Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

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.

Which is percisely why I said that we can approach history scientifically (do experiments), but that history is not scientific.

 

[Physics_guy]

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 am not being "nuts" about it - I am simply stating why I think your distinctions between "hard" and "soft" evidence is not rigorous and not particularly useful.

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.

Sorry, I find this simply strange. I can quite easily use myself as an authority and come to the conclusion that the Earth rotates as opposed to being cirlced by the sun simply by looking at all of the evidence, as opposed to jumping to an initial conclusion. That is what scientists do.

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.

No your definitions of "hard" and "soft" are not rigorous defintions used by science, they are your own concoctions that bear little resemblance to how scientists do their work. I believe in evidence - what my point about photons hitting your rods and cones was trying to show is that the distinction you make between "soft" and "hard" evidence is fictitious. All evidence is observed by our senses in some way and all evidence is useful in drawing a conclusion. Just like in a court case, however, eye-witness testimony is far from perfectly reliable and that is why juries and scientists like to consider multiple lines of observations to draw a conclusion.

The ToE is strongly supported by many independant lines of observations, and it is the coming together of all these lines of observations that leads scientists to the conclusion of Common Descent.

Huh? I do not believe we have hard evidence to observed common ancestry.

I believe that your definition of "hard" evidence is not very well thought through (for example: is a fossil that clearly exhibits characteristics of dinosaurs as well as birds "hard" evidence? is the observed speciation of a species of fish "hard" evidence? are the correlations between the morphological and genetic heirarchies common to all organisms "hard" evidence?), and I know that we have a huge amount of direct observations that support the conclusion of Common Ancestry. I strongly believe that your distinction between "hard" and "soft" evidence is purely subjective and boils down to a distinction that is simple "hard" evidence is enough to convince you, while "soft" is not.

How does that equal religion based understanding or that my conclusions are religious based?

I infer that religion is the motivating factor in your decisions about Common Ancestry based on numerous posts you have madee on this forum as well as my experience with people who say similar things. My inference could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I am a philsopher by nature, talked about many times, but we have also talked about how philosophy and science are connected.

I do not see how this relates really. Philosophy relates to absolutely everything. Philosophy of Science is well established discipline based on the works of people like Bacon and Popper that discusses what is and what is not science.

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.

Again, I do not understand the relevance of this. Personal philosophy sets up ones axioms. These axioms are not established by evidence, but are base level - they allow for other types of study to occur. Most people have as an axiom that reality is real - i.e. that we are not just dreaming everything that occurs. This basic axiom allows us to study reality. Other people add other axioms such as God exists or that the Bible is infallible. These axioms will sometimes lead people to very different conclusions than those reached by people who do not have those axioms. Neither of these axioms are necessary for science, and these axioms can actually sometimes get in the way of science. I do not argue people's axioms because there is truly no point, but I do argue with people who try to impose their axioms on how science works. Their have been a great many philosophers far more versed in the subject than either of us who have done a great job doing that already.

do you people even listen to yourselves,

This sentence clearly undermines your claim to being courteous. I am not any part of "you people" - I am individual. I stand by my own comments and my own thoughts. I am not in allegiance against you with others. You sound paranoid when you make comments like this. The courteous thing to do would be to apologize.

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.

And now here your uncourteous behavior goes even higher. For one you are equating me with others simply because I and others hold different views than your own. This is stereotyping and is the basis of racism and sexism. It is usually consider good manners to avoid this kind of behavior. Two, you are making unsupported attacks on my listening capabilities. I have in no way contradicted myself in this thread and I have listened to you. I don't agree with you and I have show where I believe you are wrong. Sorry if that is so upsetting.

Curtious, I could take off the gloves so to speak and tell you exactly what I think of your "tactics" of debate,

Your paragraph above this one shows that you do not have very much right to claim the high ground in terms of being a "curtious (sic)" debator.

but I choose to exercise curtious manners on the forum in as much as I can and still be fair in the discussion

Seems you have decided to not hold to that choice, or am I misinterpretting you here?

Sometimes, what appears to be non curtious is actually very curtious.

I agree with this - as I said, the limitations of the medium make judgements about the emotions behind the words sometimes difficult.

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.

Great, so what does this have to with the discussion. I applaud this attitude but find it weird that you are raising it here. In the original post that spawned this issue I mentioned that you seemed to get a little "uppity" regarding my pushing you on rigorous definitions of the terms you used. Nothing in the last several posts have altered that impression.

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 do not know where you pointed to a site that agreed with your opinion (this is a long thread as I am sure you are aware), but I do not see how finding a site that agrees with someone's opinion has much value - there are literally billions of websites supporting ever conceivable opinion. Furthermore, I disagree with your descriptions about how evidence is treated in our legal system. Eye witness testimony is not as strong evidence as you seemed to have suggested it is.

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.

Great. Thanks for letting me know that you aren't that interested in communication. Your opinions differ from mine on the issue of the Theory of Evolution - thanks for the update, but I knew that before you started this thread. You have stated many opinions as if they have some validity beyond your personal opinion, such as your opinion about the scientific nature of the ToE, your distinctions in terms of "hard" and "soft" evidence, etc. I have disagreed with those opinions and have questioned you on them. I still disagree with them and I do not believe that you have addressed my questions regarding them. That maybecause I have not communicated them well enough or it may because you haven't communicated your responses well enough, but if we leave it at you have your opinion and I have mine, we will never get anywhere.

Oh well, that is just my opinion.

 

[gluadys]

I think you are still confused,

In that case, you are mistaken.

the question was not about hypothesis, but about theory.

They are both needed to help define what a theory is. You pressed me several times to explain why there must be evidence to confirm that a theory is a scientific theory. You seemed to think that a scientific sounding proposal that was testable could be a scientific theory even if there was not evidence to support it.

It finally occurred to me that this problem you were having could be due to a gap in your vocabulary. Perhaps you had never heard the word "hypothesis".

You might say that a hypothesis and a theory are related to each other as an egg is to a chick. Just as an egg may grow into a chick, so a hypothesis may grow into a theory.

The difference between an egg and a chick is maturity--the development of form and the capacity for independent existence. The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is the presence of evidence. A hypothesis is a theory that has not been tested yet, just as an egg is a chick which has not developed yet.

A hypothesis becomes a theory when it is tested and shown that at least one of its predictions is correct. Just as an egg beomes a chick when its development is complete and the chick hatches.

So you can think of a hypothesis as an immature theory---one that has no confirmed evidence to support it. And you can think of a theory as a mature hypothesis--one that does have confirmed evidence to support it.

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?

Creation (i.e. that things were made) is a doctrine, not scientific at all, if one assumes a supernatural maker.

Creationism does not qualify as a scientific hypothesis either. A hypothesis is an immature theory which has not been tested yet, so we don't know yet whether its predictions are true or false.

Creationism is not an immature, untested hypothesis. It has been tested many times and it has been falsified many times.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Why should the theory of evolution need to be supported by anything other than the fact of evolution? A theory is not a fact. It is a proposed explanation or model of how things work which is supported by facts and which helps us understand how different facts are related to each other. You do not observe a theory; you observe the evidence for a theory.

So, as long as the evidence for evolution is observed, you have observed all you need to affirm the correctness of the theory of evolution.

