Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

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

Oh please do listen, I said that you must deside which authority knows the most about the crime, the police who investigated, or the judge. Both are an authority. One is a greater authority on the actual crime than the other. That is the point, how can you miss it so miserably when I have said it so many diferent times.

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

Obviously, you have not been listening, so let's try it this way, what do you find disturbing about the creationist view. (you seem to be saying that they refuse science) okay, based on what it sounds like you are saying, let's go to the root of the problem. They refuse science because they accept a different authority than science, they believe the bible, god, AIG, ICR, faith, are of greater authority than science. What I am telling you is that the difference exists because we all must choose an authority. You choose the authority of science, evidence, logic, that is cool, in this discussion, I find that to be a very wise choice, but it is still your choice, and the creationist aparently makes a different choice. So you come here and argue about your own claims, never understanding that it is your own claim because you don't want to be held to the same standard as you hold others. We all choose an authority. Why should this be a big deal? You accept that the creationist chooses an authority but refuse to accept that you choose one too! What are you so scared of?

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

When creationists make false claims, I correct them as well, how many creationist are on this thread right now? Neither extremist group likes what I have to say on the issue, sorry to disappoint you so.

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.

See I have not made these claims that objective evidence is the same as a religious belief. I have claimed that religious belief has something to offer our understanding of the world, I have also claimed that we must identify our authority, anything else you have read into the posts. So again, I must ask what it is you don't understand, and what it is you want to discuss.

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

Now I gave you one example of where I think the answer was God did it and another example in which I did not specify who or what or how something occured but rather than science could not explain it. So before you accuse me of believing the God of the gaps philosophy, read the posts and learn what I really do believe.

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?

I have never said that I thought it was a good argument. I spend more time on this thread correcting what people read into my posts than in actually telling people what I think and believe. I wonder when the communication is going to get started.

"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.

And so, because you think that I believe the philosophy of the God of the gaps idea then you can overlook the words study psycology and philosophy and a host of other things and then claim to be paying attention? What happened to the rest of the post, it is here but ignored to you can make an arguement about something that I did not claim. Sounds to me like you are an arguementative person. You know, the kind of person that is only happy when they are argueing.

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?

Again, you are getting into a discussion not about choosing authorities, but rather what would be a good authority to choose and why.

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.

Do you understand that no where have I said nor even indicated that it is of the same credibility (using your word), what I have said is that we each must choose our own authority. You make claims about me not understanding based on your assumptions of what you think I have said and never once listen to my words. I have not said nor indicated that using science as an autority is bad, unwise, inconsistant, or anything else you might want to infer. In fact, in some of my posts I have said just the opposite, but you ignore all those because I made the claim that religion does add to our understanding of our world. Wow, that is incredible scientific method you have there, hope I never understand it the way you do.

 

[razzelflabben]

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

I defined my understanding of the terms, but instead of discussing the terms, you have assumed what I was not saying so as to correct what you do not know and never understood what I was saying.

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?

Yes, the same was the toe is a belief in who what when where how, the mechanics of evolutionary process. It goes beyond. That is exactly my understanding of the words and phrases for creation the toc, evolution and the toe.

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?

Because our origins are history and history is not scientific.

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.

Actually, I asked you to put forth the criteria that would eliminate it from being a scientific theory so that anyone wanting to prove otherwise would know exactly what burden of proof there was, you infered from that that I believed that the toc is unscientific. That is a pretty big leap when you consider that I told you why the questions were presented, that I told you that I did not find either to be scientific theories, that I told you why I didn't find either to be scientific. It is this kind of leaping that gets us into trouble.

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.

First, I have told you many times what I believe but you keep saying that you don't know unless I tell you. How many times must I tell you before you listen? Secondly for about the 5 or 6 time now, I don't believe either to be scientific because they deal with history and I do not believe that history is scientific. I do beleive that history can be approached by science, but that doesn't make it scientific. By the way, this criteria alone would remove both as scientific so your claim about me argueing that the toc is scientific shows a total and complete lack of listening skills to what I have said I believe.

 

[Edx]

[/i] Note the entire definition please Worthy of confidence and reliable are also relative terms.

I see the problem. You are talking about percieved credibility. In order to know if someone really is a credible source you must do some research. A witness in a court may be believable, but may not be credible.

And apparently, many find them reliable, and worthy of confidence.

There you see, you think I am talking about perceived credibility. I dont mean that, obviously.

If you don't, then no matter how many times you are shown them to be, you won't accept it,

That isnt true, thats one of the reasons why I made out those points if anyone fits them they arent credible. You keep obsfucating my position, why?

Why not try a fair challenge, one that is based fair, and consistant criteria?

Clearly you think there is something wrong with the criteria, but every time I ask you, you dont suggest any changes to make it better.

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.

How can you honestly say the above? If I can cite many scientists that do meet the criteria, how is it a no win challenge? Really, what is so unreasonable about them?

All I am asking for is a Creationist scientific source that doesnt misrepresent the evidence either out of ignorance or dishonesty. How is that not a fair request?

Kind of contridicting yourself here aren't you?

No, since Im using your twisted use of "authority".

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?

I didnt say that every Creationist was the same as AIG and ICR. What I said was that there are no credible scientific Creationist sources anywhere. Its easy to prove me wrong by citing someone that doesnt ignorently or dishonestly misrepresent the science.

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.

But Im not talking about those, never was.

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.

And would they match point 2? Ignorent, perhaps?

And so are you claiming that Pasteur was an evolutionist?

Yes. Pasteur didnt write much on the subject, however like most french scientists at the time Pasteur didnt deny evolution but didnt accept natural selection as the cause. Creationists werent the anti-science variety we find today, anyway.
"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely" - Pasteur

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.

What do you mean by narrowing down? How can you honestly water down those points any further? Whats wrong with wanting a scientific source to not be ignorent to the science, or intentionally mislead people?

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

What I mean is you'll find it hard to cite someone that matches the criteria because you need to understand the science yourself to be able to tell if they match it. So if you really think a source matches them, then you'll have to present it here and we will be able to tell you if you are correct, and I dare say, to your satisfaction.

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.

Childish nonsence. Answer the question properly.

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?

You can believe whatever you want, its when they want their beliefs taught in schools as science, thats the problem and thats why its important.

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

I dont label anyone that doesnt make their beliefs clear.

