Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

Yes, so you have determined that the evidence for Common Ancestry is "soft" and is not enough to "convict." The vast overwelming majority of the people who have actually looked at this evidence (i.e. the world's biologists) disagree with you and think that this "soft" evidence clearly and strongly indicates Common Ancestry. So, where does that leave us?

So what evidence are you refering to? Each evidence is subject to it's own evaluation.

 

[Edx]

Again, not the creationists I usually talk to, and by the way do you understand that (as many "christians" understand) the bible does contain many figurative references, and that not everything is literal, for example, we have parables and phrases such as "it was like" or "as if".

Then let me explain, you said: "there are few people in the world today that accept that the world is flat, why because the evidence stands up to all the different authorities."

Now the reason why this was relevant is that you seem to think that evolution and geology doesnt stand up to the Bibles "authority". But you are also saying that a spherical earth fits "all authorities". This is just not true at all. Because it seems "authority" to you means belief. And Flat Earthers were around before modern day Creationists and a few still exist today. Their ultimate authority is the Bible as well.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html

It might also be inportant to your understanding of the bible, that the bible has been translated and that translation for the word circle can include circle, horizon, or vaulted and that when the analogy of a tent is used, it is not referring to the ground on which the tent is sitting, but rather the covering that protects the inhabitants,

Some of its is likely a metaphor, but that doesnt mean that all of it is. Everyone of their neighbours believed in flat earth cosmologies. They have a history of borrowing beliefs and legends and we have no reason at all to think their description of the earth, which is consistent with their time and location of general understanding of a flat earth, was anything more than that
.
(for more see post number 135 on this page: http://www.christianforums.com/t1519946-isaiah-circular-earth.html&page=14 if you want to reply to this post reply there not here, because as you say it is kind of off topic.)

Now, I know that is a bit off topic, because your point is that all creationists are our of their minds with ideas that counter what science evidences,

Of course they are.

but, if you want to make such claims you must back them up with real solid evidence not some far out interpretation that has no basis in the actual understanding and interpretation of the text. iow, it would be like me picking up a science book and interpreting it wrong so that I could prove to you that you were an idiot for believing that the earth is flat.

Then you just dont listen. And you cant even show me one credible source for Creationism. And I wasnt claiming all Creationists were flat earthers, but flat earthers ARE still Creationists.

WEll, for the millionth time, hard evidence is direct observation, soft evidence is our explaination of how the direct observations explain the theory, hypothisis, prediction. And by the way, just to clarify even more, the discussion about the evidence is based on the claims that some evolutionists make that the toe is evidenced with hard evidence, not evolution. Seperated largely by the idea and concept of common ancestry which is the real heart of the disagreement.

You dont understand common ancestry thats the problem, just as you dont understand the scientific method, evolution in general or even what I mean by the word credible. You seemed to be so concerned with how people use words, yet you yourself use words in completely the wrong way and make up ones that feel right to you.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

Why is reality so subjective to you?

You asked for credible, not reality. Credible is subject because it simply means believale.

Where you can tell me my car is not red but blue because "your authority" is different no matter how much objective evidence says otherwise. Where someone that lies is just as credible as someone that tells the truth, just as long as people find him "believable"

Question 1. If I am my own authority, the the red car can be blue. 2. If the definition for credible is believable and I do not know that the person is lying, then his story can be credible. It is only when I know that he is lying that it is no longer a believable story.

No I will deny them if they fulfill the criteria of a credible source. Like I said, if you feel the points arent good enough or unfair we can talk about it.

That would move this discussion into an area of me defending claims I have not made and that would be a totally unfair discussion for us as well as the toe and the toc now wouldn't it?

No I could reference many institutions and many qualified scientists, and they would fulfill the criteria as credible sources. I could even start with this forum and cite Aron Nelson (Aron Ra) and Glenn Morton (gmorton).

Again, the criteria for something to be credible is to be believable. If it is believable it is credible. If I hold scientists as my authority in this issue, then they would be hard pressed to make it not sound believable.

How would it be fair? Do they or do they not understand the science they talk about? For example if I were to go to one and the first thing I see them doing is telling us evolution is abiogenesis and atheism we know they arent a credible source.

So you then are saying that if I go to a site that talks about creation and they give an accurate definiton for evolution you would be satisfied that the criteria for your challenge was met?

Believable is different to credible. Believable is relevative and subjective, but to be credible you must fullfill certian requirements especially if you are talking scientifically.

So give me enough criteria to narrow down what you want me to look for. As I have shown you, even the criteria you presented can be subjective.

But let me explain that first point:
"pretend they are qualified to comment" - This is talking about guys like, for example, Kent Hovind and Jobe Martin. Both of them dishonestly pretend to be qualfied to talk about the subject. Jobe Martin is a dentist and his degree is in theology. However Hovind is far worse as his diploma, in Christian Education, is from a known diploma mill where you can purchase degrees for a 100 dollars. So even despite the fact that their arguments are complete bunk, they also try and pretend they are qualfied in the area the speak about. Thats not what you do to appear credible.

