.

When I speak of God creating us, I am expressing a belief based on revelation and conviction.
But when I speak of our evolutionary history, I am reaching a conclusion based on evidence. I am not expressing a belief or conviction, other than in the reliability of the evidence.

 

[razzelflabben]

Okay, rolling my sleeves up and delving in with both feet even though I was so enjoying coming to some agreement, we'll start over again with words you don't like so that you can read into them what is not there and argue endlessly then come back to say of course you are right, but, with the time I have left, I will tread on..

I quite agree. But it is not easy when people have been taught incorrectly. They have to be convinced first that what they think is erroneous before they take seriously the need to change their definitions. Also, if they have been taught to be suspicious of science, they are leery of using scientific definitions, even though that is essential to conversing about science.

This is making some rather bold and harsh assumptions about people of different opinions to yours. Take for instance my belief about our origins. Scientifically, I find no evidence that states how life came to exist as it does today. I base this belief on the education I have had and even though people here have closed their eyes to the fact that I have demonstrated that knowledge many times over, I have done just that and there is little any of you understand about science that I have not already explored. In fact, after a mirade of pointing out how wrong I am, you come back only to say of course you are right. So because I don't see the toe including uca as truth, because scientifically my burden for truth is harsher, then you assume I know nothing about science when in reality it is that very knowledge that leads me to "my truth". To automatically assume that I have been taught wrong because I don't parrot the same argueemnts and the same words you have been taught shows in reality an intolerance and disrespect for me and my ideas and a total lack of interest in what premises I base those ideas on. You don't give me credit, even when I have shown myself worthy because I don't agree with you and thus you are taught that anyone who doesn't say the same thing is taught incorrectly. They have to be convinced first that what they think is erroneous before they take seriously the need to change their definitions. Also, if they have been taught to be suspicious of science, they are leery of using scientific definitions, even though that is essential to conversing about science. Respect the person first by not making rash assumptions just because you were taught that is a sure way to defeat a creationist!!!!!

It would be better put the other way around. An observation is a fact, a piece of data.

they can be used interchangably though an observation is not always fact and fact is not always observation, they can and often are used interchangably.

While all these things may enter into a search for truth, I would not call them truth. Truth is what conforms to reality. Scientific truth is what conforms to the reality of physical nature as shown by observation, evidence, logical inference and successful predictions.

Truth does not change with beliefs, because reality is what it is no matter what we believe.

Our knowledge of truth changes, but not truth itself. Science is a process of discovering truth, especially truth about observed facts.

oh so many points to address, I don't even know where to begin. According to the definition for truth, you don't even have it right yet, but I will give you the word simply because it can mean different things to different people. But let's look at the definition truth-
a fact that has been verified;
conformity to reality or actuality;
See, truth is not fact, and depending what your reality is, it can be a moving line.

reality-world: all of your experiences that determine how things appear to you

Now if our discussion is scientific (depends on the authority you choose), it is sciences reality that we use to determine our truth, but if science doesn't know reality, it cannot know truth. So what you are saying when you are talking about the toe being true is that you believe it to be true based on the observations science has made, which is very different from what you perpose later in this post. That is why you need to identify what you mean when you say the toe is true, because even you aren't clear as to what you mean when you say it.

Facts are not conclusions. They can be the starting point on which we base our conclusions. Or they can be evidence that our conclusions are correct. But they cannot be conclusions in themselves, because conclusions are the end point of a thought process.

What i have been saying for a long time now

are worthy of respect. But that is not necessarily true of their opinions. When their opinions are based on false premises, they need to be informed that their premises are false. When their conclusions are based on logical fallacies, they need to be informed that their logic is faulty. When their beliefs are contradicted by evidence, they need to be informed of the contradictory evidence.