Of course, I misrepresented it, it is a matter of record, review it.

Is that an admission or sarcasm? If you want me to read it direct me to the posts it is contained in (which post number)

And by the way, the story of creation existed before the toe, so be careful which you claim as piggybacking which.

And the Hebrews, as did everyone at that time and location, also held the belief that the earth was flat. So what? What a completely erroneous comparison

Ed

 

[Edx]

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.

There is only magic of creationism, thats what I keep telling you. If this "theory of creation" explains the mechanics by mentioning mircales why talk about "the mechanics of"? If every step of the way have to call in a miracle how then are you really explaining anything?

Ed

 

[Edx]

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.

That wasnt your point. You said that if you remove religion, it leaves gaps in our understanding and not only compared it to science but said it was loosely science (when it is nothing like science at all). Therfore I asked to show me what we actually "know" thanks to religion and just like I thought you still cant deliever. See, science only deals with what is objective and verifiable, and if using religion we could really know something which science couldnt, then the scientific method would be wrong and needs to be updated. So please answer the question, and after that you can then claim your Nobel prize for making such an immense substantial contribution to knowledge.

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.

I should probably have said what I meant by atheist. In my case, and with nearly every atheist I have known, I am an atheist because I dont believe in any god. I dont believe in god because I have no reason to believe in one . It doesnt mean I know a god doesnt exist, except if you were to define god as the Biblcial god I would add the postive and say I know that god doesnt exist. Because if a god does exist it certinaly isnt the petty, wrathfull and jealous god of the Bible that loves the smell of burning animal flesh. The point is, you cant have a religion based on a lack of belief. Your lack of belief in unicorns or space faries isnt a belief system or religion either.

Need I cut and paste the definition of religion?

There is only one part of the definition of religion you will use to prove your point.

Because if every single belief or action is a religion then religion is a completely meaningless term.

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.

Key part: "before god". It is a religous notion. And like I said if every action or belief or idea becomes your "religion" then the word is meaningless.

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.

Dont be so arrogantly fallacious. You cant prove someone wrong by dumbing down words to the point where they can mean whatever you want.

See also above.

Ed

 

[Edx]

Because our origins are history and history is not scientific.

Nonsence. Its both.

Actually, I asked you to put forth the criteria that would eliminate it from being a scientific theory so that anyone wanting to prove otherwise would know exactly what burden of proof there was, you infered from that that I believed that the toc is unscientific.

I have already shown you why Creationism isnt scientific. You have clearly ignored it all. I even told you why it doesnt deserve to be called a theory in any sence of the word.

Ed

 

[Physics_guy]

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.

I love the bravado. It adds spice.

I know you are confident. Intensely religious people are always confident in their beliefs. But, understand, that confidence does not necessarily correlate with correctness. One can quite easily be intensely confident and still be completely wrong, dont you agree?

I am interested in your mind-reading skills, because you seem to think that I have some perception about what you believe and what you do not. To tell you the truth, I do not care about what you believe or don't believe, but I do like to correct inaccurate statements about science. Your statements about the Theory of Evolution not being scientific because it is historical is inaccurate and shows an misunderstanding of the nature of science. I know you don't agree, and I won't go into to it again, because I know you won't change your mind, but I will state that your belief regarding the ToE and science is inaccurate. Furthermore, I will state it with supreme confidence because I have challenged my understanding of science and the ToE "with much more rigourous challenges than you have even come close to."

 

[Physics_guy]

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

Quite true, but the "hard" evidence of direct observation that you seem to think is so important shows that the sun does actually rise each morning. IT is only after one takes the myriad of "soft" circmstantial evidence into account that one comes to the conclusion that the Earth is rotating and not that the Sun is revolving around the Earth (well at least by the basis of the center of mass of the system).

and so you analogy assumes that self is the ultimate authority and not science.

I really have no idea what you mean by this. I simply asked you a question and sometimes I find your responses simply weird. I am not assume an "authority" here.

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.

But that is exactly the point. You are not observing the sun every day in any true sense. Your "hard"/direct evidences points you to an innaccurate conclusion regarding what you are observing (i.e. you think you are observing the sun itself). The "soft"/indirect evidence leads one to the correct (or at least vastly more correct) conclusion that your optic nerve is being stimulated by photons that left the sun about 8 minutes ago. We do not observe these photons leaving the Sun, we infer it based on all that "soft" evidence that you do not think is valuable. Therefore, we have no "hard" evidence that the sun exists at all - all we have that is a direct observation is that photons that appear to be from the sun are being picked up by the rods and cones in our eyes.

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.

The point is that we do not observe the sun (you seemed to have gotten hung up on my use of the colloquial "rising" to describe the sun's apparent motion instead of the point of my post that you are not observing the sun itself but actually photons that you infer came from the sun).

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?

I infer from your statements that you have a problem with Common Descent. You have not discussed any scientific statements so far that I have read in this thread. Your objections have been purely philosophical which is the realm of religion. I have inferred that your beliefs are based on religion. I believe that is a valid conclusion based on the evidence.

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.

I have no idea what your scientific understanding of the ToE is, except that I have a fairly good basis to believe you do not have a very good understanding of the nature of science because you have stated repeatedly that the ToE is not scientific because it deals with the historical. That is a misunderstanding of science.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Didn't say you were upset. I said you were "uppity," which your reply certainly sounded as if it was. Now, I understand that textual mediums are not always good at conveying the emotion behind the words, but your complaints about how you have tried to be courteous and all certainly seemed like you were being put off by being questioned rigorously on your use of "hard" and "soft" as categorizations of evidence. I think my comments and questions were very valid, and I still think that your answers regarding what you consider "hard" and "soft" and why one is better than the other have been less than convincing.

 

[Edx]

Oh please do listen, I said that you must deside which authority knows the most about the crime, the police who investigated, or the judge. Both are an authority. One is a greater authority on the actual crime than the other. That is the point, how can you miss it so miserably when I have said it so many diferent times

If you tell us an authority is one that says a red car is blue despite all objective evidence that says otherwise, that objective scientific evidence and reality itself is also an authority, if you also say that religion is also an authority and without it it leaves gaps in our understanding explaining things science cant, then you have conflated the word to be completely meaningless. They are NOT all the same. Scientific evidence is not the same as Rocko the giant invisible elephant ...or a literal belief in the Bible.