The problem with any criteria or definition is that it doesn't address all the issues that could come up.

No problem. We add criteria and build up definitions as we need them. We never have to wait until we have it all perfect before moving on. If we did have to do that, no science would get done at all.

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.

That doesn't mean that we cannot apply the scientific method to history and derive conclusions from it in which we can be confident. The basic problem with history is that we don't have some evidence, because it has been destroyed. We can still come to some pretty good conclusions based on the evidence that has survived.

As I pointed out earlier, we use such evidence all the time to reconstruct how a crime was committed, how a fire started, how an accident occurred, how a mysterious death occurred.

If such use of historical evidence is reasonably reliable, then the same sort of evidence can be used in archeology, paleontology, physics and molecular biology with the same confidence.

Why would you assume otherwise?

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry, I find this simply strange. I can quite easily use myself as an authority and come to the conclusion that the Earth rotates as opposed to being cirlced by the sun simply by looking at all of the evidence, as opposed to jumping to an initial conclusion. That is what scientists do.

I did not say that if self was the authority that the only conclusion would be that the sun rises, but that I might determine that the sun rises. See, the concept and thought process here is that we determine what we believe to be real based on our authority, or what we hold to be (in the infamous words of ed) credible. I would think it wise to accept science/evidence/logic, as an authority in our lives in addressing some issues. But if someone chooses another authority, then their opinions and thoughts will be much different and the only way to prove them wrong is through the authority you can choosen and not their own. (a few exceptions can be found). What I cannot fathom is that you recognize this choice of authority in the creationist but deny it in yourself. If the creationist has a different authority, something or someone that they hold as having or knowing truth, then there authromatically is a choice. If they are free to choose the bible or God, then you are just as free to choose science or evidence. Do you comprehend that it is not about what is truth, or real but rather what we percieve truth or real to be? It is what our perception of real is based on. Things are not always what they appear to be, that is a common understanding among most people, it is why, magicians are able to do magic. So we observe (through direct observation) that what is real is not always what I percieve real to be. That is why we need to choose an authority, someone or something that we percieve and accept as knowing or being able to determine truth. If I understood what your problem with this concept was, I might be able to figure out whether we are disagreeing or agreeing but so far, all I can figure out is that you disagree, but that when you post on the issue we agree, which is extremely confusing.

No your definitions of "hard" and "soft" are not rigorous defintions used by science, they are your own concoctions that bear little resemblance to how scientists do their work. I believe in evidence - what my point about photons hitting your rods and cones was trying to show is that the distinction you make between "soft" and "hard" evidence is fictitious. All evidence is observed by our senses in some way and all evidence is useful in drawing a conclusion. Just like in a court case, however, eye-witness testimony is far from perfectly reliable and that is why juries and scientists like to consider multiple lines of observations to draw a conclusion.

See if this helps you understand my position on the matter and why I believe what I do. All evidence is hard. It is a direct observation of something. But, how that evidence is understood is not always hard. For example. we have on this thread talked a lot about my fingerprint being at my grandmothers house, my fingerprint being at my grandmothers house is hard evidence that I was there. It is soft evidence as to who commited the crime because in order to determine that, I must infer, or speculate what is not there. Now some evidence is too soft to tell us anything useful. But all evidence has some value, the scale with the extrmes is like a guideline in which we apply the evidence to what we want to "prove" and then see if there is enough evidence to "convict". Again, I am stumped as to what you don't agree with here or what you don't understand about my understanding of the matter. Every courtroom, lawyer, policman, jurer, knows that not all evidence weighs the same. So when I come here and say that not all evidence weighs the same, I am told how I don't understand science and how science works. I am referenced to articles by evolutionists that agree that not all evidence weighs the same and I am told I don't understand science. This is most confusing.

I believe that your definition of "hard" evidence is not very well thought through (for example: is a fossil that clearly exhibits characteristics of dinosaurs as well as birds "hard" evidence?

It is hard evidence that the fossil exhibits characteristics of dinos and birds.

is the observed speciation of a species of fish "hard" evidence?

It is hard evidence of the speciation of a species of fish.

are the correlations between the morphological and genetic heirarchies common to all organisms "hard" evidence?),

Hard evidence for the morphological and genetic heirarchies of all organisms.

and I know that we have a huge amount of direct observations that support the conclusion of Common Ancestry. I strongly believe that your distinction between "hard" and "soft" evidence is purely subjective and boils down to a distinction that is simple "hard" evidence is enough to convince you, while "soft" is not.

Believe what you want, I do not find inferances and assumptions to be hard evidence, if that makes me stupid or ignorant, then I wear the title proudly. Now collectively, this soft evidence (inferances and assumptions) may or may not be enough to convince one of reasonable doubt, but seperately, they do nothing to evidence reality and thus, are not hard evidence for what we want to prove. The combination of such evidence then, is a subjective matter and must be dealt with as such.

I infer that religion is the motivating factor in your decisions about Common Ancestry based on numerous posts you have madee on this forum as well as my experience with people who say similar things. My inference could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Which is a perfect example as to why inferring and assumptions are not considered by me to be hard evidence because, they can and often are wrong. just as you are wrong here.

Again, I do not understand the relevance of this. Personal philosophy sets up ones axioms. These axioms are not established by evidence, but are base level - they allow for other types of study to occur. Most people have as an axiom that reality is real - i.e. that we are not just dreaming everything that occurs. This basic axiom allows us to study reality. Other people add other axioms such as God exists or that the Bible is infallible. These axioms will sometimes lead people to very different conclusions than those reached by people who do not have those axioms. Neither of these axioms are necessary for science, and these axioms can actually sometimes get in the way of science. I do not argue people's axioms because there is truly no point, but I do argue with people who try to impose their axioms on how science works. Their have been a great many philosophers far more versed in the subject than either of us who have done a great job doing that already.

Axioms being our authority. Axiom-A proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof. The word "axiom" is a slightly archaic synonym for postulate. Compare conjecture or hypothesis, both of which connote apparently true but not self-evident statements. or consider this defintion,
Axiom: Accepted principle, self-evident truth Axiom synonyms: adage, precept, principle, truism

It is what we base our belief of truth on, our authority-an expert whose views are taken as definitive; "he is an authority on corporate law"

This sentence clearly undermines your claim to being courteous. I am not any part of "you people" - I am individual. I stand by my own comments and my own thoughts. I am not in allegiance against you with others. You sound paranoid when you make comments like this. The courteous thing to do would be to apologize.

Trust me, it could be a lot worse, I am being very curteous.

I do not know where you pointed to a site that agreed with your opinion (this is a long thread as I am sure you are aware), but I do not see how finding a site that agrees with someone's opinion has much value - there are literally billions of websites supporting ever conceivable opinion. Furthermore, I disagree with your descriptions about how evidence is treated in our legal system. Eye witness testimony is not as strong evidence as you seemed to have suggested it is.

Point being that my opinion doesn't make me to be a creationist, but rather it suggests that I have done some research and put some thought into it. If you don't understand something I have said, ask me to explain it rather than assuming to know what I mean that is communication. I am happy to explain what I am trying to say, somtimes I get frustrated that you don't seem to understand, but that also is part of communication.

