Start communicating

razzelflabben · May 12, 2005

gluadys said:
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.

HUH???? I asked you based on claims you made why a theory (note theory assumes maturity already) must be evidenced in order to be considered a scientific theory. That is like saying that a hen must mature into a hen before we will allow it to be a hen. In other words, your assumption that the word theory is not understood to be a mature hypothesis is redundent and shows a lack of either understanding or listening take your pick. The question, specified many times why the theory (already mature) must be evidenced before it is considered a scientific theory (mature). You insisted that it did then when you finally get around to explaining what you are saying, revert back to the (immature) hypothesis and pretend that I don't understand hypothesis and theory. It is an understood concept that a hen is not a chick, just as it is understood that a theory is not a hypothesis. So when asking about a theory, it is understood that the theory is already matured into a theory or it would still be called a hypothesis. Your assumptions were that I didn't know that a hypothesis is a chick and a theory is a hen. And once again you have shown us why more than assumptions are needed in order to call something fact.

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

Again, if I speak of a theory or talk to someone who identifies an understanding of what a theory is, I can assume the maturity of that hypothesis or the term hypothesis would be used.

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.

Look it up then come back and ask me. I asked, why must a theory be evidenced in order to be classified as a scientific theory. (I have to cut my time on the forum for a while since I have to get ready for a show, so I will let you look it up since you love to do that anyway.)I have not changed the question!

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

All this time just to get you to clarify your comments and I am the one not listening, cool!

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).

That would be a different question and a different discussion now wouldn't it?

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

I would think that a hypothesis whose predictions cannot be evidenced, would be discarded or revised rather than remain a scientific hypotheis until it could be tested and evidenced. For example, why would my son continue to ask me for a cookie before supper when I have told him no unless science is willing to change it's mind that a no is a no. That is not scientific method though we evidence scientists doing this. So unless you assume that a no could mean a yes, which is poor scientific method, then a hypothesis whose predictions are met with a no should by reason of scientific method be discarded and not held onto until it can be matured into a theory.

razzelflabben · May 12, 2005

Edx said:
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.

And it is unfair bias is if cook a chicken and you come along and say, you were not credible because you cooked it at 350 degrees when everyone knows you cook chicken at 325 degrees. That is the problem with the term credible. And by the way, I think I answered the challenge with pastuer so I don't know why this arguement is continueing, however, let me give you a list of "credible" scientists that believe the creation story. Note there are two categories of scientists, Biological Scientists - Physical Scientists, some are affilitated with ICR and some are not. Also note that their creditials are provided which would appear to me to be a form of credibility, in that they offer where their education comes from. Now this is on top of Pastuer which I have also given you, so that should be the end of that. http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html BTW, before discrediting the information I gave, you must discredit every scientist listed and not just the site in which it is listed on because the site listed is not the claim, the scientists are.

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.

Let me ask you a question. Who determines if they know their stuff or not?

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

Sorry, my fingers go faster than I spell a lot of times and then I add a million interuptions while posting and I get things off kilter sometimes.

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.

I only brought up the authoprity that would be the best when discussing the details of the case, but since you are insistant on the court thing, lets look at it. The lawyers are you, those who go around trying to convince people that you know fact or truth depending on your understanding of the terms fact and truth. Now, tell me this, how little bias will be found in a panel of people who all believe that the ocean is deep? If the entire panel of lawyers believes that the ocean is deep, there will be little to no challenge to the information being presented now will there? Bias is all around us and if we refuse because of that bias to accept any other possibilities, what we are doing is creating a group of biased people who claim to be unbiased. Lawyers try to avoid this bias in jury choice, but are not always successful, so you want me to believe that a scientific panel that does not entertain another theory is unbiased, and I will reject everyone you present to sit on the jury based on bias. But, that is another question all together and so we move on.

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

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

This is my point, I didn't claim that any of the creationist sites were credible, only that some of the creationist were. See below.

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?

Don't even know what you are going on about.

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.

And your point is.......

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.

But wait, there is a passage in the bible in which God says, "for it is the glory of God to conceal a think and the honor of kings to search out a matter" The bible is up to challenge and God not only approves seeking of answers, but recomends it, so if that is your only criteria, I am afraid you have not proven you point at all. According to the bible, what one believes is open to question, but it also says that if we "seek we will find".

You said, "In order to believe the toe as fact, one must first believe that science is the ultimate authority"

and if you have a different authority than science or evidence, your understanding of fact/truth will be different now won't it. You like to read into what I say, try reading it for what is there and not what to think is ther.

and

that Evolution is a "belief system".

Actually, anything we BELIEVE to be fact/truth is a belief and if that belief controls our behavior, it is a belief system. Bam! Evolution then can be a belief system.

All this shows you do not understand science, and why you have wrongly lumped science in with religion.

Huh? So now you claim in that I think atheisim is science? Or are you reading into my posts again. I have never sad that science is a religion, I have said that science can and somtimes is an authority, that evolution can and somtimes is a belief system but the only discussion here about what is a religion is based on the claim that atheism is not a relgiion and I showed through definition that it was.

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.