Me: So the next time they take medication, have an operation, go up in an aeroplane or whatever other scientific advancement they just take for granted, they can pretend that it wasnt science but actually because of God or Buddah?
You: It depends on what their individual authority is.

Me: The only true finial authority is the evidence and facts.
You: Then that is your authority.

Even gluadys had to correct you.

You: "And evaluation of that evidence based on the authority you believe in. (same as above for creationists)

gluadys: No. The evidence must be evaluated without the bias of a belief system. No one individual is free from such bias. That is one of the reasons science must be public. So that scientists evaluating the evidence from many different biases can correct each other's biases to get an interpretation that is NOT biased by belief in any authority, but rises solely from the evidence.

What I am telling you is that the difference exists because we all must choose an authority. You choose the authority of science, evidence, logic, that is cool, in this discussion, I find that to be a very wise choice, but it is still your choice, and the creationist aparently makes a different choice.

Again if you define authority is such a way as you have done, then clearly everything is an authority. But then the word becomes meaningless. There is no point accepting someone an authority until they have proven themselves to be credible and even then it isnt a ultimate finial authority like religious faith is. You say science is an authority like religion or any wacky belief, except it is unlike these because science does not have any faith. It is not a belief system. You did make that error earlier, because you called evolution a belief system so that is why you have wrongly lumped science with everything else. You have now so obfuscated the word you pretend your original point was rather different. But you have sufficiently moved the goal posts for the definition of the word so that it doesnt relate to science in any way. In no ways is science the same as religion.

So you come here and argue about your own claims, never understanding that it is your own claim because you don't want to be held to the same standard as you hold others. We all choose an authority. Why should this be a big deal? You accept that the creationist chooses an authority but refuse to accept that you choose one too! What are you so scared of?

Look you are doing it again. Science is in no way comparable to religious faith. Yet further on in this post you deny you have done so.

And stop pretending I am "scared", its just clear you dont understand science at all.

When creationists make false claims, I correct them as well, how many creationist are on this thread right now? Neither extremist group likes what I have to say on the issue, sorry to disappoint you so.

Me: Biological evolution is one of the most well supported theories in science. Anyone amateur or professional could challenge it at any time with actual evidence that could withstand the critical analysis of peer review:

You: "Never said to the contrary"

So my point is that although you may not have actually stated it outright, you quite clearly dont agree with what I said, since you are so defensive of the Creationist position. (And Creationists fight among themselves anyway.)

And you are doing it again, now you equate us and 'evolutionists' to extremists. All we are doing is correcting your perception of science and evolution and you dont understand technical terms and are very resistant to learning how to use them properly.

See I have not made these claims that objective evidence is the same as a religious belief

.
Yes you have (see above), and have sufficiently blurred things making it easy for you to move the goal posts which confuses people.

I have claimed that religious belief has something to offer our understanding of the world,

Which you have not backed up. Since you equated it to science I dont mean any god of the gap arguments, which are fallacies.

I have also claimed that we must identify our authority, anything else you have read into the posts.

I have not read anything into it, but since you continually obscure your points and definitions when anyone shows it is flawed you pretend you were either talking about something else or use your own personal definitions and claim victory.

Now I gave you one example of where I think the answer was God did it and another example in which I did not specify who or what or how something occured but rather than science could not explain it.

I never said science knew everything. And in neither example did religion help us know anything, only pretend we know. They were god of the gaps arguments and like I said, are fallacies.

So before you accuse me of believing the God of the gaps philosophy, read the posts and learn what I really do believe.

If you didnt believe in god of the gaps you wouldnt have said that religion answers things when science cant explain it - that is god of the gaps.
And I dont think you even know what that is since you called science god of the gaps

I have never said that I thought it was a good argument.

Well then this is one of the reasons why we cannot communicate if you are just going to say anything you like, and when I question it you say 'well I didnt think it was a good argument anyway'. So how about you only use arguments you think are good, otherwise, whats the point?

I spend more time on this thread correcting what people read into my posts than in actually telling people what I think and believe. I wonder when the communication is going to get started.

This thread wasnt about sharing beliefs, it was about trying to make sure everyone understood definitions scientific and otherwise - which is a good idea. Im really not interested in your beliefs, Im interested in correcting your misconceptions about science.

And so, because you think that I believe the philosophy of the God of the gaps idea then you can overlook the words study psycology and philosophy and a host of other things and then claim to be paying attention?

You couldnt have studied philosophy and really learnt how to use it properly since you think that argument is valid except its a logical fallacy. And what does psychology have to do with it? If anything psychology helps my position, as it is science.

What happened to the rest of the post, it is here but ignored to you can make an arguement about something that I did not claim. Sounds to me like you are an arguementative person. You know, the kind of person that is only happy when they are argueing.

No that isnt true, and what part of your post did I ignore that wasnt addressed elsewhere? It was long enough without needlessly repeating myself ten times over. And how many times do you think you have skipped my points?

Again, you are getting into a discussion not about choosing authorities, but rather what would be a good authority to choose and why.

No because I keep saying your idea of this "authority" is incorrect.

Do you understand that no where have I said nor even indicated that it is of the same credibility (using your word), what I have said is that we each must choose our own authority.

Well then if we use such a wishy washy definition of authority, even ignoring your doubly incorrect use of the word, you then would have to accept Creationism is not scientific since it is based on non scientific principles. So if you find an "authority" isnt credible then you must not longer accept it as a credible authority anymore. Btw, all that makes a lot more scene if you use the word "source" and not "authority" since using that word is using it out of place.

You make claims about me not understanding based on your assumptions of what you think I have said and never once listen to my words.

Sure I do, but you cant just move the goal posts and expect no one to notice.

I have not said nor indicated that using science as an autority is bad, unwise, inconsistant, or anything else you might want to infer. In fact, in some of my posts I have said just the opposite,

But you have called it an authority, and then compared any old belief including taking the Bible as literally true as authorities as well. You even said on this post" We all choose an authority... You accept that the creationist chooses an authority but refuse to accept that you choose one". Science and Religious faith is not the same and you cannot compare them.

In other words, I cannot accept I choose an authority when your use of the word authority would be completely inaccurate to describe it.

but you ignore all those because I made the claim that religion does add to our understanding of our world.