Great. Thanks for letting me know that you aren't that interested in communication. Your opinions differ from mine on the issue of the Theory of Evolution

What makes you say this, the discussion is not about the toe, but about the terms commonly used when discussing the evolution, creation debate. What do you think I beleive about evolution?

- thanks for the update, but I knew that before you started this thread. You have stated many opinions as if they have some validity beyond your personal opinion, such as your opinion about the scientific nature of the ToE,

All I have said is that I don't believe either to be a scientific theory because.... and you infer from that that I am claiming validity beyond perosnal opinion. See, this is the problem with assumptions and inferances placed on evidence then claiming them to be fact.

your distinctions in terms of "hard" and "soft" evidence, etc. I have disagreed with those opinions and have questioned you on them. I still disagree with them and I do not believe that you have addressed my questions regarding them. That maybecause I have not communicated them well enough or it may because you haven't communicated your responses well enough, but if we leave it at you have your opinion and I have mine, we will never get anywhere.

I am sorry you feel that way, I have tried to address all the questions I was asked and tried to be as clear as I could be, even giving examples of situations that would render my understanding important. If you don't agree, you don't agree, if you don't understand, then explain what you don't understand and I will try to explain it again.

 

[razzelflabben]

In that case, you are mistaken.




They are both needed to help define what a theory is. You pressed me several times to explain why there must be evidence to confirm that a theory is a scientific theory. You seemed to think that a scientific sounding proposal that was testable could be a scientific theory even if there was not evidence to support it.

It finally occurred to me that this problem you were having could be due to a gap in your vocabulary. Perhaps you had never heard the word "hypothesis".

You might say that a hypothesis and a theory are related to each other as an egg is to a chick. Just as an egg may grow into a chick, so a hypothesis may grow into a theory.

The difference between an egg and a chick is maturity--the development of form and the capacity for independent existence. The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is the presence of evidence. A hypothesis is a theory that has not been tested yet, just as an egg is a chick which has not developed yet.

A hypothesis becomes a theory when it is tested and shown that at least one of its predictions is correct. Just as an egg beomes a chick when its development is complete and the chick hatches.

So you can think of a hypothesis as an immature theory---one that has no confirmed evidence to support it. And you can think of a theory as a mature hypothesis--one that does have confirmed evidence to support it.




Creation (i.e. that things were made) is a doctrine, not scientific at all, if one assumes a supernatural maker.

Creationism does not qualify as a scientific hypothesis either. A hypothesis is an immature theory which has not been tested yet, so we don't know yet whether its predictions are true or false.

Creationism is not an immature, untested hypothesis. It has been tested many times and it has been falsified many times.

So then your claim is that hypothesis and theory are the same thing? I grew up on a farm, and I can assure you that a chick and a hen are not the same thing just as a good dr. will tell you that a baby and an adult are not the same thing. I asked you why a theory had to be evidenced before it could be considered a scientific theory. Nothing was said about the chicks (hypothesis), that would be like saying, Why does a hen have to be eaten in order to determine that it is a chicken. We need to test a hypothesis in order for it to grow into a theory, but a theory is not a chick, it has already matured. If it has already matured, then into a theory, then it is understood that the hypothesis that lead to that theory have been tested. That is why we know that a chick will become a hen (or rooster), the question was about the hen, not the chick. Why must a hen be eaten in order to be considered a chicken. Why wouldn't a theory, that has already matured from the point of hypothesis not already be a scientific theory, why would it need to be further tested before it could be considered a scientific theory. That was and still is the question. I still don't understand much less accept your claim that a theory (not hypothesis) must be tested and evidenced to be considered a scientific theory. That is what the hypothesis stage is all about, being able to test our assumptions so that we can clasify it as scientific or not. At least that is how I understand the scientific method, please explain it again so that I can follow you. As I understand it, it is a scientific theory if it has been evidenced as a chick, no need to evidence it in order to classify it as scientific. In order for it to remain scientific, it must evidence it's predictions and or revise it's claims.

 

[razzelflabben]

Why should the theory of evolution need to be supported by anything other than the fact of evolution? A theory is not a fact. It is a proposed explanation or model of how things work which is supported by facts and which helps us understand how different facts are related to each other. You do not observe a theory; you observe the evidence for a theory.

So, as long as the evidence for evolution is observed, you have observed all you need to affirm the correctness of the theory of evolution.

Again different discussion. What I am saying however is that we have direct observations to evolution. Which btw, is defined very broadly. however, how those observations fit the mechanisms of our understanding is still specutlation that is why in short form, that the toe is still theory and not law. If our observations directly observed the toe, then the toe would no longer be theory, but law.

That doesn't mean that we cannot apply the scientific method to history and derive conclusions from it in which we can be confident. The basic problem with history is that we don't have some evidence, because it has been destroyed. We can still come to some pretty good conclusions based on the evidence that has survived.

Which is exactly why I said that we can have a scientific approach to history, we can test history with science, but that history is not scientific in nature. In fact, history is not even empirical knowledge as I understand it, that being what we observe in nature.

As I pointed out earlier, we use such evidence all the time to reconstruct how a crime was committed, how a fire started, how an accident occurred, how a mysterious death occurred.

If such use of historical evidence is reasonably reliable, then the same sort of evidence can be used in archeology, paleontology, physics and molecular biology with the same confidence.

Why would you assume otherwise?

Unreliable, not possible, not usefull, all of these are ideas outside the understanding I have presented. Of course we can test parts of history. Of course we can use those observations to do further tests and further our understandings, however, history is not scientific by nature. Science deals with empirical knowledge, it is experiencial, the only history we can apply this experiencial understand too, is our own histories. History is not experiential in nature, it is narrative in nature it is these differences in which I apply to the understanding of our theories and find that history is not scientific in nature and therefore would disclued any theory about our origins as being unscientific by nature. I would like to assert here for all those who are bent on reading into my posts what is not there, that I fully understand that some people, in fact, many people do not see it the same way and I respect that decision, however, when asked for my opinions and/or understandings, I must go on my own understanding and not on others.

 

[gluadys]

So then your claim is that hypothesis and theory are the same thing?

No more than a chick and a hen are the same thing. But there is a direct relationship between a hypothesis and a theory, just as there is a direct relationship between a (female) chick and a hen.

What is the essential difference between a chick and a hen? Would you not agree that it is sexual puberty? A chicken which has not yet reached puberty is a chick. The same chick is a hen when it has reached puberty.

What is the essential difference between a hypothesis and a theory? Evidence. A proposed model or explanation of various observations which has not been tested yet and has no confirmation of its predictions is a hypothesis. The same model, when it has been tested and its predictions confirmed, is a theory.

Why does a hen have to be eaten in order to determine that it is a chicken.

No, both the chick and the hen it grows into are chickens. The difference is puberty.

Why wouldn't a theory, that has already matured from the point of hypothesis not already be a scientific theory,

It is a theory then. The sign that it has matured (reached puberty) is that it has been successfully tested and not proven false.

You were asking me why there had to be any evidence at all for a theory to be scientific. A mature theory always has evidence under its belt.

why would it need to be further tested before it could be considered a scientific theory. That was and still is the question. I still don't understand much less accept your claim that a theory (not hypothesis) must be tested and evidenced to be considered a scientific theory.