I think you are still missing what I am saying. When we want to know about the crime commited, we have a choice, we can talk to the police who investigated the crime or we can talk to the judge who sat in the courtroom while the lawyers hashed our the evidence. Which do you choose to know more about the crime which is the authority you would choose to know more about the crime, the police who investigated or the judge who listened to the lawyers. Most people choose the police who investigated, so if the question is which authority you choose to know more about the crime, it would most likely be the police. However, one could choose the judge. When it comes to things of science basis, the most logical choice of authority would be science, but it isn't a law that you have to listen to science or use it as your authority on the subject, that is why we must choose an authority, even if your authority is science or evidence. Man I don't get what your problem with this is!!!!!!

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?

Note the words I emphasized, nothing was said about creationist source or site, but rather individual educated individuals. I have covered my claims a few times over.

So then what exactly would make them Creationists?

That they believe the creation story.

Or are you saying they just disagree with evolution, based on science only?

Didn't say anything about evolution, but yes, they would have some fundamental problems with the toe, not necassarily evolution.

That would a first for me to see. But then what are their arguments? I predict they will show poor knowledge of the subject.

I would imagine some things they wouldn't know much about, and others they would know a lot about. But what you fail to understand is that if we are talking about evidence that relies on assumptions, questioning that evidence is not equal to not understanding it, in fact, it is the opposite, it is showing an understanding and asking for more.

razzelflabben · May 12, 2005

Edx said:
(continued...)

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.

-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

Now first of all the second site was direct, you just didn't read it, and that is okay, it seems to be your way of doing things, so I won't quibble. Secondly, you are doing exactly what I predicted you would, claim that it didn't meet the criteria for a variaty of variables that were not presented first, and as you remember, I gave you opertunity to do so. So the subject then can be closed, because I accepted the unfair challenge and provided what you asked me for. BTW, what does anything I have said here, show that I don't know scientific method, I choose one of the best known, well "defined" scientists to meet the challenge and so somehow that means I don't understand scientific method, I think you need to explain what you are reading into my posts, so else reread them to see what I am actually saying. The challenge was for a credible scientist who believed the creation story, I gave you that and referenced the source. Man am I confused about how science works, because I choose one of the greatest scientists. I would hate to think what I could have done with the challenge if I had understood scientific method wouldn't you?

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.

Which of the criteria you presented was that included in? Remember, I asked you several times to narrow down the criteria in which you refused, so show me which of the criteria you put forth that limits the age of the creationist I am allowed to reference you to!?! Also remember I asked you for a fair challenge, so please do be fair in your response.

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.

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

So now you are claiming that Pastuer was not a credibel scientific source? Hummm, do you understand the scientific method you claim I don't?

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.

Again, show me where the age of the scientist was one of the criteria I asked you for.

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

My son did not get the quesion from school, nor from what he was taught about evolution or creation or origins in general, how do I know, because he has been home schooled, and I have not taught the subject. In fact, he is well versed on the subject because of the self study he has done, most of which comes from the evolutionist material available (I don't recall any creationist book or materials he has read though I would guess with all the reading he does, he might have found one or two). The question was totally unrealated to school. But, I guess that is me playing games and not paying attention rather than you reading into my posts what is not there.

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

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.

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.

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 have asked many questions, but I have not heard a creationist claim that the toe is not scientific because it is history, or that science is an authority, do you want to point me to the creationist websites that put forth those ideas, I am truely interested because more extremist creationists do not agree with my ideas. It would be fun to find some who do.

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

I don't know why I have to look up the same information a multitude of times but since I already presented one, I'll give you a different one now.
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2004/01/a_testable_crea.php Thanks for using your time to look up what I have already used my time to do. (sarcasm)

razzelflabben · May 12, 2005

Edx said:
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.

You are confusing biblical theology with the story of creation. The story of creation does not include the flood nor does it include death, that comes later in the book of gen and is reserved in discussion for biblical theology. We can delve into all those things if you like, but it would have to be done on another thread and on the understanding that it is theology and not the creation story.

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.

Ahhhh, so now the truth comes out? you are not upset about the concept, but rather the wording used, because the words sound scientific, we must discard them from our vocabulary so that the toc doesn't sound like we are giving it any merit or trying to understand it in light of what it says. Okay! got it, I can say anything I want about the toc as long as it doesn't use the same words as I use for the toe.. (I think you are being a bit oversensitive!)

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.

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

I don't even know what your problem with this or understanding of what I said is here, I was respondiing to your comments alone.

razzelflabben · May 12, 2005

Edx said:
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.

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

Pardon me for showing you what you asked me to show you, how religion can affect our understanding of the world. It doesn't matter what that understanding is or how that understanding is come to, what matters in the question you asked me is how religion can and does help us to understand our world. I have done just that, you are free to do what you want with the information, dismiss it, accept it, judge it, whatever, I was asked to show the information to you and I did.

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.

Doesn't matter, if the information was arrived at through the study of religion and how religion works, then religion is the avenue and my claim has been evidenced.

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.

Now before you said you knew that God didn't exist, but what ever will be will be,

What does this mean? Why are you saying this?

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?

It is ones view of the supernatural. You can't escape it no matter how hard you try, you have a view, a belief about the supernatural, either it exists or it doesn't, either God is or He isn't, either the gods exist or they don't, and that is te basis for all of our understandings of this world.

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.