Right, all those faulty premesis and opinions I have stated only to come back here and see that I was right. See that is what I am telling you and you aren't getting it, you are taught that if someone doesn't say something this way then they are a creationist and the only reason one has for being a creationist is ignorance and therefore anyone who says something differently than you is ignorant. This is lack of respect, even if you use the qualifier of scientifically ignorant. It is a technique used by people who....no, not going to open that can of worms till latter. Suffice to say at the moment that you as well as others on the forum use this tactic, which is a disrespect not of the opinion but of the person and it impedes communication.

ng on the content of the toc (which seems to differ from person to person), there are two ways in which it is void of scientific merit.

When you are talking with me and I have stated this openly many many times now, I refer to the toc as the story of creation put forth in Gen and not all the different "splinters" of understanding that float around from here to there from there to here. In light of that let's look at your two claims and then you can back them up.

st and most obvious, is that most of it cannot be tested scientifically. There is no way to come to a scientific conclusion about God. So anything in toc which depends on the existence or action of God is metaphysics, not science. This doesn’t mean anything the toc says about God is wrong; just that it is not scientific and therefore has no scientific merit.

theoretically we can test for God see the other thread.

ond is when a premise of the toc is flat-out contradicted by the evidence. An example of that would be the young-earth version of creationism which has as one of its premises the recent creation of heaven and earth (e.g. in the range of 6,000 to at most 20,000 years, usually less). This premise is completely falsified by every scientific test on dating we have.

This is a splinter of understanding and is in fact not stated percisely as part of the creation story.

Not all creationists hold to such a young date, though, so it depends on whether the toc is seen to include this or not.

But, you still have not falsified the toc which is what I predicted would happen, you have shown a flawed understanding of how to falsify it's scientific merit and you have shown how individual beliefs can be falisifed but you have not addressed the point I brought up, that the toc as put forth in Gen. is not falsified by science. Please do so or accept that it hasn't, instead of trying to get around the claim through use of common evolutionist arguements that you have been taught.

 

[razzelflabben]

Right, we should neither remove universal common ancestry, nor forget the process of evolution. After all, they are closely tied together. The process of evolution leads to speciation, and speciation leads (or better, “reverts”) to universal common ancestry.

all I said.

Yes, any subject studied scientifically is science, including the scientific study of history. The history itself is not science, but the study of history can be very scientific.

I disagree with you, but okay from now, to many things already addressed in this post that I'm sure you'll find disturbing to your idealistic approach to our discussion.

Because universal common ancestry best explains much of the evidence in regard to the history of evolution. There are many observations for which the only logical explanation is universal common ancestry.

That is left to be seen and should be dealt with when we talk about what evidence science has. All in due time.

All evidence is observed. And often circumstantial evidence is “harder” than real-time observation. Real-time observation can be very subjective. Circumstantial evidence, because it doesn’t change with time and memory, is not subjective.

But see, that is being even more narrow than I am and that will present a lot more disturbing problems for the toe to deal with when we talk about the evidence. So be sure what you want to claim evidence is and state it clearly so that when the issue arrises I can use you own words to show you wrong or right. Looking forward to it. Thanks.

Inferences, assumptions and speculations are never evidence. One reason real-time eye-witness evidence is often weak, is because witnesses often cannot separate their assumptions from their observations. Inferences, assumptions and speculations can never be evidence; they must always be tested against the evidence, and cast aside if they do not conform to the evidence.

which is what many evolutionists do, they fail to seperate assumptions from observation. Which is exactly why I use a scale for evidence. But you don't like that scale, so we can use you understanding for evidence and thus show how the toe is even less strong of a theory than you are claiming. That's up to you, just let me know which way you want to go.

Right, we never throw out evidence. But we do throw out inferences, assumptions and speculations which are contradicted by the evidence.

But if inferences, assumptions and speculations are not evidence then they can be thrown out whether or not they contradict the evidence. At least when we are talking about evidence. That is why I shifted my understanding of evidence enough to allow for conclusions based on inferences, assumptions and speculations that agree with the evidence. If you don't want to do that, that's no skin off my nose, it does however make the toc/Id a stronger theory, be for warned.

You seem to have a faulty understanding of what evidence is. Evidence always stands on its own. Science always returns to the evidence as the ultimate judge of its ideas. Evidence doesn’t require the support of inferences. It is the basis of inferences. Inferences, on the other hand, do require the support of evidence.