Because that is how it becomes a theory. Remember your original position was that it was enough for a theory to make testable predictions to be considered scientific---without having the predictions successfully tested. That was when I realized you were not making the necessary distinction between a hypothesis and a theory.

If a proposed theory has testable predictions, but none of them have been tested yet—then it is not a theory yet. It is still too immature to be called a theory. Such an immature theory is a hypothesis. It becomes a theory when, upon testing, it makes successful predictions. The successful predictions are the evidence which support the theory.

That is why a theory must be supported by evidence to be a scientific theory.

That is what the hypothesis stage is all about, being able to test our assumptions so that we can clasify it as scientific or not. At least that is how I understand the scientific method, please explain it again so that I can follow you. As I understand it, it is a scientific theory if it has been evidenced as a chick, no need to evidence it in order to classify it as scientific.

So here we have a point-by-point analogy:

Chick->Hen…………………………………..Hypothesis->Theory

Chick hatches…………………………………Hypothesis proposed

Chick grows…………………………………..Hypothesis makes predictions to be tested

Chick passes through puberty,lays eggs....Hypothesis predictions are tested, shown to be correct.

Chick is now a hen…………………………….Hypothesis is now a theory

We know the chick is a now a hen because it now lays eggs … We know the hypothesis is now a theory because it now has supportive evidence.

The very process of producing evidence is what turns a hypothesis into a theory. Just as the very process of producing eggs shows that a chick is no longer a chick but is now a hen. Again, this is why a theory must have made correct predictions (and so have supporting evidence) in order to be a scientific theory in the first place.

In order for it to remain scientific, it must evidence it's predictions and or revise it's claims.

Right. This is why creationism is not a scientific theory. The evidence does not support it, yet it has not revised its claims.

 

[Physics_guy]

Trust me, it could be a lot worse, I am being very curteous.

Again, that is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, you have been less than curteous with me. I provided you specific examples of when.

Now, of course, you could have been a lot less curteous, but that pretty much goes without saying - anyone could always be less curteous.

 

[gluadys]

however, how those observations fit the mechanisms of our understanding is still specutlation that is why in short form, that the toe is still theory and not law. If our observations directly observed the toe, then the toe would no longer be theory, but law.

Ah, I see that we are now confronting a serious gap in your understanding of science.

It is correct to characterize a hypothesis as an immature theory (one that has not yet been tested to determine if its predictions are true). It is not correct to characterize a theory as an immature law.

In science a theory never becomes a law. Law and theory are distinct concepts.

A law is a description (usually mathematical) of a regular pattern observed in nature. So we have the inverse square “law of gravity” which describes the mathematical relation of attraction between bodies affected by gravity.

Simlarly, heat flow is described by the laws of thermodynamics, and motion by the laws of motion.

But all of these are descriptions, not explanations. Laws are part of the observations which theories are developed to explain. So often a theory includes one or more laws. For example, the theory of evolution includes the Hardy-Weinburg Law which describes the probable pattern of inheritance in a population from one generation to the next.

So, today you learn something new about science. Theories never become laws. Scientific laws describe. They are a summary of many observations.
Scientific theories explain observations. That includes the summaries of observations we call scientific laws.

Which is exactly why I said that we can have a scientific approach to history, we can test history with science, but that history is not scientific in nature. In fact, history is not even empirical knowledge as I understand it, that being what we observe in nature.

If we can study history scientifically, we can draw valid scientific conclusions about history. So I am not sure what your point is.

Tell me, if you are searching the archives of your church in preparation for celebrating its 100th anniversary and you come across a letter from a missionary to the chair of the mission committee dated 1915, thanking them for a donation of $75, is that empirical evidence that your congregation donated $75 to that missionary?

Why or why not?

Would you include the letter in a display about the mission work supported by the congregation over the years?

Unreliable, not possible, not usefull, all of these are ideas outside the understanding I have presented.

So it doesn’t matter to you that we be able to distinguish reliable from unreliable conclusions? Yet you use this notion that history is not science as a basis for saying that the theory of evolution is not scientific. I find this very confusing. Could you clarify why you are making a judgment call on the theory of evolution if criteria of reliability, possibility and usefulness are not part of the understanding you are presenting.

Of course we can test parts of history. Of course we can use those observations to do further tests and further our understandings, however, history is not scientific by nature.

I don’t see why history needs to be scientific as long as we can apply the scientific method in studying it. If we can test history, and on the basis of those tests, further our understanding of history, is that not the same as saying that we can come to reliable conclusions about history?

What more is needed to make the theory of evolution scientific? The theory of evolution is not the same thing as the history of evolution. We don’t need to validate every event in the history of evolution before we grant that the theory of evolution is scientific. All we need to do is confirm that some of its predictions about history are correct. (Predictions about past events are sometimes called “retrodictions”, but they work much the same as predictions about the future.)

I would like to assert here for all those who are bent on reading into my posts what is not there, that I fully understand that some people, in fact, many people do not see it the same way and I respect that decision, however, when asked for my opinions and/or understandings, I must go on my own understanding and not on others.

That is ok. What I am trying to figure out is what your own understanding is. You seem to want to exclude things that it doesn’t make sense to me to exclude. So I am puzzled about the implications of your understanding and how you base a conclusion on it. Such as that the theory of evolution is not scientific.

 

[razzelflabben]

No more than a chick and a hen are the same thing. But there is a direct relationship between a hypothesis and a theory, just as there is a direct relationship between a (female) chick and a hen.

Which is the point is it not? If I ask you about a theory and you tell me about a chick, we are not talking about the same thing, kind of like talking about the same kind but not the same thing. I asked you about theory based on your claim that a theory must be able to make predictions and be evidenced in order to be a theory. You seem to have assumed that I didn't understand hypothesis, but assuming is not the same thing as knowing. So I asked you if you were saying what you meant to say and you assured me you were, so we come down to this post in which I demonstrate to you that I was most assuredly asking you about theory and not hyposthesis and instead of correcting your claims, you conveniently assurt that I don't understand that the hen and the chick are the same species. Do be reasonable please. Just because the hen and the chick are the same species doesn't mean they mean the same thing. This thread is about understanding definitions, if we understand that a theory must go through the process of maturing, then we rely on that understanding when talking about the words. So If I ask you why a theory must be evidenced to be considered a scientific theory, I am not asking if it needs to mature into a theory in order to be considered a theory, I am asking why, after it matures into a theory it must be evidenced to become a scientific theory, that is what the maturing process is all about isn't it?

It is a theory then. The sign that it has matured (reached puberty) is that it has been successfully tested and not proven false.

Which is in essense what I asked you if you meant, to which you claimed I didn't understand and that it is not what you meant. Grant it, words especially on the forum can get us off track, but, that is why the questions of clarity.

You were asking me why there had to be any evidence at all for a theory to be scientific. A mature theory always has evidence under its belt.

No, I asked you why a theory (not a hypothesis) had to be evidenced in order to be classified as a scientific theory. That is like saying that a hen must mature into a hen in order for it to be classified as a hen , which doesn't make sense, which is why I asked you to explain what you ment. A chick, that matures into a hen has already matured and therefore doesn't need to mature again in order to be called a hen.