"or know what they are talking about" - This refers to anyone that, for example, sets up a pro-Creationist website, or whatever else, and talks about evolution yet show they really have no idea what they are talking about. Hence they will use arguments such as, 'evolution is only a theory', 'thermodynamics violates it', 'no transitionals', 'its atheism'. etc etc Just things like that. You cant claim to disprove a theory if you dont know what the theory is. Again, this source wouldnt be credible either, or probably more to the point it really, really isnt scientifically credible.

Would you say the same of Louis Pasteur?

And your son wouldnt be a credible scientific source either, would he?

Why not, he is a well educated, exceptionaly knowladgable young man when it comes to animals.

A credible scientific Creationist source, thats all. Im asking for one that fulfills the criteria. I didnt say anything about believability, or else I would have said so. My points detail exactly what I meant by credible, but you seem to have decided you dont accept it and used some other subjective definition where anyone can be credible no matter how little they know or how much they lie.

I explained this even gave an example of how it is subjective even for your criteria.

Again I ask you, what is so wrong with my definition?

I cant water it down to the point where your son is a credible source to talk scientifically on biology. Sorry.

Ed

What I am saying is that it is a waste of my time to spend looking for a site that you will deem credible when we can't even narrow down what credible means that is not subjective. There is always someone who knows more, understands more, learned more, etc. As long as that exists, we can argue crediblitiy all day depending on what criteria we want to go by. If you want me to waste my time looking for the illusive credibility (that btw, I didn't claim existed) then you must narrow down the field to what you will accept. I don't know all the creationist people you talk about, I don't even know all the arguements the creationist throw around, so if I glean through the stuff and find a page or site that does a reasonable job and you come back and discard it because of who said it, or something found on another page, or somthing equally rediculous, Gluadys did this then I claimed that the toc does make testable claims, I supported that claim, and she said I was right then a couple of posts later, recanted the claim based on the originator of the prediction.

 

[Edx]

Happy to ablige, I seperate my understanding of things by words, creation means to create. ... When I use the term toc, I am refering to the belief that life was created by a supernatural being, specifically God.

Then from the above there is no difference between that and a theistic evolutionist, which is the majority of people otherwise they would be atheists.

Thus the theory of creation means how, why, when, where, the mechanics

Show me one creationist argument (doesnt even have to be credible) where they actually try show and show the mechanics of how god supernaturally created the world.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, evidence is evidence. A theory or hypothesis explains that evidence. Whether it is "hard" or "soft," the evidence itself does not explain anything.

Furthermore, you do realize we have direct observations (i.e. "hard" evidence) of evolution, don't you?

I try to be curtious and answer all questions directed at me though often I am stumped by why so many people are interested or upset by things I say, like for example that I see evidence as being hard or soft, and that all evidence can be evaluated accordingly. I am totally amazed that that concept is so revolting to some here, it is a generally accepted concept, with a simple understanding, that some evidence is stronger than others. That being said, I will be curtious and address the question you ask. Yes, I know of some hard evidence for evolution. Please also note that I distinguish between evolution and the theory of evolution.

 

[Physics_guy]

I try to be curtious and answer all questions directed at me though often I am stumped by why so many people are interested or upset by things I say, like for example that I see evidence as being hard or soft, and that all evidence can be evaluated accordingly.

Because you seem to think that your superficial distinctions between the two are rigorous to be useful. For example, do you observe (i.e. "hard" evidence) the sun rising in the morning? All you are actually doing is having photons that you can only infer came from the sun hitting your eye and sending signals along the optic nerve. So how is that a direct observation? How is that "hard" evidence.

am totally amazed that that concept is so revolting to some here, it is a generally accepted concept, with a simple understanding, that some evidence is stronger than others.

I agree that some evidence for a particular hypothesis is stronger than others, but I do not think that you are being rigorous in your defintions, nor do I think there is any way other than subjectively to assign these relative differences.

That being said, I will be curtious and address the question you ask. Yes, I know of some hard evidence for evolution. Please also note that I distinguish between evolution and the theory of evolution.

Since I can't know how you personally assign your distinctions between "hard" and "soft" evidence, then your assertions that there is no "hard" evidence of the Theory of Evolution are just your opinion,and you know what people say about opinions...

The Theory of Evolution and its corrollary Common Descent do have substantial evidence supporting them, whether you want to admit it or not. I know you do not think this evidence is enough to convince you, but simply labeling it "soft" doesn't make it go away. The fact is, the evidence exists, and you only denigrate that evidence as "soft" because you aren't willing to accept the conclusions the evidence points to because you have a particular religious belief. That is fine, I will not begrudge your religious beliefs, just as long as you don't go an push for creationism to be taught in public schools science classes or go an suggest that the Theory of Evolution shouldn't be taught because it disagrees with your religious beliefs.

Otherwise, believe whatever you want.