Yes you did, and you said that it helps us know things science cannot understand. You also havent backed up your claim.

Wow, that is incredible scientific method you have there, hope I never understand it the way you do.

Why? Because I dont accept faith really helps us really know anything?

Ed

 

[gluadys]

Yes, the same was the toe is a belief in who what when where how, the mechanics of evolutionary process. It goes beyond. That is exactly my understanding of the words and phrases for creation the toc, evolution and the toe.

Except that the theory of evolution is not a belief. Evolution is an observed fact. And the mechanics of evolution are observed facts. No belief is required when the facts are staring you in the face.

Because our origins are history and history is not scientific. Actually, I asked you to put forth the criteria that would eliminate it from being a scientific theory so that anyone wanting to prove otherwise would know exactly what burden of proof there was, you infered from that that I believed that the toc is unscientific.

No, I know that others have inferred that, but I did not. No problem. Its easy to get confused as to who said what. I laid out the criteria to show both that the theory of evolution is scientific and creation(ism) is not.

So the basic reason you exclude evolution from being scientific is because it deals with history? That was not one of the criteria for determining that a theory is scientific. Are you saying you believe this should be added to the criteria for a scientific theory?

I think there are two objections to that.
First, evolution is not just about history. We can (and have) determined that evolution is occurring in the present. We can (and have) studied it in the present so that we understand the process.

Second, it is possible to study history scientifically based on hard evidence. The way this is done is to go back to predictions and see if they come out right. We can construct a hypothesis that says: "If X happened here 10 years ago, we ought to see Y today." Then we look for Y.

If we do not find Y, then the evidence shows that our hypothesis was wrong.
But if we do find Y, then we have support for our hypothesis.

This is exactly the sort of thing detectives do when solving crimes, fire inspectors do when determining the cause of a fire, coroners do when determining a cause of death, etc. It is really very common to study history using the scientific method. Why should it be a problem for evolution alone?

First, I have told you many times what I believe but you keep saying that you don't know unless I tell you. How many times must I tell you before you listen? Secondly for about the 5 or 6 time now, I don't believe either to be scientific because they deal with history and I do not believe that history is scientific. I do beleive that history can be approached by science, but that doesn't make it scientific. By the way, this criteria alone would remove both as scientific so your claim about me argueing that the toc is scientific shows a total and complete lack of listening skills to what I have said I believe.

I understand what you said. So now the question is whether this is a valid criterion. We can't just pick and choose any criteria we want. We have to have criteria that are relevant and lead to accurate results.

Also, I think two different things are being brought together prematurely. The question of criteria applies to whether or not any theory is scientific. The criteria define the scientific method. They don't define evolution (or big bang, or gravity) per se. They just define the characteristics of a scientific theory.

From that we can say whether or not the theory of evolution is scientific.
It would be a second step to examine the evidence that supports it to see if it is convincing.

 

[madarab]

razzleflabben, the philosophical basis and methodologies for the historical sciences is necessarily somewhat different than those used by the experimental sciences because we (presumably) only have one history. Barring time machines, it is not something which we can make repeated experiments upon. One of the required criteria for the historical sciences has to do with capacity for prediction. Because our knowledge of the past is necessarily incomplete, we can use future discoveries as a way to verify our past predictions and thus furhter legitimize the claims made by a historical science.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.



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?

I think you are still confused, the question was not about hypothesis, but about theory. You continued to assert that a theory must be evidenced to be considered a scientific theory. But, a hypothesis is not a theory by your definition of scientific theory so therefore you are controdicting your own claims which is why I repeatedly ask you to clarify and gave you ample oppertunity to clarify what you were saying and what you meant. So if you see a difference between hypothesis and theory, but that when it comes to whether or not a theory is scientific there is not difference between the two, which do you really believe, that hypothesis and theory are the same thing or that they are not. To really make you go a bit crazy, here's another question to you to address as to the importance of the question. If hypothesis and theory are not the same thing, then would the toc qualify as a scientific hypothesis? and remember your claim that it has not yet made testable predictions, so then should we look to see if it makes hypothesis? Why wouldn't they be scientific? Should be an interesting discussion based on which of your contradictory definitions you want to go with. Thanks

 

[Humanista]

I find it amusing that razzelflabben started the thread in order to promote communication, yet appears to have great difficulty communicating with everyone on the thread.

None of these communication problems are HER fault, of course. It's everyone ELSE who can't read, understand words or follow logic.

Now I have to replace another irony-o-meter.

 

[Physics_guy]

I think you are still confused, the question was not about hypothesis, but about theory. You continued to assert that a theory must be evidenced to be considered a scientific theory. But, a hypothesis is not a theory by your definition of scientific theory so therefore you are controdicting your own claims which is why I repeatedly ask you to clarify and gave you ample oppertunity to clarify what you were saying and what you meant. So if you see a difference between hypothesis and theory, but that when it comes to whether or not a theory is scientific there is not difference between the two, which do you really believe, that hypothesis and theory are the same thing or that they are not. To really make you go a bit crazy, here's another question to you to address as to the importance of the question. If hypothesis and theory are not the same thing, then would the toc qualify as a scientific hypothesis? and remember your claim that it has not yet made testable predictions, so then should we look to see if it makes hypothesis? Why wouldn't they be scientific? Should be an interesting discussion based on which of your contradictory definitions you want to go with. Thanks

She is not making any contradictions. You aren't understanding what she is writing. Go back and read it again.

 

[razzelflabben]

How can you honestly say the above? If I can cite many scientists that do meet the criteria, how is it a no win challenge? Really, what is so unreasonable about them?

It is a no win challenge when any little infringement is viewed as disallowed, I could do the same with your evolutionist threads, do you understand this, and you would claim that I didn't understand science and therefore the criteria was meet and I would claim otherwise, siting evidence and you would say, see that source wasn't credible and on and on it goes. You must understand this?!? Even in the court of law that you refer too, the lawyers paint a picture of credibility or not based on thier bias. That is what makes credibility realitive.

All I am asking for is a Creationist scientific source that doesnt misrepresent the evidence either out of ignorance or dishonesty. How is that not a fair request?