Because that is how it becomes a theory. Remember your original position was that it was enough for a theory to make testable predictions to be considered scientific---without having the predictions successfully tested. That was when I realized you were not making the necessary distinction between a hypothesis and a theory.

Actually, my original position was to ask you a question that would further define what you were saying. That being that if the defintion for theory is that it makes testable predictions and if the toc does make testable predictions, what then keeps it from being a scientific theory. That started a who discussion if you remember about the criteria for a theory to be scientific, which is what I asked you for, no assumptions were made or claims that it was scientific, in fact, someplace in all that was the claim that I do not see either as being scientific, yet here once again, claims are being made as to what I believe and understand and never once have you recognized that all I was doing is asking you to further explain your understanding of the terms and words being presented.

If a proposed theory has testable predictions, but none of them have been tested yet—then it is not a theory yet. It is still too immature to be called a theory. Such an immature theory is a hypothesis. It becomes a theory when, upon testing, it makes successful predictions. The successful predictions are the evidence which support the theory.

That is why a theory must be supported by evidence to be a scientific theory.

Which is why your claim that a theory must be evidenced in order to be a scientific theory was so confusing. It is the hypothesis that must be evidenced in order for the theory to exist. It is the process of becoming a theory that is evidenced, not the theory itself. Isn't a theory that has gone through all the hypothesis maturity, by reason of the maturity process, considered scientific from the start? It is the hypothesis that is not automatically concidered scientific.

Right. This is why creationism is not a scientific theory. The evidence does not support it, yet it has not revised its claims.

Different topic, different discussinon

 

[gluadys]

So If I ask you why a theory must be evidenced to be considered a scientific theory, I am not asking if it needs to mature into a theory in order to be considered a theory, I am asking why, after it matures into a theory it must be evidenced to become a scientific theory, that is what the maturing process is all about isn't it?

But that is not what you were asking. You did not include the concept of a “mature” theory. You specifically asked why something for which there is no evidence but only testable predictions could not be considered a scientific theory.

Now I am explaining that such a proposal---one with testable predictions, but no evidence, because the predictions have not been tested yet—is not a scientific theory, because it is an untested hypothesis.

The question you are asking now is different from the one you were asking earlier. This time you are asking if a mature theory, one that does have supporting evidence because its predictions have been tested and found to be correct, is a scientific theory.

And the answer is: Yes, of course it is. It will continue to be a viable theory until one of its predictions fails.

So:
1. a proposed theory which makes testable predictions, but whose predictions have not been tested yet = hypothesis.

2. a proposed theory which has been tested and found to make successful predictions = scientific theory.

The hypothesis and the theory may be identical in wording and make the identical predictions. The difference lies in whether the predictions are correct. That can be determined only by testing. Correct predictions=supportive evidence.

Actually, my original position was to ask you a question that would further define what you were saying. That being that if the defintion for theory is that it makes testable predictions and if the toc does make testable predictions, what then keeps it from being a scientific theory.

Yes, that is where we started off. And I hope the answer is clear now, that the predictions have to be actually tested and found correct before we have a scientific theory. Prior to the predictions being tested we do not have a theory yet, just a hypothesis. So what keeps the toc from being a scientific theory is that its predictions are either not testable (e.g that God created) or false (e.g. that humans did not evolve).

It is the hypothesis that must be evidenced in order for the theory to exist.

No, the hypothesis must be tested, not evidenced. A hypothesis can exist without evidence. But to become a theory, it must successfully predict evidence.

Isn't a theory that has gone through all the hypothesis maturity, by reason of the maturity process, considered scientific from the start?

Yes, that is right. Just remember that all theories used to be hypotheses. Just as all hens used to be chicks.

 

[Humanista]

that is why in short form, that the toe is still theory and not law. If our observations directly observed the toe, then the toe would no longer be theory, but law.

Ah, I see that we are now confronting a serious gap in your understanding of science.

It is correct to characterize a hypothesis as an immature theory (one that has not yet been tested to determine if its predictions are true). It is not correct to characterize a theory as an immature law.

In science a theory never becomes a law. Law and theory are distinct concepts.

razzelflabben, you made no comment about this. Is it possible that since you misunderstand this scientific term that you might conceivably be mistaken about others? It seems to me that communication is not just about each side giving their own *personal* definitions of terms and arguing about which is right, but understanding that in science, terms DO have a specific meaning, and are not subjective.

 

[Edx]

It is a no win challenge when any little infringement is viewed as disallowed,

No you are misrepresenting my challenge with your own assumption that I would discount anyone or any evidence out of hand. If my criteria is unfair enough to not allow your source in you can debate it with me. Point 2 and 3 have to stay the way they are, the other 2 can be negotiated depending on the circumstances.

I could do the same with your evolutionist threads... and you would claim that I didn't understand science and therefore the criteria was meet

No because its only when you present yourself as a credible source for [whatever] information that we can really see if you meet the criteria. My critera is not Creationism specific on purpose, so that it can be realistically met if there really was a credible scientific source for Creationism. Really anyone who fulfills the criteria is not a credible source for anything, be they Creationist or not.

If you present yourself as a good credible source for Microsoft software knowledge but show you dont understand how to open Word or Outlook, then you clearly arent a credible source for that reason, and because you have wrongly presented yourself as knowledgeable. If you present yourself as a good credible source on how to cook, but do not know how to make a stock or cook a chicken then you arent a credible source for that reason, and because you have falsely presented yourself.

Likewise, if someone presents themselves as a good credible scientific source, they must show they are knowledgeable in that area. If they are not knowledgeable they could easily, and ignorantly, misrepresent and misstate the evidence and facts simply because they dont know what they are talking about. This person would therefore not be a credible scientific source. I would also add that it is not necessary that they be qualified in a relevant field, though that would of course elevate their credibility far higher than someone without, but then they run the risk of knowingly stating flasehoods because they are already aware they are.

(btw its "citing" evidence, not "siting" evidence (as in to sit down))

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.

And that is why lawyers have no comparison with the scientific method. And remember I didnt refer to the court of law, you brought it up when referring to a judge as an authority. Real science uses peer review to stop bias getting in the way.

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

Im sorry, I read this 5 times and still couldnt make sence of it.

That is equal to me asking you to present one credible creationist source. Do you take the challenge?

What are you asking me to do? Find something I dont believe exists anyway?

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.

I am not talking about random web sites sites. Talk Origins has many references to peer reviewed sources for example, and there are also many peer reviewed web sites you can find on evolution. But if you still want to continue down this "bias" path you must...
1. show me what this bias might be, and then...
2. show by what conspiracy it has managed to bypass peer review.
I have already commented on an argument like this by the way, and listed many points - but all you did is came back and said I was exaggerating. Remember?

Now Creationism has no peer reviewed papers so unfortunately for you its very hard to find one with no bias, especially as they usually state it up front straight away. Remember, bias is a bad thing.

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..

Well I do have to point out that you are now making things up. Nowhere did I state in those points that they couldnt have a bias. Just that whatever their bias was, they still had to not misrepresent the subject either ignorantly or on purpose. However the problem with such a weighted bias as theirs is, as I have already said, that can be very difficult to achieve.

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.