By that definition, then if I believe that Jesus or Buddah, or Mohammid were prophets, then it doesn't constitute a religious belief because it says nothing about a supernatural being. So now, we can change the definition enough to mean that IF I don't want to beleive that I have a religious belief, I can say I don't and that is that. So what then is the definition for religion in your understanding? I gave you my understanding and definitions, and you still dispute that atheism is a religion, so as you say, this is about definitions and not asserting that your understandings are right, so show me the errors of the definitions and not the comfort zone of your understandings.

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.

Right, the belief has to either be about the supernatural, or it must be what defines our behavior, kind of like a code of ethics.

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?

Where you are going is trying to change the wording that I have used to establish this discussion. I am using the word believe, you want me to ignore the changing of the word to faith and therefore prove me wrong, that I don't understand. None of the definitions for religion center around faith, but rather around belief.

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.

Look it up!

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.

Just offered it as a complete account of what the word religion means, and not as an arguement for any given definition. iow, I didn't pick and choose definitions that would defend my position, instead, I included all the definitions in an attempt to be compete and unbiased and btw, that defintion, you know the biblical one that you don't like, is the only one that allows atheism to not be considered a religious belief. Wonder why you have so much trouble with the one the supports your claims and not the others?

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!

Actually the definition I worked from is that of ones belief in the supernatural, not the one meaning your outlook on life. Please do read the posts. The other one was offered as a complete discussion and not as the meaning that we are discussing. You latched onto it for some odd reason of which I do not understand and then plug everything I say into that defintion. You really do have a "dizzying intellect" (borrowed from the famous word in the Princess Bride)

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"

Notice I asked you for the ecclesiastes of the "religion" which is one of the acceptable definitions and uses of the words. Please also note that you had an opertunity to clarify and you didn't. Also please note that creationism is not a belief in the supernatural, but rather in what the supernatural did which is why I have never heard it claimed to be a religion before, only a doctrine of a relgion. Note the definition of religion is a belief in the supernatural, not in what the supernatural does. And so where am I saying something different?

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?

Sorry, I have met some extremist evolutionists that treat the toe as if it were a religion which qualifies it as the term evolutionist.

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.

I have no idea what this double talk is trying to get at, but, let me explain again my understanding of the terms creationist and evolutionist since they have never formally been discussed. I understand the creationist to be an extremist in that they treat the toc as an ultimate authority to everything. To the same end, I have met evolutionsist. those extremists who view the toe as an ultimate authority to everything. Note neither accept another authority for anything, be that science, God, evidence, bible, etc. They are terms reserved for the extremists of both groups who do not accept an authority apart from the theory accepted and will not bend dispite what they are shown. IOW, if science today, was able in some way (not a discussion about how) to falsify the toe the evolutionist would deny that the evidence exists and continue to believe the toe as fact. Look at it as the counter to the creationist.

razzelflabben · May 12, 2005

Edx said:
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.

I don't need to make anyone accept anything, it is what it is. If you are going to accept the "evidence that science offers" they you must accept the authority of that science. If you don't want to admit that, it is not skin off my nose, as I have said before, it is what it is. Denying fact doesn't make it go away, which is what you complain about when someone chooses another authroty. Your denying that you choose an authority doesn't change that you do.

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

Oiy! Science has it's own authority, and we then must choose the same authority of science, or the authority of science, or a totally different authority.

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.

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

I use the word according to the definition. But whatever, you are free to think and believe what you want.

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

Like trying to prove their point for example.

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

Oh please do show me where I said that science relies of beliefs.

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.

Oh dear we have a long way to go on communication....

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"

We have been discussing authority for pages now and you still don't understand that you have to deside what you are going to believe on a given subject. I don't think there is any hope in getting you to understand that anytime we believe something, we accept the authority of the one or thing that claims it to be so.

---> "the evolutionist arguements will reflect the assumptions of common ancestry

Click to expand...

"

The evolutionist, accepts common ancestry as fact, therefore, that is his bias. Why he believes it to be fact is not part of the discussion. Wow, what are you inferring in this statement?

--->"So your premise is then that theories like gravity and evolution can be revised but not the toc?"

Click to expand...

Note a question asking you to clarify what you were saying and not a claim to anything. And you want me to take you seriously that you are not reading into my posts?

---> "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"

very early on in this thread, it was discussed how evolution and the toe differ, I explained how I agreed with the differences presented, and then you come back and say that I don't understand the differences because why? Others here see a difference too why is your beef with me and not them as well.

---> "I find your view of creationist disturbing"

Your post lacked any understanding of understanding that not all "creationist" fit the steriotypes, it also reaked of anger, hostility, bitterness, and judgemental behavior. If find that disturbing, especially from someone who claims to be communicating. Isn't specific to all people who believe evolutionary theory, but specific to you and your post.

---> "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?"

Again, please note the question mark at the end. It is a question and not a claim. Do you know the difference between questions, statements and exlaimations?

---> "how does the crationist mindset hold back progress and knowledge, education?"

I think the claim you made before this QUESTION gives too much credit to the creationist view point. I honestly don't see how any belief in our origins can hold back progress and knowledge and education. BTW, I don't recall you ever answering the question.

---> "I said that we can approach history scientifically (do experiments), but that history is not scientific"

and this confuses you how? We can approach pretty much so anything from a scientific approach, however, that doesn't make everything scientific. Religion is a goof example of this, we can approach relgion scientifically, however, that doesn't make religion scientific.