Maybe you would have a semi fair request of someone making the claim that they are, but the only claim made related to this is your claim that they are not. That's half the problem. That is equal to me asking you to present one credible creationist source. Do you take the challenge? Why not, and remember, I reserve the right to determine if it fits the criteria I present or not. See, your claim is that the creationists sites are biased, I do not dispute this, I would add that the evoutionist sites are also biased and that finding a good neutral, scientific site is hard to do, but that is beside the point. What you want me to do is step outside my opinions and evidence something that I don't think exists, that being any website that is unbiased for or against evolution. If you really are interested in finding the site you are challenging me to find, then you must do one of three things because oviously you will not narrow down the criteria. 1. Look for it yourself, 2. ask someonw who claims they exist, or 3. accept that any site that deals with our origins is presenting a biased view and will not be able to present an unbiased look at our origins.

No, since Im using your twisted use of "authority".

My so called twisted use of authority simply says that if there is a choice, and you admit that there is because of the anger you have toward creationists, then you have a choice as well, what you base your choice on may or may not be as wise as what the creationist bases their authority on, but that is beyond the point being made. The point is that we each must choose what authority we will accept. If the creationist has a choice, then so do you, it's as simple as that.

I didnt say that every Creationist was the same as AIG and ICR. What I said was that there are no credible scientific Creationist sources anywhere. Its easy to prove me wrong by citing someone that doesnt ignorently or dishonestly misrepresent the science.

And do you understand that I never claimed that there was, I did claim that there were people who believed that there were, but never did I claim that they were right, do you comprehend this? You must listen to what is being said in order to have any kind of meaningful communication. How long now have we been going around based on your assumption that I am a creationist or somthing like that because you want to read into what I post without asking for clarity of what you don't understand?

And would they match point 2? Ignorent, perhaps?

I would not clasify them as ignorant, and I certainly wouldn't classify them as talking about what they don't understand, but then, they also don't view the toc as a religion, but rather as a biblical story, to make gluadys happy, a biblical doctrine.

Yes. Pasteur didnt write much on the subject, however like most french scientists at the time Pasteur didnt deny evolution but didnt accept natural selection as the cause. Creationists werent the anti-science variety we find today, anyway.
[/color]"Virulence appears in a new light which cannot but be alarming to humanity; unless nature, in her evolution down the ages (an evolution which, as we now know, has been going on for millions, nay, hundreds of millions of years), has finally exhausted all the possibilities of producing virulent or contagious diseases -- which does not seem very likely" - Pasteur

Interesting, please site, this site hints as the opposite http://ambafrance-ca.org/HYPERLAB/PEOPLE/_pasteur.html , in this one, they even asked the question of pastuer http://www.tccsa.tc/adventure/pasteur.html so I guess I have met your challenge, unless you want to claim that pastuer was not cridible.

Now I haven't read this entire site yet, but it came up in my search for pastuer and the opening sounds interesting, you might be interested in viewing it, maybe not, anyway here it is if your are interested in knowing more about the scientists that believe the toc http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_4.htm

You can believe whatever you want, its when they want their beliefs taught in schools as science, thats the problem and thats why its important.

Who here is asking any view to be taught in schools? I thought that was a totally different topic and thread.

I dont label anyone that doesnt make their beliefs clear.

You labeled me. I believe that I have been pretty clear as to my beliefs and why I believe what I do and have clarified when asked, yet you label me and assume what I have not said. Hummmm, wonder which claim you are now denying?

And the Hebrews, as did everyone at that time and location, also held the belief that the earth was flat. So what? What a completely erroneous comparison

Ed

[/QUOTE]Actually, again you are assuming what is not there, what I am saying is that the creation story came before the toe therefore, if any part is borrowed from the other it would have to be the toe borrowing from the toc in that the toe did not exist when the toc was written. This is about as simple of a mathematical understanding that we can have.

 

[razzelflabben]

There is only magic of creationism, thats what I keep telling you. If this "theory of creation" explains the mechanics by mentioning mircales why talk about "the mechanics of"? If every step of the way have to call in a miracle how then are you really explaining anything?

Ed

Well this brings up two issues 1. According to the account of creation in Gen. the beginning of life was the only "magical" occurance. This is looking at the gen account of creation alone and not all the extras placed upon the story. After that, the creation was "instructed" to proceed in a natural manner of procreating. So again, only one "magical" occurance at this stage of the account.
2. If creation occured "magically", then the mechanism of creation would be magic and the magician then would also be a mechanism of that creation. Therefore, the toc deals with the mechanism.

It seems like some here don't understand that civilizations throughout history have similar creation stories, one indian culture if I remember correctly, uses a raven. Anyway, the point it the word cration does not specify who created, or how "he" created. Those questions are left for individual theories and the most commonly referred to is the toc which uses God as the mechanism.

 

[razzelflabben]

That wasnt your point. You said that if you remove religion, it leaves gaps in our understanding and not only compared it to science but said it was loosely science (when it is nothing like science at all). Therfore I asked to show me what we actually "know" thanks to religion and just like I thought you still cant deliever. See, science only deals with what is objective and verifiable, and if using religion we could really know something which science couldnt, then the scientific method would be wrong and needs to be updated. So please answer the question, and after that you can then claim your Nobel prize for making such an immense substantial contribution to knowledge.

And I demonstrated to you that religion is useful to our understanding of the world and so not you want more specifics, so, let's take the scientific approach to understanding how science accepts religion as valuable. Studies have and are being done as to the benefits of prayer and belief in relation to health and healing in general. Some of the studies are suggesting a correlation. To where religion is not scientific, the approach to religion can be scientific and can benefit man greatly. In fact, recently, if a city close to us, there is a big deal being made of an amazing number of healings occuring after prayer. There are many stories of varying degrees of healing and science is beginning to become increasingly interested in the phenomina. So, as to specifics, health and healing.

I should probably have said what I meant by atheist. In my case, and with nearly every atheist I have known, I am an atheist because I dont believe in any god. I dont believe in god because I have no reason to believe in one . It doesnt mean I know a god doesnt exist, except if you were to define god as the Biblcial god I would add the postive and say I know that god doesnt exist. Because if a god does exist it certinaly isnt the petty, wrathfull and jealous god of the Bible that loves the smell of burning animal flesh. The point is, you cant have a religion based on a lack of belief. Your lack of belief in unicorns or space faries isnt a belief system or religion either.

Read your own words, they say, that you believe, or to be exact, you don't believe. Belief is the basis for all religious assumptions,

There is only one part of the definition of religion you will use to prove your point.