Firstly "origins" is really abiogenesis so I hope you arent confusing it to evolution. However if you are using a looser definition of origins, then Evolution has tons of peer reviewed material out there because it is real science. Remember what I told you about peer review and bias? Now of course Im not saying that peer review is infallible, but I am saying that any bias that has had any detrimental effect on the science can be made apparent and put right. You gain respect for showing some other scientist got it wrong, and even more prestige if you manage to show a popular idea or theory is flawed. So peer reviewed material is the least biased and most scrutinized of any material you could possibly find for precisely these reasons.

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.... If the creationist has a choice, then so do you, it's as simple as that.

Except the way you use the word authority is simply inaccurate to describe science. Science is a tool, and science is a source for knowledge but it is not an authority like Creationists claim the Bible is. Science is always open to question. Religion is not. Science has no faith because faith is anti-science, whereas religion requires faith. Science isnt comparable in any way.

You said, "In order to believe the toe as fact, one must first believe that science is the ultimate authority" and that Evolution is a "belief system". All this shows you do not understand science, and why you have wrongly lumped science in with religion. The very fact that you compared science to every belief which was "absolute" and finial like a "judge", saying they were all "authorities" only proves even more that you believe science works the same way - which it doesnt. That is why your use of the word authority is wrong.
The word "source" is a better word for science, but not for religion as they really believe it is an ultimate "authority". That is why we must use words properly because otherwise this happens.

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

No, what you actually said was you had done a web search and had found "reputable, well educated scientists" that believed in Creationism, in responce to my statement that there are no credible Creationists. Reputability is really the same as crediblility here. So because you seem to want to play semantics games with me and forever argue over the word credible please show me one "reputable" scientific Creationist source. Happy?

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 ...a biblical doctrine.

So then what exactly would make them Creationists?
Or are you saying they just disagree with evolution, based on science only? That would a first for me to see. But then what are their arguments? I predict they will show poor knowledge of the subject.



(continued...)

 

[Edx]

(continued...)

Interesting, please site,

Its a quote is from a biography called "Louis Pasteur. The Man and His Theories" by Hilaire Cuny who has also done other biographies for Albert Einstein and Ivan Pavlov.
"The first sections of the book cover his nature, background and early career, followed by his more advanced contributions, the potentialites of his research and his last years. The remainder of the text is devoted to selected writings, notes, research topics, lectures and reflections, followed by a chronological outline of his life, a glossary, bibliography and index"
http://www.ravenroostbooks.com/si/1062.html

this site hints as the opposite

-snipped link-

No it doesnt. Nothing in this site even loosely "hints at the opposite'. And please dont claim spontaneous generation is abiogenesis and also therefore evolution, for you would be wrong on every count. Louis Pasteur showed that life could not spontaneously arise from dead and decaying matter. In other words rotting meat does not produce the bacteria that causes meat to rot. It hasnt got anything to do with abiogenesis, much less evolution.

in this one, they even asked the question of pastuer

-snipped link-

What do you mean "they asked the question of Pasteur?" Lets look at what they said:

"Pasteur questioned the theory of evolution, because Darwin did not base his ideas on experimental proof. Louis said, “Do not put forward anything that you cannot prove by experimentation.” Louis Pasteur used the experimental method which was:
1.) state the question
2.) think of a test for the question
3.) observe what happens
4.) make conclusions."

Now first of all Evolution was a new theory when Louis Pasteur was alive. As such it isn't surprising that it had its share of mainstream critics at the time. That was never in any doubt, and I can very easily believe that Pasteur did say that about Darwins theory even if you believe the site didnt butcher his original meaning. So, we dont know the context to say for certain and it wouldnt mean anything anyway.

Secondly, Pasteurs "experimental method" IS the scientific method. There is nothing wrong with it. You would also know this if you had followed those links like I told you to before.
Heres 2 more, I suggest you read them this time:
1- http://tinyurl.com/bxlsc
2- http://tinyurl.com/p8r0

so I guess I have met your challenge, unless you want to claim that pastuer was not cridible

Its not that he isnt credible its that you cannot cite a 200 year old dead scientist as a source to prove a modern theory incorrect, even if he was a Creationist.

Most scientists back then were Christian, and many (if not most) were Creationists. YECs were the ones that proved the age of the earth before Darwin, because they found the evidence didnt agree with their beliefs. Because the fact is Creationists back then werent of the same anti-scientific self deceptive variety around today. If Pasteur was a Creationist, the fact that he has written so very little on the topic of evolution means you couldnt use him as Creationist source and Pasteur would have only known of the science of 200 years ago.

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

Again Im not interested in scientists believing in Creationism, Im interested in if they are a credible scientific source.

Btw out of all those "scientists" on that site, how many of those can you find that are actually qualified in a relevant field, and could be called a "modern" scientific source - meaning they didnt live around and/or over a hundred years ago? Now I may have missed it, but I sure couldnt find any.

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

Are you playing games on purpose, or are you just not paying attention as it seems?

You: My son asked me the other day....why is our origins such an important and hot topic? What does it matter?
Me: 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

Thats why I mentioned it. And you would know if you had read my post properly.

You labeled me.

Im pretty sure I havent. What you have done is said many things that a Creationist would say, so my thoughts are that you are probably a Creationist. However I have not specifically labeled you one, but what you have said strongly suggests you are. Sorry if you dont like it. Its not my fault, that is how you have presented yourself.

I believe that I have been pretty clear as to my beliefs and why I believe what I do and have clarified when asked

Again I didnt label you Ive told you why Ive gotten frustrated with you, or did you not read that either? I also dont think you have been clear in your beliefs, but just like everything else you write you seem to think that you are clear and your points are so very obvious, and it really is every one else that is just unable to understand you.

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.

Im not assuming what is not there. You comparing Evolution to Genesis is like me comparing Heliocentricity to the Hebrews idea of a flat earth saying that since their idea came first scientists borrowed from them. In other words you cant possibly borrow from Genesis because there is simply nothing scientific about it to borrow from, its a completely erroneous comparison. If we were to look at Genesis from a scientific perspective its wrong in every way, and you cant learn any science from it. However you can kind of make things fit by twisting it after the fact.

I suppose you arent going to direct me to the post where apprently you showed that Creationism provided testable predictions. I therefore have to assume that when you said "Of course, I misrepresented it, it is a matter of record" that it was an admission, not sarcasm. Though I am confused as to in why you did it.

Ed

 

[Edx]

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.

Its not just one magical event, why do you think it supposedly took 6 whole days anyway? There were clearly several creation events; the earth, the sun, all the animals, Adam (from dirt) Eve (from a rib), etc etc.Also, Creationists generally claim there was "no death, or decay before the fall", so where did all the carnivores come from after this "fall"? Did their digestive systems magically change perhaps? And before this fall if they were all herbivores how did they digest their food without there being any decay? And after the supposed flood, where did all the ground plants and trees come from and develop into the diversity we have today, but without evolution? No, again they would have to invoke a miracle: magic.

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.

Why such a technical, and rather scientific term for that? If we are explaining the "mechanisms" of something, we need to explain them not just say it was magic. Imagine a paper discussing the mechanisms for this creation in Genesis. It would be a very short paper.

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.

How did you infer that from what I wrote? I am very aware of other Creation accounts. Like all the various flood myths and ones with their own Noah and ark.

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.

You keep pretending I have a problem with the word "Creation". Creation to most theists means natural process' and that, that is mechanism for Creation. CreationISTS on the other hand want to pretend it was done by entirely with magic.

Ed

 

[Edx]

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.

And the studies have shown that prayer helps those that know they are being prayed for, however there is no noticeable effect on those that dont know. It has long been known to psychologists that a positive attitude can have major health benefits, and this prayer effect has not been proved to be anything other than a placebo.
http://www.aucsda.com/discernment/Prayyourwayhealth.htm

Religion doesn't help us know anything, psychology helps us know things because psychology is science. And this kind of placebo prayer effect is nothing like what prayer is supposed to be able to achieve as described in the bible, and like what many Christians believe.

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.

Studying the nature of religious belief can help us understand the human psyche, but its still only studying the natural world.

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.

http://www.aucsda.com/discernment/Prayyourwayhealth.htm
If it is a supernatural event, it is a miracle. If it is a natural event then it isnt. Basically the prayer effect isnt the effect of the prayer itself, but rather the effect on the person that really and truly believes the prayer will help. I have seen no evidence of real supernatural miraculous healing except scams, hoaxes and self deception.

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,

Its not an assumption. I dont know a god doesnt exist. I dont know invisible faries dont exist. I dont know invisible purple monkeys dont exist. But I also have no reason to believe in them either. My disbelief in god is not a religion. Your disbelief in invisible faries and invisible purple monkeys is not a religion either. I also havent "assumed" any of those things dont exist, but I simply have no reason to believe in any of them.

I'm disappointed you didn't ask for criteria as I asked for the scientific nature of theory.

What does this mean? Why are you saying this?

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.

Atheism doesnt say anything about the existence of the supernatural, its the absence of a belief in god is all it is. Atheism alone does not constitute a religion. And there are many atheist religions with very supernatural bases. What you are actually referring to is materialism. However if there is no evidence of anything supernatural then we have no reason to believe in it, and therefore materialist atheists arent claiming to know anything about the supernatural they are claiming they have no reason to believe in it. Your constitution also calls for the separation of church and state; IE. secularism. However according to you to have a secular society is also to have a religious society. You see the kind of problems that happen when you water down definitions like this?

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,

Atheism on its own does not constitute religion, just like the disbelief in invisible faries and invisible purple monkeys is not a religion. Atheism isnt even a belief "system" by itself.

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.

Any belief at all does not constitute a religion, becuase like I said that would render the word meaningless and that everything is a religion. Religion does not mean belief system, or we would say religion not belief system.

Belief and faith mean different things. I dont have faith there is no god, I simply have no reason to believe in one so therefore I dont believe in a god. I dont have faith there are no invisible pink unicorns, I simply have no reason to believe in them, so therefore I dont believe in invisible pink unicorns. I dont have any reason to believe you can fly, so I dont believe you can fly. I dont have any reason to believe snakes can talk, so I dont believe snakes can talk. See where Im going with this?

Really calling it belief at all is wrong, since "belief" has so regularly and incorrectly been confused with "faith" which is different. Faith is believing with no reason, or when there is reason to the contrary. I dont have faith there is no god, that there are no invisible pink unicorns, or that you cant fly and that snakes cant talk. The difference between belief and faith is, faith is a religious belief. However "religion" has supernatural connotations which need to be taken into account in its definition if it is to remain meaningful.

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.

Anyone can use the Bible to "prove" whatever point they happen to be making, and we are also talking about terms as they exist today.

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.

Are you trying to come across as patronizing? If so you are doing a good job.

You cant water down the definition of words like religion so it can mean whatever you want at any time. Your original point was that religion contributes to our understanding, like "science, philosophy and psychology", and without religion it leaves "gaps in our understanding".

But if a religion can simply mean your outlook on life which is what you have told us here, then everything is a religion including science which means your argument totally falls apart. You clearly must have seen a difference between religion and science to make that argument and you needed that difference for it to work, but now you have so watered down what you class as "religion" it doesnt mean anything anymore, because now it means everything!

You've been doing this kind of thing a lot.

Wrong, the key part is that it is the biblical understanding of religion.

It is still a religious notion that you are doing it for god, and not just to help little old ladies accross the street because you simply like helping people.

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.

Defined it to mean anything you like, yes I noticed. Now back track and figure out how you actually got on to this subject.

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.

You know Id like to take this opportunity to remind you what you said about religion, near the beginning of this thread. Its rather different to what you are saying now.

"I asked you to define religion because I have never heard of a claim that creationism is religion before. I have never known of anyone worshiping creation, though I guess it happens, or that claims that accepting creationism will get you to heaven, narvana, paradise, etc. Which is usually a part of the religous experience. So either we understand religion differently or our communication is not effective. Can anyone show me the religion of creationism? where do you go to meetings for such a religion? Who leads it, it there a priest, pastor, scientist, lay, leader? What resource do they use to guide them through life? I would like to know more about the religion of creationism. Thanks"

And you claim its our fault we cant communicate with you?

Just as the evolutionist arguements will reflect the assumptions of common ancestry and the creationists arguements will reflect the Gen creation assumptions.

This is the kind of thing that makes me think you are a Creationist. Lets be clear about this. There is no such thing as an evolutionist, okay? It just something these pseudo-science anti intellectual Creationists have come up with to set a barrier. It isnt evolution vs Creationism, its science vs Creationism. Secondly, science doesn't make any assumptions about common ancestry. That suggests bias and as yet you have still failed to tell us all what this bias might be and how it manged to go undiscovered in peer review. You made a hypothetical argument before about certian Creationists believing that "evolutionists try desperately to get the evidence to fit" and I listed many points as to why that was wrong and you just came back saying I was exaggerating. And now I can kind of see why you said that, as it appears that is what you do secretly think.

And the atheists arguements will reflect the assumptions that they are absent of belief as to the supernatural beings.

Ridiculous. I dont assume there is no god. I have no reason to believe so I dont. Where is the assumption? Saying "I dont believe in god" is not the same as saying "I believe I know a god doesnt exist.", because I dont know.

Ed

 

[Edx]

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

You are trying to make me accept that I choose an authority, when I dont. At least not the way you use the word. Reality is the finial authority, everything rests with that. If something doesnt agree with the evidence its wrong and must be thrown out. Religion is not like that, it truly believes it is an authority and is based on faith, which is anti-scientific, believing that they already know the truth. That is why I cannot agree science is an authority because of the way you use the word would be inaccurate to describe it.

.

An authority-official institution; agency; power; control; jurisdiction

Finally you state what you mean by authority. Religion and judges meet this criteria, however science doesnt at all.

Again you show you still dont understand how science works. You should know by now why. If you really are still stumpted go read that quote from gluadys again.

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.

Because thats not what the definition you just gave me really means. Science is never an "authority" the way you you use the word.

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.

Who are these people that choose "science in general" over "evidence and facts"? What does that even mean?

"Only if evidence is your authority and truth/ fact is your goal. You do understand that some people have other goals in mind,

Other goals in mind? Instead of trying to know the truth and facts? Why wouldnt you want to know the truth?

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.

Which is why science doesnt rely on "beliefs" and deals only on what can be quantified and objectively studied.

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?

Did you or did you not say evolution was a belief system? Did you or did you not say Common Descent was an assumption? You've said many things which suggest you are 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?

You can say you agree, but then you have come out with things like:
---> "In order to believe the toe as fact, one must first believe that science is the ultimate authority"
---> "the evolutionist arguements will reflect the assumptions of common ancestry"
--->"So your premise is then that theories like gravity and evolution can be revised but not the toc?"
---> "I have talked with evolutionists that fail to understand the differences between evolution and the -theory of evolution and like it or not, the differences are right there in their charished science books"
---> "I find your view of creationist disturbing"
---> "the toc does include making empirical observations, proposes hypotheses of explaination, and tests can and are done to examine those hypotheses. So how please is the toc not scientific?"
---> "how does the crationist mindset hold back progress and knowledge, education?"
---> "I said that we can approach history scientifically (do experiments), but that history is not scientific"
---> "How then is the toe which deals with history a scientific theory?"

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!

I have been listening, but you just seem to have have a very short memory.

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,

Its "moved" the goal posts, and you have not been as courteous as you could possibly have been. You have been rather pretentious and patronizing on occasion actaully. You do seem to forget what people were talking about, and for all your claims about wanting to "help aid communication" you are very bad at that very thing. You cannot start watering down and changing definitions, especially technical ones, to suit your arguments.

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 you can believe what you want. All evidence you have offered for your claim that religion contributes to our understanding like science, is these flawed god of the gap arguments and the placebo prayer effect.

Don't even know what you are referring to.

Here's that bad memory thing again.

Me:--- But really how can you possibily think the god of the gaps argument is a good one?
You: --- I have never said that I thought it was a good argument.
Me: --- 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?

[Like that evidence can and is viewed on a spectrum,

You mean like a "bias"? That is the reason for peer review, remember?

or that evidence and logic are good authorities, which misconception about science is it that you are trying to desperately to correct?

Like everything we have been discussing up to now? Why else am I still here? And Gluadys is still trying to get you to understand what a theory and hypothosis mean.

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.

I didnt say you were good at using philosophy, I said you "...couldnt have really learnt how to use it properly since you think since you think [the god of the gaps] argument is valid except its a logical fallacy"

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.

I wasnt going to bring it up, except you did accuse me ignoring you: "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"

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

True, but using your defintion of authority "authority-official institution; agency; power; control; jurisdiction" does not describe science. Sorry.

Ed

Ps: Watch your quote tags.

 

[gluadys]

Ps: Watch your quote tags.

I think that not previewing her posts is part of razzleflabben's strategy to "improve" communication.

 

[razzelflabben]

Ah, I see that we are now confronting a serious gap in your understanding of science.

It is correct to characterize a hypothesis as an immature theory (one that has not yet been tested to determine if its predictions are true). It is not correct to characterize a theory as an immature law.

In science a theory never becomes a law. Law and theory are distinct concepts.

I don't recall saying that a theory does become law but I am not going to take the time right now to go back and check, what I do remember saying is that if the theory is not a theory, then it should be a law. Here's a lay explaination that is pretty easy to understand http://wilstar.com/theories.htm If the theory of evolution is fact, then it would not need to be revised, and therefore should be considered law. In other words, if the toe is evolution only, then it should be a law based on the simplisity of the theory. If on the other hand, more is involved in the theory than simply evolution, then it would remain a theory based on the complexity of the theory. So when the claim is made that the theory of evolution is evolution, then my question to you is why isn't it law then?

A law is a description (usually mathematical) of a regular pattern observed in nature. So we have the inverse square “law of gravity” which describes the mathematical relation of attraction between bodies affected by gravity.

Simlarly, heat flow is described by the laws of thermodynamics, and motion by the laws of motion.

But all of these are descriptions, not explanations. Laws are part of the observations which theories are developed to explain. So often a theory includes one or more laws. For example, the theory of evolution includes the Hardy-Weinburg Law which describes the probable pattern of inheritance in a population from one generation to the next.

So, today you learn something new about science. Theories never become laws. Scientific laws describe. They are a summary of many observations.
Scientific theories explain observations. That includes the summaries of observations we call scientific laws.

See above.

If we can study history scientifically, we can draw valid scientific conclusions about history. So I am not sure what your point is.

Let me ask you a question. Can we approach religion scientifically? The answer without waiting for you is yes, I watched a segment of a program on TV just this am that was looking at prayer from a scientific method. Does that make religion scientific? My answer to that question is no. Just as my answer to history being scientific is no and btw, I recently asked a historian I know if history was scientific, I thought he would explode from laughter when I told him there were those here on the forum claiming that it was. Approaching something scientifically doesn't make it scientific, it makes our approach to it scientific.

Tell me, if you are searching the archives of your church in preparation for celebrating its 100th anniversary and you come across a letter from a missionary to the chair of the mission committee dated 1915, thanking them for a donation of $75, is that empirical evidence that your congregation donated $75 to that missionary?

Why or why not?

A study of the authenticity of the letter would be empirical knowledge, the donation is not evidenced in empirical observations now is it.

Would you include the letter in a display about the mission work supported by the congregation over the years?

Sure why not, but I would not form a theory as to what the money was used for and then go around demanding people accept that theory as fact. What the money was used for is speculation only and is best left for additional evidence and/or individual assumptions.

So it doesn’t matter to you that we be able to distinguish reliable from unreliable conclusions? Yet you use this notion that history is not science as a basis for saying that the theory of evolution is not scientific. I find this very confusing. Could you clarify why you are making a judgment call on the theory of evolution if criteria of reliability, possibility and usefulness are not part of the understanding you are presenting.

I don't follow your question. I don't recall saying that we shouldn't distinguish reliable from unreliable conclusions. What I said is that history is not scientific. We can learn much from history, even a scientific approach to history, but that doesn't make histroy scientific. My husband likes the analogy that just because the mouse is in the cookie jar doesn't make it a cookie. Just because we can approach a subject from a scientific method, doesn't make it science. If history is not science, then any theory that bases itself in our origins is non scientific by nature that our origins are non sciences.

I don’t see why history needs to be scientific as long as we can apply the scientific method in studying it. If we can test history, and on the basis of those tests, further our understanding of history, is that not the same as saying that we can come to reliable conclusions about history?

Are you willing to accept the same for religion and religious doctrine?

What more is needed to make the theory of evolution scientific? The theory of evolution is not the same thing as the history of evolution. We don’t need to validate every event in the history of evolution before we grant that the theory of evolution is scientific. All we need to do is confirm that some of its predictions about history are correct. (Predictions about past events are sometimes called “retrodictions”, but they work much the same as predictions about the future.)

History is as my friend says, revisionary. As a revisionary account, science can only evidence portions of the history everything else is assumptions. As we have seen demonstrated so many times here, assumptions can easily be wrong.

That is ok. What I am trying to figure out is what your own understanding is. You seem to want to exclude things that it doesn’t make sense to me to exclude. So I am puzzled about the implications of your understanding and how you base a conclusion on it. Such as that the theory of evolution is not scientific.

If this doesn't answer your questions, we can try again.