---> "How then is the toe which deals with history a scientific theory?"

Again, a question directed at you trying to figure out what you don't understand about my view that history is not scientific.

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

How can you be listening when you don't even know the difference between a question and a comment?

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.

Okay, how prayer helps with healing is the same thing as the god of the gaps, I asked someone on another thread to explain the term because what they were saying didn't make sense with my understanding and no answer was given, how about if you try to do better. If god of the gaps means that if we study the effect of prayer on healing, then what do you mean when you use the term god of the gaps, I thought it meant that when we don't know we use the excuse god did it? I must have it wrong.

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?

Where oh where does this say that I believe in the god of the gaps theory? I really don't get it?

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.

Honestly, I don't know why you are still here, from the above, nothing you are saying indicates any effort in communication, but you are free to show me otherwise, even when I ask a question of your comments, you infer what you think I believe, that is rediculous, a question is a question, it is a method of obtaining information, not a comment about what someone believes.

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"

But I never said that I agreed witht he god of the gap philosophy or that I thought it was a good arguement. Where are you getting the idea that I said this?

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"

Now when a portion of a post is extracted and the remainder of the post is used, what would you call it if not ignored?

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.

[/font]

Oh, I am going to cry, where did I say that authority equaled science? I said that one must choose what authority they would hold to. Nothing about authority equalling science in that statement!

gluadys · May 12, 2005

razzelflabben said:
I don't recall saying that a theory does become law

It was in post 247 where you said:

If our observations directly observed the toe, then the toe would no longer be theory, but 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

Apparently you did not read the article you linked to. It says there are similarities and differences between scientific law and scientific theory. It does not say that a theory becomes a law.

Rather it distinguishes them as here:

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

This is why a theory may include one or more laws as part of the theory. It can tie different laws together as part of a single theory which explains them both. A law is simple enough to be part of a theory, but a theory is a larger, more complex explanation than a law.

If the theory of evolution is fact, then it would not need to be revised, and therefore should be considered law.

It is not the theory of evolution that is a fact. It is the process of evolution that is a fact. We can observe evolution happening, so we know it is a fact by direct observation. The theory explains the facts and observations by setting them in context.

Theories are not facts, they are explanations of facts and predictions of more facts.
Laws are not facts either. They are descriptions of classes of facts which can be summarized as what always happens under conditions X, Y & Z.

You very seriously misunderstand science if you think a theory would not need to be revised. The best of theories is always open to revision if facts appear which it cannot explain. As the article you referenced says: a theory is complex and dynamic (bolding added). Something that is dynamic moves and changes.

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?

The theory of evolution is about evolution, it is not the process of evolution itself. And the basic theory is quite simple. But it has lots of sub-theories and observations and laws as well whose relationships with each other are quite complex. After all, evolution relates all the many fields of biology together. And some fields of biology (such as molecular biology) are very active and coming up with new information daily.

So we have three things:
1. the fact of evolution (=observation of the process of evolution)
2. some laws about evolution (=descriptions of some parts of the process)
3. the theory of evolution (=an explanatory model of how evolution happens, which both explains the observations and laws and predicts new observations.)

Fact, law and theory are three different and well-defined concepts in science. They should not be confused with one another. None becomes one of the others. Each has its own place and function.

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.

I can agree that neither religion nor history is science. But is the scientific study of religion or history science? That is the key question. Musical developments of the 20th century (e.g. jazz, rock, disco, rap, hip-hop, etc.) are not science either. But one could approach the subject scientifically, showing when and where each originated, what audience they appealed to, how they broke from their origins into the mainstream, what sort of revenue they generated year to year, etc.

Would such a study be music or science?

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

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.

My question did not include any reference to what the money was used for. Only to whether or not the congregation made a donation.

I dont understand your first sentence.
I asked if the letter was empirical evidence.
You reply that a study of the authenticity of the letter would be empirical knowledge.

So you have made two significant changes to what I asked.

Can you give me an answer to the question as I asked it please?

Perhaps you could also explain why a study would be empirical and the letter itself not be (if that is what you are implying.)

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.

How do you come to this conclusion? (See analogy with music/science above.)

razzelflabben said:
HUH???? I asked you based on claims you made why a theory (note theory assumes maturity already) must be evidenced in order to be considered a scientific theory.

But you were asking why a proposal with testable predictions, but no evidence, could not be a scientific theory. A proposal/hypothesis with no evidence is not a mature theory. So you were not asking about a mature theory. You were asking why an untested hypothesis could not be considered a scientific theory. Now, I hope, you know the answer.

Look it up then come back and ask me. I asked, why must a theory be evidenced in order to be classified as a scientific theory.

(I have to cut my time on the forum for a while since I have to get ready for a show, so I will let you look it up since you love to do that anyway.)I have not changed the question!

(bolding added)

It appears you are incapable of reading what you yourself write.

Here is the original question from post #72

So then, if it [toc] makes testable predictions, what seperates it from scientific theory?

(bolding added)

You repeat the question in post 102

According to the definition given, a theory is scientific if it makes testable predictions. I pointed you to a site that offers testable predictions made by the toc. The question then is not whether or not the predictions are testable but whether or not the toc would move into the realm of science if it proves itself as making testable predictions.

(bolding added)

And as recently as post 251, you confirmed again what the original question was.