BTW - there is no reason to get so uppity at my comments about your use of "hard" and "soft" evidence. This is a thread that you started to discuss specifically definitions of words used in this forum, thus it would be hypocritical for you to be upset at me for disagreeing with your definitions and doing so in an honest and communicative way.

 

[gluadys]

Thus the theory of creation means how, why, when, where, the mechanics.

When I use the term toc, I am refering to the belief that life was created by a supernatural being, specifically God.

But you are contradicting yourself here. In the first statement you say toc refers to the how, why, when, where, mechanics of creation. If that is so, then we can examine these specifics scientifically to determine whether or not they correspond to the real world.

But in the second, all this is gone, and "toc" refers only to a "belief" that life was created by a supernatural being.

A belief is something totally outside of science and cannot be examined by scientific methods.

Furthermore, in the first definition, it would seem that toc would make different claims about the details of creation than the theory of evolution. At least that is what makes sense to me. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

But the second definition (that toc is a belief) does not make such claims, and one who believes that life was created by a supernatural being can also believe this being used abiogenesis and evolution to create life and a diversity of living things. This, in fact, is the option favoured by most Christians around the world---that the processes science calls abiogenesis and evolution are descriptions of the mechanics of creation.

one even made the claim that creation was fact in that we are here. So before you accuse me of making up the understanding, be sure to understand the words and concepts. Thanks

I don't know if you are referring to my reference to the existence of your grandmother. But if you are, this is a misrepresentation of what I said.

 

[Edx]

You asked for credible, not reality

No I just mean you seem to think that objective evidence is worthless if your finial "authority", which can mean anything at all, says otherwise.

Credible is subject because it simply means believale.

No it does not mean that.

Every definiton I come across defines it as.... "Capable of being believed; plausible. Worthy of confidence; reliable".

KEY WORDS!: Worthy of confidence. Reliable.

Question 1. If I am my own authority, the the red car can be blue.

Well you can say its blue all day long its still red in every single way. If you are colour blind, you can still be shown that in reality it is in fact red.

2. If the definition for credible is believable

And it isnt. I know full well Creationists are believable since so many believe them.

Its like the words "possibily" and "probably". They are not the same thing. Anything is possible, but far less things are probable. You are confusing "credible" and "believable" in the same way someone might confuse the words "possibily" and "probably" .

and I do not know that the person is lying, then his story can be credible. It is only when I know that he is lying that it is no longer a believable story.

Hey at least you are half right. Most ignorant creationists accept creationist arguments because they dont know any better. If you find out someone you thought was credible actually either. 1 didnt know what they were talking about, or 2. willful misrepresented whatever it was. Then you can no longer find that person credible anymore. Because credible is objective, despite your false definition, I have found there are no credible Creationists anywhere. I would love to know if there was but every single example I have ever seen anywhere, were either ignorant or willful misrepresented the science. Now you can argue what credibility means with me all day long but in order to shut me up simply present someone that doesn't do this. Really, why do you think thats do difficult for you?

That would move this discussion into an area of me defending claims I have not made and that would be a totally unfair discussion for us as well as the toe and the toc now wouldn't it?

But you did claim my more specific definition to the topic of the word credible is wrong. If someone is to be "Worthy of confidence" those are the points they must fulfill

.

Again, the criteria for something to be credible is to be believable. If it is believable it is credible.

But it isnt. Many people that talk about their beliefs sound "believable", but that doesnt mean that are actually "credible". IE...Worthy of confidence. Reliable.

You see I think this the whole reason why philosophy can really screw people up that dont really understand how to use it. You can logic your way anything into existence, and you can make a very logically internally consistent argument for just about anything but it still doesn't mean it is in any way related to reality. You could write a whole book about the existence of faries; on how they live, breed, and how they cant be detected by science all logically internally consistent and believable if it weren't for the fact that it wasnt complete and totally nonsense.

If I hold scientists as my authority in this issue, then they would be hard pressed to make it not sound believable.

I really dont understand why you cant seem to get this.

I was talking about credibility NOT AUTHORITY. I dont think scientists have an "authority", its their evidence that is the only authority. All scientists have some kind of bias even if they dont know it, and bias is bad. That is the reason why peer review is so good because it means all the bias can be weeded out and we are left with just the evidence. Bias gives inaccurate conclusions, and it might render an experiment flawed or any number of things. Humans arent perfect, and so neither are scientists.

And I am very aware you keep sidestepping the issue. The fact is I can give many examples of institutions and scientists that are, A. not ignorant of the subject and B. Do no willfully misrepresent the subject. You simply cant do the same and start talking about this authority nonsense again to get out of it.

So you then are saying that if I go to a site that talks about creation and they give an accurate definiton for evolution you would be satisfied that the criteria for your challenge was met?

Firstly, I would be amazed if they actually did give an accurate definition of evolution.

Secondly, it wouldn't fulfill it completely they have to be consistent, be reasonable! If somehow they managed to get the definition correct, then I click the next page and they start telling us there are no transitionals, or Darwin recanted, or the flood caused the Grand Canyon, or how evolution rests on of abiogenesis being correct, it shows they dont know what they are talking about fulfilling at least point 2 or 3.