Because if every single belief or action is a religion then religion is a completely meaningless term.

I'm disappointed you didn't ask for criteria as I asked for the scientific nature of theory. But, you didn't so lets consider all the defintiions. Words can hold different meanings based on their use.
Use 1. as defined in our constitution. Religion referring to any belief about supernatural beings. Thus athesism is included in this understanding of religion. In other words, any belief as to the supernatural is a religion.
2. An organization. This would include the ecclesiasties of any organization that has a certain belief about the supernatural. Now there are many organized web sites and organizations that boast atheism, and as such have an ecclesiastical structure and fit the definition of religion in that it is based on ones belief as to the supernatural. Not, absence of belief in god/gods is not equal to no belief. It is still a belief even going from you words.
3. The biblical definition of how we deal with other people. This then is a basic understanding of the "code" by which we live and fits better under the definition of belief system, but is defined by the bible as religion.

That pretty much so covers all the definition uses I can find, want to offer any I have missed? We can offer some criteria that would eliminate atheism from the category of religion if you would like to, but then, we would no longer be talking about the definitions and instead creating a criteria to satisfy our own agenda, but if you want to, let me know, I'm sure we can come up with enough criteria to satisfy your need to not be considered religious.

Key part: "before god". It is a religous notion. And like I said if every action or belief or idea becomes your "religion" then the word is meaningless.

Wrong, the key part is that it is the biblical understanding of religion. As addressed a couple of times now, this definition is from the bible but addresses all definitions that have been presented for the word religion. If you want to dismiss the definition, fine, but it does exist and was evidenced to you and discussed on the merits of the definition and source of the definition and not on our assumptions as to whether or not it is the true definition. The bible assumes the existance of God and therefore, the definitions will reflect that assumption. Just as the evolutionist arguements will reflect the assumptions of common ancestry and the creationists arguements will reflect the Gen creation assumptions. And the atheists arguements will reflect the assumptions that they are absent of belief as to the supernatural beings.

 

[razzelflabben]

Quite true, but the "hard" evidence of direct observation that you seem to think is so important shows that the sun does actually rise each morning. IT is only after one takes the myriad of "soft" circmstantial evidence into account that one comes to the conclusion that the Earth is rotating and not that the Sun is revolving around the Earth (well at least by the basis of the center of mass of the system).

Direct observations are sensual in that we must observe them. I can observe heat from being in direct line with the ball of light in the sky. I can see that ball of light, I can feel the coolness when the light is gone, etc. etc. etc. I can also do experiements to measure the sun. These are direct observations. I cannot determine from direct observation that the sun moves, because it is equally reasonable to expect that the earth moves, I cannot dirctly observe what is causing my sunburn, but I can directly observe that being in the sun will give me a burn. Some people I know attribute even stricter guidelines for what is considered hard evidence, so instead of being nuts about what I am saying, you should be thankful that I am as leaniant as I am, but that is another issue.

I really have no idea what you mean by this. I simply asked you a question and sometimes I find your responses simply weird. I am not assume an "authority" here.

If my authority to the sun riseing issue is self, then I might determine that the sun rises. If on the other hand, my authority is science, then I would say, no, the sun does not rise, the earth rotates. It is all a matter of perspective based on the authority one chooses.

But that is exactly the point. You are not observing the sun every day in any true sense. Your "hard"/direct evidences points you to an innaccurate conclusion regarding what you are observing (i.e. you think you are observing the sun itself). The "soft"/indirect evidence leads one to the correct (or at least vastly more correct) conclusion that your optic nerve is being stimulated by photons that left the sun about 8 minutes ago. We do not observe these photons leaving the Sun, we infer it based on all that "soft" evidence that you do not think is valuable. Therefore, we have no "hard" evidence that the sun exists at all - all we have that is a direct observation is that photons that appear to be from the sun are being picked up by the rods and cones in our eyes.

By your criteria, there is no such thing as evidence, which would go totally contrary to science and the toe. The degree of evidence is by my definition based on the same observation techniques applied to by science. That maybe should be made clear.

The point is that we do not observe the sun (you seemed to have gotten hung up on my use of the colloquial "rising" to describe the sun's apparent motion instead of the point of my post that you are not observing the sun itself but actually photons that you infer came from the sun).

see above.

I infer from your statements that you have a problem with Common Descent. You have not discussed any scientific statements so far that I have read in this thread. Your objections have been purely philosophical which is the realm of religion. I have inferred that your beliefs are based on religion. I believe that is a valid conclusion based on the evidence.

Huh? I do not believe we have hard evidence to observed common ancestry. How does that equal religion based understanding or that my conclusions are religious based? I am a philsopher by nature, talked about many times, but we have also talked about how philosophy and science are connected. So in the early parts of this discussion, we must have philos. in order to understand science but not we cannot understand science if we include philos. do you people even listen to yourselves, it is increasingly evident you don't listen to others that you deem as having a different belief, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that you don't even listen to yourselves.

I have no idea what your scientific understanding of the ToE is, except that I have a fairly good basis to believe you do not have a very good understanding of the nature of science because you have stated repeatedly that the ToE is not scientific because it deals with the historical. That is a misunderstanding of science.

I have stated that that is my opinion and I have stated why and that there are other scientists, some who have been referred to by evolutionists here on the forum that would agree with my opinion. But never have I assumed nor suggested that an opinion was fact, or must be pushed on others, only that that was my opinion and why.

Didn't say you were upset. I said you were "uppity," which your reply certainly sounded as if it was. Now, I understand that textual mediums are not always good at conveying the emotion behind the words, but your complaints about how you have tried to be courteous and all certainly seemed like you were being put off by being questioned rigorously on your use of "hard" and "soft" as categorizations of evidence. I think my comments and questions were very valid, and I still think that your answers regarding what you consider "hard" and "soft" and why one is better than the other have been less than convincing.

Curtious, I could take off the gloves so to speak and tell you exactly what I think of your "tactics" of debate, but I choose to exercise curtious manners on the forum in as much as I can and still be fair in the discussion. Sometimes, what appears to be non curtious is actually very curtious. It is a choice I have made, to not revert to calling people I don't know ignorant, stupid, uneducated, etc. It is not a matter of being upset or angry, but rather one of choice in not reverting to the techniques displayed here of underhanded assumptions and cutting remarks that serve to belittle the individual and thus drive them away.

I have not issue with being questioned, not put off the least, I am amazed that people have a problem with my opinion on the matter as I have pointed out at least on site that agrees with my opinion and that even further agreement is found in our legal system, but you can question all you want, no worries.

I was not aware that I was suppose to convince you of anything. Thanks for the update. The op asks for understandings of various words not debate as to what words understandings are acceptable and what aren't in fact, I experssly asked for no debate, but questions of explaination were acceptable. It is for this reason I ask gluadys why it was necessary for me to lump all my understandings into one post, because it is contrary to the heart of the op. Trying to convince you that I am right is contrary to the op and would require a different technique anyway. In fact, I am very big on allowing people to come to thier own conclusions and so seldom ingage in debate in which MY PERSONAL goal is to convince anyone of anything. I will happily present my opinion and will just as happily entertain yours, and then, I am finished. If you continue to ask me about my opinion, I will continue to give it our of curtisy for your asking, but have no real interest in further discussion because both sides were presented and it is not up to the individual to deside.

 

[razzelflabben]

If you tell us an authority is one that says a red car is blue despite all objective evidence that says otherwise, that objective scientific evidence and reality itself is also an authority, if you also say that religion is also an authority and without it it leaves gaps in our understanding explaining things science cant, then you have conflated the word to be completely meaningless. They are NOT all the same. Scientific evidence is not the same as Rocko the giant invisible elephant ...or a literal belief in the Bible.

Okay, let's try this yet again, The authority I choose to believe, determines what I deem as fact/truth. So if I choose the authority of science, then what I deem as fact/truth will be different than what someone who chooses self as an authority. It is not a debate about which authority is best, you seem to be making it a contest between which authority is best. It's about desideing which authority you will believe in. Which authority you attribute as knowing or being able to provide us with fact/truth. I really am stumped as to why you don't get this very simple comment. I find myself every post furrowing my brow trying to find the root of your disagreement and still it alludes me. An authority-official institution; agency; power; control; jurisdiction


Like, the one you hold to having the most or best, or best chance of knowing fact/truth. How is that watered down? Further confusion, scratching head.

Me: So the next time they take medication, have an operation, go up in an aeroplane or whatever other scientific advancement they just take for granted, they can pretend that it wasnt science but actually because of God or Buddah?

You: It depends on what their individual authority is.

You have never heard of people who refuse meds, and med care because they hold to a different authority? Every little bit, we hear of parents getting in trouble because they refused medical care for their children, usually because of thier religious beliefs, you know, the belief that God is a greater authority than science and med. in general. They choose a different authority. You and I choose the authority of science and med. in general when we are sick, that is why my son resently had surgery rather than me relying solely on God. Are you starting to get any of this? I am so confused by what you don't seem to understand about my comments.

Me: The only true finial authority is the evidence and facts.

You: Then that is your authority.

You choose evidence and facts as you final authority, some choose science in general, some God, some the bible, some self, those are probably the most common.

Even gluadys had to correct you.

You: "And evaluation of that evidence based on the authority you believe in. (same as above for creationists)

gluadys: No. The evidence must be evaluated without the bias of a belief system. No one individual is free from such bias. That is one of the reasons science must be public. So that scientists evaluating the evidence from many different biases can correct each other's biases to get an interpretation that is NOT biased by belief in any authority, but rises solely from the evidence.

Only if evidence is your authority and truth/ fact is your goal. You do understand that some people have other goals in mind, and other authorities they hold do don't you. The crusades were a perfect example of this though not the only example we can find. A different authority was held to be ultimate than reason and science. My 5 year old still struggles with accepting the authority of reason when he is upset. To him, the only authority is self/emotion. We grow into accepting different authorities in our lifes. I would never accept the authority of a scientist, when the issue of my understanding of salvation, there are other authorities better able to discuss the issue than a scientist.

Again if you define authority is such a way as you have done, then clearly everything is an authority. But then the word becomes meaningless. There is no point accepting someone an authority until they have proven themselves to be credible and even then it isnt a ultimate finial authority like religious faith is. You say science is an authority like religion or any wacky belief, except it is unlike these because science does not have any faith. It is not a belief system. You did make that error earlier, because you called evolution a belief system so that is why you have wrongly lumped science with everything else. You have now so obfuscated the word you pretend your original point was rather different. But you have sufficiently moved the goal posts for the definition of the word so that it doesnt relate to science in any way. In no ways is science the same as religion.

Look you are doing it again. Science is in no way comparable to religious faith. Yet further on in this post you deny you have done so.

Anything you believe to be fact/truth is rooted in your belief system and that belief system is based on the authority you choose. You have never been faced with the concept that things are not always what they appear to be? that is what optical illusions tell us. Therefore, what we believe to be fact/truth, is simply that, what we BELIEVE to be fact/truth.

And stop pretending I am "scared", its just clear you dont understand science at all.

Me: Biological evolution is one of the most well supported theories in science. Anyone amateur or professional could challenge it at any time with actual evidence that could withstand the critical analysis of peer review:

You: "Never said to the contrary"

So my point is that although you may not have actually stated it outright, you quite clearly dont agree with what I said, since you are so defensive of the Creationist position. (And Creationists fight among themselves anyway.)

Huh? I did not claim that anyone could challenge science, or that evolution is well supported in science so that makes me defensive of the creationist position? Where are you even coming from on this claim. I didn't disagree with you, is that a better wording for you? How about yes, I agree? or maybe you like the words, sure I didn't say differently? What words do you like here? I choose the words, Never said to the contrary and you label me as defensive of the creationist position. Hummm, no labeling from you?!

And you are doing it again, now you equate us and 'evolutionists' to extremists. All we are doing is correcting your perception of science and evolution and you dont understand technical terms and are very resistant to learning how to use them properly.

What ever, when I am labeled unjustly, I tend to view the labeler as extremist or else they would have listened before labeling. Go figure!
.

Yes you have (see above), and have sufficiently blurred things making it easy for you to move the goal posts which confuses people.

Which you have not backed up. Since you equated it to science I dont mean any god of the gap arguments, which are fallacies.

I have not read anything into it, but since you continually obscure your points and definitions when anyone shows it is flawed you pretend you were either talking about something else or use your own personal definitions and claim victory.