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.

(bolding added)

In all of these cases you are not referring to a theory which has supporting evidence derived from testing its predictions. You are referring only to having testable predictions, not to testing them and analyzing the results. At that stage, what you have is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.

So when you now want to pretend that you were asking about a mature theory with supporting evidence, that is changing the question. Existing evidence was not assumed in the original question as stated by you three times---only testable predictions.

gluadys said:
gluadys said:

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).

Click to expand...

That would be a different question and a different discussion now wouldn't it?

Not at all. It is this question (why the toc is not scientific) and this discussion.

I would think that a hypothesis whose predictions cannot be evidenced, would be discarded or revised rather than remain a scientific hypotheis until it could be tested and evidenced.

Correct. The hypothesis only becomes (and remains) a theory as long as its predictions test out as true.

Humanista · May 12, 2005

Quote:

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

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

My son did not get the quesion from school, nor from what he was taught about evolution or creation or origins in general, how do I know, because he has been home schooled, and I have not taught the subject. In fact, he is well versed on the subject because of the self study he has done, most of which comes from the evolutionist material available (I don't recall any creationist book or materials he has read though I would guess with all the reading he does, he might have found one or two). The question was totally unrealated to school. But, I guess that is me playing games and not paying attention rather than you reading into my posts what is not there.

This is a good example of miscommunication.

The question being asked (and addressed by Edx) is:

Why is our origins such an important and hot topic? What does it matter?

WHO asked the question originally (razzelflabben's son) is completely irrelevent. Maybe her son asked it, maybe Oprah asked it, maybe Kent Hovind asked it, maybe Stephen J. Gould asked it. The education (public or home-schooled) of the person who asked the question is NOT the main point, yet that is what razzelflabben focused on, almost totally. Where her home-schooled son could have gotton info on the topic, how smart he is to do independent study,etc. Doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter who asked the question, just what the question asked.

Edx's answer to WHY the TOPIC matters, is that it troubles him that some groups are campaigning to have beliefs taught as science. Yes, he mentioned school, but he wasn't referring to razzelflabben's son's specific education environment. Nevertheless, she spent an entire paragraph on a tangent about her son's schooling. Her specific child's school experience does not address why, in the public arena, there is a controversy about origins.

The QUESTION may have been unrelated to school, but the ANSWER is relevent to school--WHY is origins a hot topic? Because of what is taught in schools.

razzelflabben · May 13, 2005

Humanista said:
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.

Already addressed it. That specific meaning is why I asked gluadys why a theory must be evidenced in order to be considered a scientific theory. Because theory assumes that it is no longer a hypothesis, but then again, I don't understand the specific scientific terms and gluadys does, so I am sure that clarifying that assumption that the theory is not yet mature is ourside the understanding of theory. It's all about me being wrong right? That is why when we assume maturity but discuss otherwise, it is the one assuming the maturity who is wrong. Right! got ya! Because you assume to know what I believe, I must be wrong all the time and never right! OK, moving on.

razzelflabben · May 13, 2005

gluadys said:
It was in post 247 where you said:

If our observations directly observed the toe, then the toe would no longer be theory, but law.

Yep, I clarified what I was trying to say, but that wasn't good enough for you, because clarity has not purpose when trying to prove someone stupid, ignorant, or wrong. Thanks

It is not the theory of evolution that is a fact. It is the process of evolution that is a fact. We can observe evolution happening, so we know it is a fact by direct observation. The theory explains the facts and observations by setting them in context.

The very first time I have on the forum ever heard an evolutionist admit that the toe was not fact. Bravo! Now your getting it.

The theory of evolution is about evolution, it is not the process of evolution itself. And the basic theory is quite simple. But it has lots of sub-theories and observations and laws as well whose relationships with each other are quite complex. After all, evolution relates all the many fields of biology together. And some fields of biology (such as molecular biology) are very active and coming up with new information daily.

And yet many here do not distinguish between the toe and evolution and treat them as one. That is the problem.

I can agree that neither religion nor history is science. But is the scientific study of religion or history science? That is the key question. Musical developments of the 20th century (e.g. jazz, rock, disco, rap, hip-hop, etc.) are not science either. But one could approach the subject scientifically, showing when and where each originated, what audience they appealed to, how they broke from their origins into the mainstream, what sort of revenue they generated year to year, etc.

Would such a study be music or science?

personally, I would classify it as a scientific approach to music and not science itself goes back to definitions and criteria for science and not just scientific method.

I dont understand your first sentence.
I asked if the letter was empirical evidence.
You reply that a study of the authenticity of the letter would be empirical knowledge.

Okay, try this explaination. The letter is empirical knowledge, yes. It is not evidence to a donation until it is authenticated as being real.

But you were asking why a proposal with testable predictions, but no evidence, could not be a scientific theory. A proposal/hypothesis with no evidence is not a mature theory. So you were not asking about a mature theory. You were asking why an untested hypothesis could not be considered a scientific theory. Now, I hope, you know the answer.

Excuse me, I asked you so many times my head was beginning to hurt why a theory must be tested/evidenced in order to be considered scientific. You continued to assert that it did. That is equivilent to saying. Hen, you have to mature again to a hen before I will call you a hen, which makes absolutely no sense which is exactly why I asked you to explain yourself, because if it is a hen (theory), it is assumed that it has alread matured or it would still be a chick (hypothesis)

(bolding added)

It appears you are incapable of reading what you yourself write.