Seriously, I would have though all this was obvious.

So give me enough criteria to narrow down what you want me to look for. As I have shown you, even the criteria you presented can be subjective.

I did narrow it down. The definition of credible is "Worthy of confidence. Reliable". My points I set out were directly related to the topic, on what a credible scientific source should NOT do. How can I get any more narrower than what I wrote?

Would you say the same of Louis Pasteur?

Pasteur wasnt a Creationist, lived around 200 years ago, and was a real scientist.

Why not, he is a well educated, exceptionaly knowladgable young man when it comes to animals.

Well I cant possibly know his education. My point was that just because your son was believable to you, doesn't mean he is a credible source for biology information for the rest of us. He too has to fulfill the criteria, not that Im saying he doesnt of course. See AIG and ICR and even Hovind can come across as "believable", but only if you dont know what they are talking about.

I explained this even gave an example of how it is subjective even for your criteria.

Except both your definition and example were wrong.

. There is always someone who knows more, understands more, learned more, etc.

True, but then why is I can always find credible examples of scientists yet you cannot find any credible examples that arent at once fulfilling at least one of the points I set out?

you must narrow down the field to what you will accept.

I already did that. But you will find it hard to find someone because the very fact that you wont be able to tell if they are ignorantly or dishonestly misrepresenting science, because you dont know yourself. That is why you just need to find a source that you really really really think are credible as a scientific Creationist source, then post it so people that do understand the theory will be able to show you, if they arent credible.

if I glean through the stuff and find a page or site that does a reasonable job and you come back and discard it because of who said it, or something found on another page, or somthing equally rediculous,

Im not going to be unreasonable. I also bet i'll be able to prove it to your satisfaction. I really am not asking for much here. Someone that doesnt dishonestly present themselves, someone that doesnt misrepresent the evidence either willfully or ignorantly, and someone that doesnt have wild conspiracy theories like Hovind. Really, what is so hard about that?

Gluadys did this then I claimed that the toc does make testable claims, I supported that claim, and she said I was right then a couple of posts later, recanted the claim based on the originator of the prediction.

I did not see that happen. Maybe I missed it but I am certain you are probably misrepresenting what happened. Creationism simply cannot make any predictions that doesnt use Evolution. They piggyback on evolution when it suits them, yet reject the parts they dont like when its convenient.

Ed

 

[Edx]

In the loose sense of the word, they are all science, that being the study of, not the formal definition of science, but that is a totally different subject.

Here you are again defining words the way you want. Considering this is your thread, its quite ironic really.

Religion isnt science, and philosophy isnt science. You'll have to deal with it.

Many people take the aditude that religion tells us nothing about our world when in fact, it is the basis for our understanding of our world.

It can help us define ourselves, but in reality we cant actually really "know" anything thanks to religion. Its kind of the same with philosophy except it does teach us how to use logic and reason, and that is usefull.

You said that without religion it leaves "a gap in our understanding", and not only compared it to science you said religion was science so what do we "know" thanks to religion?

Take any decision that man has to make, and it all can be boiled down to his belief system/religion.

A belief system isnt a religion. Im an atheist, I hope you arent going to tell me its a religion.

There was a gal on tv the other day, talking about how she gets up and sets her mind on the possitives of the day. (belief system/religion)

No, thats not a religion.

The examples are endless.

What? Like the above?

It is what seperates us from the animals, it is what frames our thoughts, it is why we get into heated emotional discussions when people interpret our belief system to be something other than what we think it is. It guides us into thoughts and opinions about everything from what we eat to the death penalty and gay marriage. Religion, like it or not is part of who man is.

Yes it is, but just like your definition of science, your definition of religion that encompass' any belief at all is also wrong.

2. Religion is taking care of the poor and widows.

Not in the slightest

This is the biblical definition for religion

Faith is what defines a religious belief, but even more specifically its a supernatural belief if it is to be worthy of the name

Ed

 

[Edx]

No, see this is the problem, I did not equate the authority to the judge in the courtroom, I equated the authority to which you choose to know more, the police who investigated, or to the judge who hears the case. It's all about listening and asking enough questions to understand what is being said instead of assuming to know. There was nothing in my analogy about a courtroom, lawyers, or any other such thing, only who you choose as the authority on the evidence.

And you said science was my authority, like a judge is an authority. Its not my fault your analogies dont work.

It still is reduced to what authority you choose. We are not talking about who has the authority to do what, but rather who you choose as knowing more about the crime and the crime scene.

You accept someone is credible based how credible they are, not because you happen to choose them over the next invisible unicorn.

Then that is your authority. See how easy that is? .

Well obviously reality is the final authority. Its a given, and Ive said this from the start. Objective scientific study however isnt the same as the Bible, or a belief in invisible faries from Mars, or even any one person. They arent all the same like you keep trying to tell us.

Never said to the contrary

But that isnt what you think, is it? After all you wouldnt be so defensive of the Creationist position otherwise.