I have not changed the goal posts, or whatever else you are claiming here, so believe what you want. My burden to be to as honest and curtious and clear as I can possibly be, that is the end of my burden whether you believe me or what I am saying or not is not my burden to carry and whether or not you want to read into my words or not is not my burden. So, it is what it is. Period.

I never said science knew everything. And in neither example did religion help us know anything, only pretend we know. They were god of the gaps arguments and like I said, are fallacies.

If you didnt believe in god of the gaps you wouldnt have said that religion answers things when science cant explain it - that is god of the gaps.
And I dont think you even know what that is since you called science god of the gaps

Whatever, I said that all the disiplines have something to offer our understanding of the world. So if that equals the mentality of the god of the gaps, then I shall wear it proudly, because quite honestly, I believe our world to be too vast to be reduced to only one of the disipline we are discussing.

Well then this is one of the reasons why we cannot communicate if you are just going to say anything you like, and when I question it you say 'well I didnt think it was a good argument anyway'. So how about you only use arguments you think are good, otherwise, whats the point?

Don't even know what you are referring to.

This thread wasnt about sharing beliefs, it was about trying to make sure everyone understood definitions scientific and otherwise - which is a good idea. Im really not interested in your beliefs, Im interested in correcting your misconceptions about science.

Like that evidence can and is viewed on a spectrum, or that evidence and logic are good authorities, which misconception about science is it that you are trying to desperately to correct?

You couldnt have studied philosophy and really learnt how to use it properly since you think that argument is valid except its a logical fallacy. And what does psychology have to do with it? If anything psychology helps my position, as it is science.

and just a few posts ago, I was accused of using philosophy rather than science. Do you want to shift you debate with that person and argue whether my opinions are philosophical in nature or not? That might be interesting to watch.

No that isnt true, and what part of your post did I ignore that wasnt addressed elsewhere? It was long enough without needlessly repeating myself ten times over. And how many times do you think you have skipped my points?

I try to pass issues already addressed or out of line with the op and still be curtious enough to answer questions asked of me, if I missed something, I appologize, just bring it up again and tell me I missed it.

No because I keep saying your idea of this "authority" is incorrect.

Well then if we use such a wishy washy definition of authority, even ignoring your doubly incorrect use of the word, you then would have to accept Creationism is not scientific since it is based on non scientific principles. So if you find an "authority" isnt credible then you must not longer accept it as a credible authority anymore. Btw, all that makes a lot more scene if you use the word "source" and not "authority" since using that word is using it out of place.

I have given my understanding for the term authority as well as the web definition, I would think that would be sufficient to explain my use of the word, if not, I'm not sure how to explain it further.[quore]Sure I do, but you cant just move the goal posts and expect no one to notice.

But you have called it an authority, and then compared any old belief including taking the Bible as literally true as authorities as well. You even said on this post" We all choose an authority... You accept that the creationist chooses an authority but refuse to accept that you choose one". Science and Religious faith is not the same and you cannot compare them.

The definition of authority does not specify if the choice is good or bad,

In other words, I cannot accept I choose an authority when your use of the word authority would be completely inaccurate to describe it.

Yes you did, and you said that it helps us know things science cannot understand. You also havent backed up your claim.

Why? Because I dont accept faith really helps us really know anything?

Ed

Already addressed if you still don't get it come back, I'm running out of time and will need to see if I can squeeze our a bit more to get caught up for the day.

 

[razzelflabben]

Except that the theory of evolution is not a belief. Evolution is an observed fact. And the mechanics of evolution are observed facts. No belief is required when the facts are staring you in the face.

Let's talk about that one later okay, this thread is still tooo long for me to address everything in one day. Suffice to say that I agree that evolution is an observed fact, it is the toe that is not an observed fact though there is evidence to suggest it to be fact. Inportant distinction to make when you hear some of the claims I have heard.

No, I know that others have inferred that, but I did not. No problem. Its easy to get confused as to who said what. I laid out the criteria to show both that the theory of evolution is scientific and creation(ism) is not.

So the basic reason you exclude evolution from being scientific is because it deals with history? That was not one of the criteria for determining that a theory is scientific. Are you saying you believe this should be added to the criteria for a scientific theory?

I think there are two objections to that.
First, evolution is not just about history. We can (and have) determined that evolution is occurring in the present. We can (and have) studied it in the present so that we understand the process.

Second, it is possible to study history scientifically based on hard evidence. The way this is done is to go back to predictions and see if they come out right. We can construct a hypothesis that says: "If X happened here 10 years ago, we ought to see Y today." Then we look for Y.

If we do not find Y, then the evidence shows that our hypothesis was wrong.
But if we do find Y, then we have support for our hypothesis.

This is exactly the sort of thing detectives do when solving crimes, fire inspectors do when determining the cause of a fire, coroners do when determining a cause of death, etc. It is really very common to study history using the scientific method. Why should it be a problem for evolution alone?



I understand what you said. So now the question is whether this is a valid criterion. We can't just pick and choose any criteria we want. We have to have criteria that are relevant and lead to accurate results.

Also, I think two different things are being brought together prematurely. The question of criteria applies to whether or not any theory is scientific. The criteria define the scientific method. They don't define evolution (or big bang, or gravity) per se. They just define the characteristics of a scientific theory.

From that we can say whether or not the theory of evolution is scientific.
It would be a second step to examine the evidence that supports it to see if it is convincing.

The problem with any criteria or definition is that it doesn't address all the issues that could come up. We try to be as compete as possible in our criteria, but as lawyers know all to well as well as hackers, there is always somthing that comes up, some arguement, some loophole we didn't figure on. That being said, I understand and accept that the criteria presented doesn't remove the toe from being a scientific theory and as such, I accept this understanding when discussing evolution and creation and any form there of. However, something has always nagged me about the toe and it's "scientific claims" I couldn't quite put my finger on it until I read a paper referenced by an evolutionist on the forum in which the comment was made that history is not scientific. I read several other papers that suggested the same thing. Now, to be sure to clarify, science can study history, but history is not scientific in nature. So to that conclusion and understanding, I have adjusted, or revised my personal understanding of the words. It is open to discussion, but is not brought into the debate except when asked for, being that it is my personal belief and I am not a scientist, wanting to offer a revision to the criteria given already.