Here is the original question from post #72
So then, if it [toc] makes testable predictions, what seperates it from scientific theory?
(bolding added)

You repeat the question in post 102

According to the definition given, a theory is scientific if it makes testable predictions. I pointed you to a site that offers testable predictions made by the toc. The question then is not whether or not the predictions are testable but whether or not the toc would move into the realm of science if it proves itself as making testable predictions.
(bolding added)

And as recently as post 251, you confirmed again what the original question was.

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.
(bolding added)

In all of these cases you are not referring to a theory which has supporting evidence derived from testing its predictions. You are referring only to having testable predictions, not to testing them and analyzing the results. At that stage, what you have is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.

Excuse me once again, I am referring to the definition for scientific theory. That of being makng testable predictions. Nothing in that definition of which I was asking you to claify mentions hypothesis, that is your burden to bring up in questions as of your comments. If the definition for scientific theory needs to include hypothesis, then when I ask you what would keep the toc from being a scientific theory if is can demonstrate that it makes testable predictions, then you have been asked to clarify your definition to include said hypothesis.

razzelflabben · May 13, 2005

Humanista said:
Quote:

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

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

This is a good example of miscommunication.

The question being asked (and addressed by Edx) is:

Why is our origins such an important and hot topic? What does it matter?

WHO asked the question originally (razzelflabben's son) is completely irrelevent. Maybe her son asked it, maybe Oprah asked it, maybe Kent Hovind asked it, maybe Stephen J. Gould asked it. The education (public or home-schooled) of the person who asked the question is NOT the main point, yet that is what razzelflabben focused on, almost totally. Where her home-schooled son could have gotton info on the topic, how smart he is to do independent study,etc. Doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter who asked the question, just what the question asked.

Edx's answer to WHY the TOPIC matters, is that it troubles him that some groups are campaigning to have beliefs taught as science. Yes, he mentioned school, but he wasn't referring to razzelflabben's son's specific education environment. Nevertheless, she spent an entire paragraph on a tangent about her son's schooling. Her specific child's school experience does not address why, in the public arena, there is a controversy about origins.

The QUESTION may have been unrelated to school, but the ANSWER is relevent to school--WHY is origins a hot topic? Because of what is taught in schools.

Okay, then why is it important enough to even teach in schools? Any teaching on it at all? That was the original idea behind the question. So answer the question instead of long discourses about how I don't understand the answer, apparently you didn't understand the question either which is why communication is a two way street.

Edx · May 13, 2005

----------ignore

Edx · May 13, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Okay, then why is it important enough to even teach in schools? Any teaching on it at all?

Why is science being taught in a science lesson?

Hmm. Better think about that one.

Ed

gluadys · May 13, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Yep, I clarified what I was trying to say, but that wasn't good enough for you, because clarity has not purpose when trying to prove someone stupid, ignorant, or wrong. Thanks

Well, when you are wrong, you are wrong. I am sorry if showing you what you said upsets you. Maybe you would prefer that we all have bad memories about your gaffes.

The very first time I have on the forum ever heard an evolutionist admit that the toe was not fact. Bravo! Now your getting it.

I take it that you haven't read much on this board outside of your own threads. I have heard this many times from evolutionists trying to explain to creationists that science does not prove theories. Any theories.

And yet many here do not distinguish between the toe and evolution and treat them as one. That is the problem.

Yes, people tend to use a handy shorthand and say "evolution" both for the fact of evolution and for the theory of evolution. Just as many people say "creation" when what they mean is "creationism". Usually, the context will tell you which is meant, or if that is unclear, ask. No point getting in a tizzy about it.

personally, I would classify it as a scientific approach to music and not science itself goes back to definitions and criteria for science and not just scientific method.

Ok. Now what if the subject of the scientific study is how the moon causes tides? Is that science or is it a scientific approach to tides?

Okay, try this explaination. The letter is empirical knowledge, yes. It is not evidence to a donation until it is authenticated as being real.

Ok. So then if the letter is authenticated as being real, then it is empirical evidence of the donation. Right?

Excuse me, I asked you so many times my head was beginning to hurt why a theory must be tested/evidenced in order to be considered scientific. You continued to assert that it did.

Right. It was because you asked me so many times that I had to ask myself why I was having such difficulty communicating with you. That led me to thinking, well, when you have a scientific sounding proposal with testable predictions, but no more than that---what do you have? And the light-bulb turned on. Of course, that is the description of a hypothesis.

That is equivilent to saying. Hen, you have to mature again to a hen before I will call you a hen, which makes absolutely no sense which is exactly why I asked you to explain yourself, because if it is a hen (theory), it is assumed that it has alread matured or it would still be a chick (hypothesis)

In your original question you were not making any assumptions about maturity. That's the point. So what I am saying is not like telling a hen it has to grow up all over again. It is like telling a chick it needs to reach puberty to be considered a hen.

Excuse me once again, I am referring to the definition for scientific theory. That of being makng testable predictions.

But that is an incomplete definition of a scientific theory. That is what I kept telling you over and over again. It is not enough to have testable predictions. The predictions must be tested and true to supply evidence to support the theory. Testable predictions alone are not enough.