No, what I said is that anything you believe to be fact, must be based on what you believe the authority is.

And that is the evidence. A biased source is of no use.

That can and does change with age, experience, teaching, subject, etc. but we first still must determine an authority for the issue. See the above about police and judge.

So if you believe my red car is blue, wait 20 years and you might think its green?

I would think it a poor choice to choose a different authority but that is not the issue. The issue is that if I choose a different authority, then yes, I might believe the car to be other than red.

That is why your authority would be wrong. That is why "absolute authority" and "absolute truth" and "faith" dont help anyone really "know" anything, ever.

It never ceases to amaze me how the simples concepts can confound the educated of our world.

Indeed.

What is your question, what is my authority on the subject? if I think those with another authority are wrong? or something else? I am not discussion who has choosen wisely, I am discussing that we all must choose.

Choose whether to be unbiased and look at the evidence and try and figure out what happend, or tell yourself you think you really know what happened then look at the evidence and try and figure out how to make it fit with your conclusion youve already made?

This sounds like you want to change the discussion to the wisdom of which authority we choose. Is that what you are wanting to discuss?

No I want to discuss why you keep talking about this idea of authority, where everything is subjective depending on what authority you hold. Where objective evidence is the same as a religious belief, and where my red car can be whatever colour in the colour spectrum if the invisible purple monkey authority tell you differently.

I did not equate everything to God, so be careful what you try to read into my post. And btw, that is the point.

Well you said that if science "cant explain it" and you believe god did it, that means you know more.

Science doesn't have all the answers that is why I personally believe that our authorities should change with topic, but some people don't hold to this, sounds like you are one of them, sounds like you think that science is always the authority. I believe that because science doesn't have all the answers, other authorities are equally important to our understanding of the world this includes but is not limited to God and our religious understanding.

Clearly theistic evolutionists would agree with you there in part. But really how can you possibily think the god of the gaps argument is a good one?

", so then can we infer by this that you believe that the only authority that can tell us anything about our world is science. That science is the "god of the gaps" for you?

No science is not god of the gaps. Clearly you dont understand what that means. Though what I will say is that science is the only way to really know something, and if you keep claiming that religion can help us really "know" things that science cant discover then you need to tell us what that is. Because that means the scientific method isnt good enough to really know something.

Take these questions to the pm and we can begin to discuss them, but they are horribly out of place on this thread.

Well they are important in the sence of this "authority" argument you've created.

This is inferrring that I apply only science and religion, no I take that back, only religion to our understanding of the world, what I said is that I apply a multitude of disiplines to the understanding of our world including but not limited to religion.

No what Im saying is that you say that without religion it leaes gaps in our understanding, because science doesnt know everything. Im trying to show you that saying god is responsible isnt explaining anything at all, and you know just as much as somone that says they dont know.

But notice I did not equate it to a religious miracle.

You love the semantics games. If thats not what you meant then it was irrelevant.

You must be more careful when reading a post that you don't assume to know what is being said. I said that is was something that science could not explain. Does that mean that probability cannot explain it? That, history can't explain it? Psycology? etc. .

Thats just silly. Its improbable that you will walk out the door tomorrow and you get struck by lightening, does that mean "science cant explain it"? Course not.

Btw I told you before psycology IS science. You seem to have this very warped picture of what science actually is.

It is where science doesn't have answers that the other "authorities" are benedicial to our understandings

Because it makes us feel better, not because we actually know anything.

Didn't read what I said did you?

Dont remember what you said to me?

"there is much in our world that science cannot explain that is why we have people who study psycology and philosophy and religion, and a host of other things. And that is why one must first choose and authority"

Therefore I explained to you that religion doesnt explain anything, and your idea of "god did it" is the same as saying you dont know. You know Im glad at least one of us is paying attention.

That is if the "god of the gaps" is your authority

Havent I shown enough why the god of the gaps argument is a logical fallacy? Simply because we dont know how to explain something doesnt mean we can invent any fantastical explanation we like such as "god did it". It doesnt mean anything. The god of the gaps cant be any ones authority. Do you really think its fine to automatically jump to supernatural conclusions for anything you dont at once understand?

If you choose another authority, you might go explore, you might say, well it sounded like, heck, my grandfather told a great story about a haunted house, I might tell you that story just to see how you would react.

Sorry, this makes no sence.

Our reaction to the situation depends on our authority. If my authority is myself, I would most likely act solely on emotion.

Thats true, but it wouldnt be the same as objective scientific evidence. Thats what I keep telling you.

Now, you need to explain that. Isn't creationism the religion of the creationist? If a creationist isn't so evangelical about it, then how is it their religion?

You are obscuring my words. Creationism in all its various forms is simply based on how literally the the person wants to believe Genesis to be, and that determins how much science they accept. The peson you spoke about fits my profile. A lay person, that doesnt understand the theory, and isnt as knowledgable (I use that term loosely) as AIG and ICR.

And you have yet to admit that one must determine an authority, looks like maybe you are in the same boat as them on that issue.

You'll have to translate this for me, because this also doesnt make sence.

Still comes down to the authority you choose doesn't it?

So either you choose the Bible, or objective evidence, or purple invisible monkeys and its the same thing?!

Sounds like some I know and not like others.

Well show me someone credible. Theres more than enough creationists on the web.

And yet, I come on here sincere and am judged as not being because you want to read into my posts and label me as something I am not. Hummm, I wonder what criteria must be reached in order to acheive the level of belief required to get this kind of treatment?

Its how you've said things that has got people like me frustrated with you. You started this thread wanting to make sure words were used properly which is nice, but you wont use words properly even when you are told so you are guilty of the very thing you appeared to want to stop. It seems to me your kind of mentality is the reason Creationists never understand anything, because they refuse to understand science properly. You tell us things about science and evolution rather than asking, and think that saying god did it literally the way the Bible says has the same credibility as objective scientific study, or a invisible monkey whispering in your ear.

Wouldn't know.

You dont know, but you can tell me we "harbor arrogant, hateful, predjudice, bitter additudes" and are running off honest Creationists that, "never know what real discussion and exchange of ideas really is".

Well, I quess that opinion will be supported or falsified if evolutionists and creationists ever start talking rather than simply argue that they have all truth.

Its not just an opinion. There really are no credible Creationists.

Ed

 

[Lucretius]

Science is not direct observation. It's either indirect or direct evidence, coupled with inductive logic, and the ability of possible falsification to a hypothesis. The Theory of Evolution is a logical theory based on the evidence and it has yet to be falsified by the thousands of tests.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sometimes, I am a bit slow, but I finally figured out the problem. You have assured us that you can and do communicate, so then the only other possible explaination here is that you don't understand the difference between hypothesis and theory. I would think from somone as knowledgeable as you that you would know the difference, this smells like indoctrination rather than lack of knowledge here, but that is yet to be seen. You were asked about theory and you assurted on many occasions that a theory must be evidenced to be classifies as a scientific theory. What you are really saying is that the hypothesis that lead us to the theory are evidenced, and not the theory. That makes an enormous amount of sense which you previous claims did not make.


So how important word understandings can be to effective communication?

 

[razzelflabben]

Then from the above there is no difference between that and a theistic evolutionist, which is the majority of people otherwise they would be atheists.


Show me one creationist argument (doesnt even have to be credible) where they actually try show and show the mechanics of how god supernaturally created the world.

You want me to find one or just give you one? Lots on line to do today, how about starting with how man evolves? or are you interested only in the "magic" of creation. That can be found in man being created from the dust, and then evaluating man's composition.

 

[Jet Black]

specially created to be 98% chimp.

 

[gluadys]

Sometimes, I am a bit slow, but I finally figured out the problem. You have assured us that you can and do communicate, so then the only other possible explaination here is that you don't understand the difference between hypothesis and theory.

I do not understand the difference between “hypothesis” and “theory”??? I am the one who just explained it to you. Granted you did not understand the explanation. But that means it is you not I who is confused.

You were asked about theory and you assurted on many occasions that a theory must be evidenced to be classifies as a scientific theory. What you are really saying is that the hypothesis that lead us to the theory are evidenced, and not the theory.

A hypothesis is an untested, unsupported proposition about an observation or set of observations. When tests are carried out on the hypothesis and the hypothesis is shown to be correct, the hypothesis becomes a scientific theory. All theories begin as hypotheses. Hypotheses which prove themselves accurate predictors are recognized as theories.

Got it?

That is why there is no such thing as a scientific theory which does not have evidential support. A “theory” without evidential support is a hypothesis, not a theory. If it turns out that the evidence does support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is recognized as a valid theory.

So, now perhaps, you have learned a new word and what it means?

 

[razzelflabben]

Because you seem to think that your superficial distinctions between the two are rigorous to be useful. For example, do you observe (i.e. "hard" evidence) the sun rising in the morning? All you are actually doing is having photons that you can only infer came from the sun hitting your eye and sending signals along the optic nerve. So how is that a direct observation? How is that "hard" evidence.

Well, let's begin this discussion by saying that science does not say that the sun rises at all. In fact, the observations that science makes would suggest otherwise and so you analogy assumes that self is the ultimate authority and not science. And remember, it is direct observations that I find as weighing the most, to that we can observe the sun every day, is a direct observation, how I gets there, requires more evidence, In other words, you provide a wonderful example of what I am talking about. That we observe the sun daily, is a direct observation of the sun affecting our environment daily, how it gets there, requires more observations and testing to determine it is moves or we do. That is why, we need to apply all observations to that spectrum of understanding and not infer too much into what we do not directly observe. Thanks for helping me to make my point.

The Theory of Evolution and its corrollary Common Descent do have substantial evidence supporting them, whether you want to admit it or not. I know you do not think this evidence is enough to convince you, but simply labeling it "soft" doesn't make it go away. The fact is, the evidence exists, and you only denigrate that evidence as "soft" because you aren't willing to accept the conclusions the evidence points to because you have a particular religious belief.

Interesting, my religious belief on the subject, is quite different than my scientific belief on the issue, yet you keep claiming that I have no difference, why is that? What makes you think that my religious understanding and my scientific understanding are the same. I assure you that are not the same which is in essense why the creationistss don't like what I have to say any more than the evolutionists do.

That is fine, I will not begrudge your religious beliefs, just as long as you don't go an push for creationism to be taught in public schools science classes or go an suggest that the Theory of Evolution shouldn't be taught because it disagrees with your religious beliefs.

Acctually, you might be surprised at what I think we should teach in our schools, but alas that is another thread, and possibly a totally different category of thread.

BTW - there is no reason to get so uppity at my comments about your use of "hard" and "soft" evidence. This is a thread that you started to discuss specifically definitions of words used in this forum, thus it would be hypocritical for you to be upset at me for disagreeing with your definitions and doing so in an honest and communicative way.

BTW, I have yet to get upset about anything on this thread, I have been apalled, mildly frustrated, and humored, but to no degree upset. I find this discussion to be more stimulating than I thought it would be and love to be challenged, so bring it on, but be aware that I am confident in what I actually believe (not in what you think I believe) because I have challenged it with much more rigourous challenges than you have even come close to.

 

[razzelflabben]

But you are contradicting yourself here. In the first statement you say toc refers to the how, why, when, where, mechanics of creation. If that is so, then we can examine these specifics scientifically to determine whether or not they correspond to the real world.

But in the second, all this is gone, and "toc" refers only to a "belief" that life was created by a supernatural being.

A belief is something totally outside of science and cannot be examined by scientific methods.

Furthermore, in the first definition, it would seem that toc would make different claims about the details of creation than the theory of evolution. At least that is what makes sense to me. Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

But the second definition (that toc is a belief) does not make such claims, and one who believes that life was created by a supernatural being can also believe this being used abiogenesis and evolution to create life and a diversity of living things. This, in fact, is the option favoured by most Christians around the world---that the processes science calls abiogenesis and evolution are descriptions of the mechanics of creation.

You are very good a defintions, you use definition type words all over the place, but in doing so you avoid a whole hose of understandings and benefits of the words and concepts. When I talk about the toc I am talking about the who what when where, mechanics of the creation. If I leave out one of those words one place and include it in another, sorry, I am dealing with a bigger picture than just what word I included or did not.

Secondly, I have not made any claims to the fact that toc is a scientific theory. So why do you want to discuss it? I do not find either theory to be scientific, I wonder why you are not interested in discussing that? In fact, I have stated several times that I do not find it to be a scientific theory and yet you continue to address me as if I find it scientific and how I don't understand science because of that. What is it that you think I believe? What do you want to prove? What is your point?

I don't know if you are referring to my reference to the existence of your grandmother. But if you are, this is a misrepresentation of what I said.

Different place, different time, different person.

 

[razzelflabben]

Every definiton I come across defines it as.... "Capable of being believed; plausible. Worthy of confidence; reliable".

Note the entire definition please Worthy of confidence and reliable are also relative terms.

And it isnt. I know full well Creationists are believable since so many believe them.

And apparently, many find them reliable, and worthy of confidence. If you don't, then no matter how many times you are shown them to be, you won't accept it, this is the same arguement you use against the creationists and you do it yourself. It is human nature, so don't be too alarmed, but what it means is that your challenge is not really a challenge at all because challenge indicates that there is a possibility for sucess. Your challenge offers no chance for sucess as I have pointed our many times already and has been demonstrated by other evolutionists here as well as you in this discussion. Why not try a fair challenge, one that is based fair, and consistant criteria?

But you did claim my more specific definition to the topic of the word credible is wrong. If someone is to be "Worthy of confidence" those are the points they must fulfill

Actually, I did not your definitions were wrong, but rather than it needed to limit more variables so that the challenge could be accepted. A no win challenge is not a challenge, it is a trap to make one sound like they know more than they really do. I asked you to issue a fair challenge, by limiting the variables to something that could be won as well as lost.

I was talking about credibility NOT AUTHORITY. I dont think scientists have an "authority", its their evidence that is the only authority.

Kind of contridicting yourself here aren't you?

And I am very aware you keep sidestepping the issue. The fact is I can give many examples of institutions and scientists that are, A. not ignorant of the subject and B. Do no willfully misrepresent the subject. You simply cant do the same and start talking about this authority nonsense again to get out of it.

I have never claimed that the creationist organizations and sites were accurate much less credible, what I have claimed is that not every person who believes the creation story fits into the organizations or the creationist sites. So you then ask me to evidence a credible site or organization. What point are you trying to make? What is your arguement with me, the challenge based on my claims would be more along the lines of show me one creationist that does not fit the organizations profile. For that I could name off at least a dozen without even thinking about it. But since that wouldn't make your point, you won't issue a challenge based on my claims but rather base it on what you want me to be claiming so that you can show me to be wrong.