What is inferred from evidence is the existence of more evidence. Finding that additional evidence supports the validity of the inference.

It is not really a matter of a spectrum at all. It is a matter of different categories. Facts are what one begins with. Conclusions are what one gets to in the middle of the process. Facts are hard data. Conclusions are reached by thinking about the data. Then at the end of the process, the conclusions are checked against the facts—including both the facts one began with and those discovered in the process. This tells us whether or not the conclusion is false, or possibly true. (Note, it never tells us that the conclusion is absolutely true.)

see above, you are setting yourself up for another caught in your own words debate that I don't think you want.

By truth, I mean “that which conforms to reality”. We are continually exploring reality to find out what it is.

and reality is not an absolute. My nephew is very ill right now, they can't find out what is wrong with him. At one point, he had 40 grand mall seizures in 2 days. His father, is in Kuwate and has only heard about the problems, not witnessed them. Both his father and mother know reality but because of different perspectives of that reality, they have some differences of opinion. for example, the dentist refuses care until the seizures are under control. My sister who has witnessed the seizures understanding the safety issue in that refusal. My brother in law however, only sees that he needs dental care, he understands the reality of the seizure but his perspective is different. Truth, which relies on reality, relies of ones perspective of that reality. Reality can and often does change based on our perspective. When he comes home and witnesses a seizure, my brother in law is much more likely to see a problem with dental care at the moment as well. Truth and reality depend on the person claiming them, which is why they are a belief and not fact. They can be based on fact, but they rely on perspective and that varies from person to person.

I still like “think”. It is less emotional. It does not carry the notion of conviction which goes with “believe”. It is more humble, expressing clearly that it is a personal opinion. It is more tentative, suggesting that the speaker is not vouching for the truth of the statement. And it is not likely to be confused with a religious persuasion.

People here on this forum have made a big deal out of using terms in science percisely. If we are to do that, we must use the word believe here whether or not it makes us uncomfortable, because it is the best word for the idea presented. You claims that think suggests that the speaker is not vouching for the truth of the statement is indeed flawed understanding of the word.

think-
judge or regard; look upon; judge;
expect, believe, or suppose;
It indicates that you have judged the evidence you have, whereas believe indicates that you merely accept the evidence

accept as true; take to be true

Believe requires less assumptions and inferences, so it is just the opposite of your claims. And by the way, in case you haven't noticed yet, I am not interested in catering to the comfort zones of anyone here, nor and I interested in convincing people that I know more than I do, instead, I am interested in consistantly, and systematically discussing the issue in light of percise meanings and understandings as compared to common usages. If you or others are uncomfortable, it means you are growing and that is a good thing not a bad one. Believe is the more accurate definition and therefore is the one that should be used in a scientific discussion.

Nobody “thinks” Jesus rose from the dead. They either believe it or they don’t believe it. And nobody “believes” the theory of evolution is true. They either hold the opinion that it is, or they hold the opinion that it is not. Those who believe Jesus rose from the dead do so on the basis of revelation, faith, conviction. Those who hold the opinion that evolution is true, need no faith or revelatio. They rely on evidence and logical thinking.

I know of people who think Jesus rose from the dead but don't believe it, in fact, it is a common problem in the church, and is often refered to as having a head knowledge but not a heart knowledge so you need to do better in looking for evidence to you claim.

That depends.

I hold two things true about the origin of humanity. One is that God created us. The other is that we evolved from an ancestor we share with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees.

When I speak of God creating us, I am expressing a belief based on revelation and conviction.
But when I speak of our evolutionary history, I am reaching a conclusion based on evidence. I am not expressing a belief or conviction, other than in the reliability of the evidence.

That's cool that you have found a way to reconcile your two different beliefs I wish more people could find a way to do that. My way is to look for what is known and what remains hidden from our understanding. I'm sure there are other ways out there as well, anyone care to share how you reconcile your beliefs?