Your question was why are testable predictions alone not enough? Why do you need evidence as well?

Nothing in that definition of which I was asking you to claify mentions hypothesis, that is your burden to bring up in questions as of your comments.

No, that term was not in the question. But it is the answer to the question. Testable predictions are the mark of a hypothesis.
Tested and validated predictions are the mark of a theory.

That is why the toc would not be a scientific theory if it only made testable predictions.

That was your question. And the answer is this:
If the toc makes testable predictions, it is not a theory yet. It is a hypothesis
In addition to testable predictions, it also needs tested and validated predictions (IOW evidence) to become a theory.

If the definition for scientific theory needs to include hypothesis, then when I ask you what would keep the toc from being a scientific theory if is can demonstrate that it makes testable predictions, then you have been asked to clarify your definition to include said hypothesis.

Is the above clear enough now?

Physics_guy · May 13, 2005

Why bother continuing this massive thread that is nothing more than an argument about semantics with someone not versed in the semantics of the topic?

Edx · May 13, 2005

Physics_guy said:
Why bother continuing this massive thread that is nothing more than an argument about semantics with someone not versed in the semantics of the topic?

Im a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?

Ed

Humanista · May 13, 2005

razzelflabben said:
Okay, then why is it important enough to even teach in schools? Any teaching on it at all? That was the original idea behind the question. So answer the question instead of long discourses about how I don't understand the answer, apparently you didn't understand the question either which is why communication is a two way street.

The question wasn't why is it IMPORTANT ENOUGH to teach in science class, was it????? I believe the question was why is it (origins) a hot topic, why does it matter?

I was pointing out why, ironically, you fail to communicate very well.

But if you want me to answer your NEW question, okay.

The foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution. A class aimed at educating students in the biological sciences must include this very important theory because of its explanatory power. Why do students need to learn about science? So they can better understand important issues in their society (like stem cell research, for one example, or medicine), and if no one is taught any science, or just a limited amount, where is the next generation of scientists, doctors, researchers, chemists, etc going to come from?

Why teach students anything beyond reading and simple arithmatic? To equipment them for life and help them understand the world they live in.

I suppose one could dismiss history, science, and other subjects as not "really all that useful" (do you absolutely need to know who the first President was to write computer code or do accounting?)but IMO that would signal a sad decline in the culture.

Edx · May 13, 2005

The sad thing is Humanista you will probably be told you "dont understand" again, and she was actually asking a totally different question. Silly you, eh?

Ed

Humanista · May 14, 2005

Edx,

Yes, none of us understands, do we? Here is something I noticed and don't know whether it's hilarious or sad.

QUESTION:

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

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:
The question was totally unrealated to school.

razzelflabben said:
Okay, then why is it important enough to even teach in schools? Any teaching on it at all? That was the original idea behind the question.

razzelflabben said:
apparently you didn't understand the question

Apparently SOMEBODY didn't.

Edx · May 14, 2005

Razsel. There are so many posts now, its impossible to manage. We will discuss this aspect of credibility first until its run its course.

razzelflabben said:
And it is unfair bias is if cook a chicken and you come along and say, you were not credible because you cooked it at 350 degrees when everyone knows you cook chicken at 325 degrees. That is the problem with the term credible.

I am not going to quibble over something as silly as in your example. I gave you examples of the degree of ignorence and misrepresentation I was talking about, but instead you insist on talking about something else entirely.

Note there are two categories of scientists,

Biological Scientists - Physical Scientists, some are affilitated with ICR and some are not. Also note that their creditials are provided which would appear to me to be a form of credibility, in that they offer where their education comes from. Now this is on top of Pastuer which I have also given you, so that should be the end of that. http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html BTW, before discrediting the information I gave, you must discredit every scientist listed and not just the site in which it is listed on because the site listed is not the claim, the scientists are.

First of all has your grip your argument become so weak you have resported to thowing ICRs "list" at me? A place that calls evolution atheism and blames it for racism, nazism etc. A place that claims its scientific but states up front that no evdidence will ever change their minds, essentially pledging they wont do science.

Second, Im not going to do your leg work for you. You seem to think that if you thow enough nonsence at me you can win simply because I simply do not have the time to research each of these people and provide a proper debunking on each. Sorry Razzel, it doesnt work that way. You cant win an argument like that. Now you do this properly. You are free to pick any of those individuals"you like, if you really think ICR is a valid source, but pick 1 or 2 of who you think are the best examples and show them here. They cant just be random people either, I also need to read what they have said otherwise whats the point?

This is what a scientific source means for the record. I quote Aron Nelson:

"A scientific source is one which presents objectively demonstrable evidence in support of a conclusion which is peer-reviewed, where independant experts critically examine it, and try to find a critical flaw in it, that is then also tested it for accuracy, again by even more critical experts. If it is supported by demonstrable evidence of some kind, and no one can find a critical flaw with it, then it is scientific.If the source of this information only deals with arguments of this nature, then it is a scientific source. "

Let me ask you a question. Who determines if they know their stuff or not?

I dont even think I need to look that far, you just have to view the way they present evolution. Every Creationist I have even known, and known of has to misrepresent it in order to be able to attack it. That alone would destroy their credability. They misrepresent everything, and are never accountable for anything they say. It will be something simple even you should be able to agree on it, but then you are becoming more and more irrational as these conversations continue so perhaps not.

razzelflabben said:
Now first of all the second site was direct, you just didn't read it, and that is okay, it seems to be your way of doing things, so I won't quibble.