Pasteur wasnt a Creationist, lived around 200 years ago, and was a real scientist.

And so are you claiming that Pasteur was an evolutionist?

Well I cant possibly know his education. My point was that just because your son was believable to you, doesn't mean he is a credible source for biology information for the rest of us. He too has to fulfill the criteria, not that Im saying he doesnt of course. See AIG and ICR and even Hovind can come across as "believable", but only if you dont know what they are talking about.

And isn't that the point? Isn't that why I ask you to narrow down the variables so that the challenge could be met? Humm, go figure, again you make my point for me.

I already did that. But you will find it hard to find someone because the very fact that you wont be able to tell if they are ignorantly or dishonestly misrepresenting science, because you dont know yourself. That is why you just need to find a source that you really really really think are credible as a scientific Creationist source, then post it so people that do understand the theory will be able to show you, if they arent credible.

this doesn't even make sense, try to reword or rephrase it

Im not going to be unreasonable. I also bet i'll be able to prove it to your satisfaction. I really am not asking for much here. Someone that doesnt dishonestly present themselves, someone that doesnt misrepresent the evidence either willfully or ignorantly, and someone that doesnt have wild conspiracy theories like Hovind. Really, what is so hard about that?

Okay, you want to push this issue, I'll balance your challenge with my claims, Brian, Daniel, Nancy, John, Lori, Sonn, Mark, Jonathan, Steve, Jill, Jeff, Tom, that is 12, is that enough. My son asked me the other day, (the same question I have asked for years which is why over time I have come here to get people to start talking and stop argueing) why is our origins such an important and hot topic? What does it matter? Isn't the present and the future more impostant than the past? I come here to get people to start talking and all they can do is assume to know what I believe and attack me accordingly. There are a multitude of people out there, who don't argue about their origins, maybe have a mild interest in the subject, and are labeled without ever being heard. Goes on both sides of the issue. Time to stop argueing and start talking, coming together, making our present and our futures much more important than our past. That is the root force driving the op of this thread. Too bad that no one seems to get it but me.

I did not see that happen. Maybe I missed it but I am certain you are probably misrepresenting what happened. Creationism simply cannot make any predictions that doesnt use Evolution. They piggyback on evolution when it suits them, yet reject the parts they dont like when its convenient.

Ed

Of course, I misrepresented it, it is a matter of record, review it. And by the way, the story of creation existed before the toe, so be careful which you claim as piggybacking which.

 

[gluadys]

You are very good a defintions, you use definition type words all over the place, but in doing so you avoid a whole hose of understandings and benefits of the words and concepts.

From your OP I thought that getting a handle on what terms mean was the point of the thread.

When I talk about the toc I am talking about the who what when where, mechanics of the creation. If I leave out one of those words one place and include it in another, sorry, I am dealing with a bigger picture than just what word I included or did not.

Ok, so when you referred to it solely as a belief in creation, that was a short version. You really do mean us to understand that whenever you refer to toc, it includes reference to who, what, when, where & the mechanics of creation, whether you specifically name all of that or not. Do I have that right now?

Secondly, I have not made any claims to the fact that toc is a scientific theory. So why do you want to discuss it? I do not find either theory to be scientific, I wonder why you are not interested in discussing that?

I am very much interested in discussing that. We have gone over the criteria by which we can identify a theory as scientific. By those criteria the theory of evolution is very much a scientific theory. So I am interested in why you do not find it so? And although you made no claims to the toc being scientific, you did ask many times why it could not be. The same criteria explain this. Neither the doctrine of creation nor creationism is scientific.

What is it that you think I believe? What do you want to prove? What is your point?

I don’t know what you believe unless you tell me. And I don’t want to prove anything. I just want to deal, as you said in your OP, with understanding some of the terminology so that the issues can be discussed in light of people’s understanding. You have said you don’t believe the theory of evolution is scientific. Since it is, I am curious as to why you believe this.

Do you have different criteria than those I have outlined for what is and is not scientific?

Different place, different time, different person.

OK. Did this person give any reasons for his/her opinion?

 

[razzelflabben]

It can help us define ourselves, but in reality we cant actually really "know" anything thanks to religion. Its kind of the same with philosophy except it does teach us how to use logic and reason, and that is usefull.

defining ourselves and understanding ourselves and our differences with the rest of the world, is very important to our understanding of the world. Again, thanks for making my point for me.

A belief system isnt a religion. Im an atheist, I hope you arent going to tell me its a religion.

Atheism is an understanding of the supernatural, in short, there is not supernatural being or beings. Thus, like it or not, being an atheist does not remove you from religion, but rather defines your religious beliefs. Need I cut and paste the definition of religion?

No, thats not a religion.

I told you it was the biblical definition for religion, so let me back up my claim, James 1:27, and I quote from the KJV Pure religion and undefiled before God and the FAther is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Now I would recommend that you go have a good cry about not being what you think you are, then get a grip on what is and is not and get on with life.

Our religious belief, no matter what that is, defined who we are.