You are very arrogant for someone that has not only habitually ignored every link Ive given you, and not just taken my words out of context but in many occasions entire subjects.

How can we know the context of that quote "no", it doesnt even give a reference and shows very poor understanding of what evolution is. I didnt actually look that deep first of all, to notice that it was actually Creationist. Now it makes sence. Creationists also have a history of taking scienists out of context in order to pretend they see problems with evolution. Therefore this site is not credible for 3 reasons. 1. It shows poor knowledge of evolution. 2. Does not give any references. 3. It wouldnt make a difference anyway. I could very easily find more dirt on them, but I dont think thats nescessary. Your source is dubious at best.

Secondly, you are doing exactly what I predicted you would, claim that it didn't meet the criteria for a variaty of variables that were not presented first, and as you remember, I gave you opertunity to do so.

And do you remember failing to offer any changes to make it better, every single time I replied to that claim?
Even in the last lot of posts I said. "Point 2 and 3 have to stay the way they are, the other 2 can be negotiated depending on the circumstances."

So the subject then can be closed, because I accepted the unfair challenge and provided what you asked me for.

No you didnt.

I still dont know why you think its unfair. Tell you what. I submit the peer reviewed Tree of Life Project, as a credible scientific source. http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

BTW, what does anything I have said here, show that I don't know scientific method,

Not just here. Everything youve said shows you dont understand the scientific method. Why do you think its so hard for you to understand the difference between a theory and a hypothosis? I dont know either, but you still clearly dont know the difference.

I choose one of the best known, well "defined" scientists to meet the challenge and so somehow that means I don't understand scientific method,

My point was that Pasteur was a firm advocate of the scientific method and so their claim that "Pasteur questioned the theory of evolution", because Pasteur said "Do not put forward anything that you cannot prove by experimentation" and then listing his "experimental method" shows that they dont understand evolution since evolution doesnt go against it. And even if Pasteur did say that about Darwins theory, it is irrelevant for more than one reason.

I think you need to explain what you are reading into my posts, so else reread them to see what I am actually saying. The challenge was for a credible scientist who believed the creation story, I gave you that and referenced the source.

No you didnt, you gave me 1 site that had nothing to do with it whatsoever. You gave me another Creationist site, with no references for its quotations, and shows very poor understanding of what evolution actually is anyway.

But Pasteur being a Creationist isnt even the real issue. And I see you also completely ignored my quote from his biography.

Which of the criteria you presented was that included in? Remember, I asked you several times to narrow down the criteria in which you refused, so show me which of the criteria you put forth that limits the age of the creationist I am allowed to reference you to!?! Also remember I asked you for a fair challenge, so please do be fair in your response.

Why do you persist on being as difficult as possible? I also didnt have a point that stated that the source couldnt be a made up pixie fairy but I thought that was obvious. How can anyone be a scientific source to help overthow a modern day theory when he's been dead for over a hundred years?

But lets assume Pasteur was a Creationist, then how is he a source? What could you use from his work, as a Creationist? If you think he is a source show us his papers, evidence, experiments ANYTHING relevant to evolution. In fact can you name me one thing you could use from Pasteurs history for Creationism whatsoever? How then is he a scientific source for Creationism?

So now you are claiming that Pastuer was not a credibel scientific source?

No like I said its not that he isnt a credible scientific source its that he isnt a modern scientific source. Pasteur cant be used for the same reason Artistotle (geocentric) wouldn't be for heliocentricity, Isaac Newton for the theory Gravity, or Einstein on Quantum Mechanics, nor even could Darwin be on the modern theory of evolution. Its not that these people werent real scientists. Its not that they werent credible. But the are out of date, and dead! I dont even see how could you even possibly entertain the idea for more than a moment.

Hummm, do you understand the scientific method you claim I don't?

You are becoming more and more like a typical Creationist every time you post ignorant nonsense like this. It only makes you look bad. Cut it out.

Again, show me where the age of the scientist was one of the criteria I asked you for.

Age isnt important, but the fact he has been dead for over a century is

You think that is irrelevant or something? I know there were real scientists that were Creationists. I have told you many times, even in the post you were replying to. It was YECs that discovered that the earth was old, and that there was no global flood before Darwin. They changed their minds because of the evidence. Thats credibility, thats accountability, and thats reputability. It was only around the mid 90s did the modern self deceptive anti-science Creationist movements along.

Again you have twisted my position.

Lawyers try to avoid this bias in jury choice, but are not always successful, so you want me to believe that a scientific panel that does not entertain another theory is unbiased, and I will reject everyone you present to sit on the jury based on bias. But, that is another question all together and so we move on.

So you have completely written off peer review without a second thought, even though you have no idea how any of it works. Though it seems in your subjective reality, nothing can ever be known. Science is pointless.

"All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts -- no matter how fond of it we are -- must be discarded or revised. Science is not perfect. It is often misused. It is only a tool, but it is the best tool we have"
--Carl Sagan

Start communicating

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Legend

Empirically Speaking

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Empirically Speaking

Senior Veteran

Empirically Speaking

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency