Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

Why is science being taught in a science lesson?

Hmm. Better think about that one.

Ed

So are then saying that science is only about our origins? Last time I checked, science was much more broad and interesting than a simple discussion about our origins, so the above statement either is a total misrepresentation of what I have said. or you believe that our origins are all there is to science. Which is it?

 

[Edx]

So are then saying that science is only about our origins? Last time I checked, science was much more broad and interesting than a simple discussion about our origins, so the above statement either is a total misrepresentation of what I have said.

The question was "why is origins such a hot topic?".
Then it was "why is it important enough to even teach in schools"

or you believe that our origins are all there is to science.Which is it?

I dont know how you managed to twist it so badly. Why it important to teach evolution in schools? Because its important to teach science in schools.

You cant really be this slow. It has to be intentional.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

Not upset, and not wrong. If you think I am, you need to either evidence that I am wrong, which you have not done, or accept that we each have different view point, or I guess, you could also accept that you are wrong but that would mean that I have to evidence to you my side of the issue, and the people on this thread have demonstrated many times over that they are just as hardheaded about evidence as the creationists they find so distasteful.

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.

And some of them have never understood the difference and when confronted with it, go back into the pat answers that they have been taught, without any understanding of the difference. This creates a big communication barrier, which is one of the communications I was hoping would be addressed, instead, people come on here, assume what I believe then try to convince me I am wrong and never understand what is being said.

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?

Tides are empirical and therefore, the study of the empirical would be classified as science would it not?

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

sure

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.

I think you need to review the beginnings of this discussion. yOu gave a definition, I asked for clarity and somehow you infer from that that I don't understand hypothesis?!?!? See, I am not here to convince you that you understand science or not, I am here to listen to what you know and don't know so that real communcation can begin. If I try to correct you, I am not listening. In order to listen, I must ask questions and consider what you are saying, asking enough questions to make as few assumptions as possible about what you understand and what you don't. It is a skill that I try to practise daily which appears that no one here has ever even attempted before. LISTENING REQUIRES ONE TO ASK FOR CLARITY NOT ASSUME WHAT IS BEING SAID.

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.

And how do you even come to that conclusion????? I asked you to further explain your understanding and from that some how I don't understand? Man! you really don't get what communication and listening are all about do you!!!

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?

You are confusing two different things here. The first question was about your understanding of scientific theory, to which you gave the definition as testable predictions. So I asked if the toc made testable predictions would it then be considered a scientific theory. The answer should have been simple for you but rather than answer the question as you did above, you assumed that I didn't understand scientific theory and went into pages of "convincing" me that I was not what I claimed to be. Eventually, you made the statement that in order for a theory to be scientific, it must be evidenced. To which I further asked you to clarify because I always thought to you be more scientifically minded than to ask an already mature theory to mature again before it could be called theory. To which, you went once again into pages of my not understanding science. I think many of you need to review the difference between questions and statements. I am teaching some of my children this at the moment, should I bring thier work into the forum or do you think you can review it for yourselves? A question, especially one asking you to clarify your position is nothing more than a question asking you to clarify your position. Maybe the problem is that I don't assume to know more than you, don't assume to be superior, don't assume you to not understand, but rather respect you and your opinions, education, and try to understand your views rather than just assume to know.

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.

Is the above clear enough now?

Now wasn't that a lot more easy than making unfounded assumptions and going through pages and pages of nonsense arguements based on your assumptions infered into my questions, rather than simply addressing the question?

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

I agree that science is vital to our education system. But I fail to see how the issue of our origins is the foundation for modern biology. When I was in school, as well as when I look on line for empirical information, I find loads of information that is not related to our origins at all. So, how then is out origins the foundation for modern biology?

 

[Edx]

I agree that science is vital to our education system. But I fail to see how the issue of our origins is the foundation for modern biology. When I was in school, as well as when I look on line for empirical information, I find loads of information that is not related to our origins at all. So, how then is out origins the foundation for modern biology?

Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that actually thinks science education in schools is actually good, so thats a education issue.
I suggest you read this:
http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/NABTstatmnt.html

 

[gluadys]

Tides are empirical and therefore, the study of the empirical would be classified as science would it not?

Why would the scientific study of tides be science and the scientific study of music not be science?

You say, because tides are empirical. But so is music. Music is a form of sound, and sound is empirical. Music also has patterns of rythm and harmony which can be studied with mathematical precision.

Music is also a form of culture, and culture has empirical characteristics which can be studied scientifically. We can, for example, trace which cultural group tends to buy which type of music, or attend concerts by which type of artist.

So why would the study of music not be science?

sure

So in this case, you have empirical evidence of an historical event. Is this science? i.e. given a scientific authentication of the letter, is it a scientific conclusion that the donation existed?

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.

Is the above clear enough now?

Now wasn't that a lot more easy than making unfounded assumptions and going through pages and pages of nonsense arguements based on your assumptions infered into my questions, rather than simply addressing the question?

Well, my review of the conversation would be different. But all that matters to me is that we end up on the same page.

So you understand now why a toc is not scientific.

 

[Edx]

So in this case, you have empirical evidence of an historical event. Is this science? i.e. given a scientific authentication of the letter, is it a scientific conclusion that the donation existed?.

I think Razzel is one of these "we werent there" people, who thinks unless you were there to personally witness a crime no one can ever discover what happened because "we werent there".

Ede

 

[razzelflabben]

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



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.



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.

Now, let's back up just a moment. I claimed that there were credible scientists, not sites. You challenged me to find a credible creationist site, I even highlighted for you my quote that there are crdible individuals, then proceeded to point to some of them for you. This after pages of discussion about what credible means. So now, you come here and claim that I am wrong because the list of credible scientists was taken from a ICR site. Do you listen to anything but your own thoughts? You asked me to evidence something that I did not even claim existed, in fact, I told you that I didn't think it was possible to find a site about our origins that was unbiased and misrepresenting for either of the theories, yet you keep pushing the idea that I must evidence a credible creationist source. So we talk about Pasteur, and I give you lists of scientists that have crditials, and all you can do is continue to ask me to evidence what I have never claimed exists and then boast of how smart you are. Boast all you want, my claim has been evidenced! It is all a matter of record!

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?

I don't even know what you want! You asked me for a credible source, I never claimed there was any in existance, I did claim there were reputable scientists who believed creation. I provided you with a list and that list includes their creditials, so now are you presenting me with another challenge or just changing the rule so you can claim that you won? See, this is why you needed more criteria.

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. "

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.

Whatever, I have been consistant in what I have said and claim. I have asked questions to learn more about what people think but have not yet on this thread tried to "teach" or "convince" anyone of anything because the thread is suppose to be about communication and not about convinceing. That being said, I totally don't understand your point here, I have nothing to prove about a credible site as you have repeatedly been told here, my claim was to credible scientists of which you can take your pick from a long list.

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."


No you didnt.

It wasn't my claim or challenge, what would you like me to have added? Isn't it the burden of the challenger to put forth criteria and not the challengee?

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

Because my claim was not that there were crdible sites, but rather credible scientists, I demonstrated this too you with large letters in my post and you ignore that to assert that I have not met your challenge. I have explained to you that it would be like me challenging you to defend creationism, and you still ignore it, claiming that I am changing the subject, twisting words, don't understand, or what was that other thing, some nonsense about arrogance.

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 understand the difference fine, and I assumed that gluadys would have understood the difference but her post didn't see to which is why I asked her to explain rather to assume she didn't.

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.

actually, my claims about pasteur were based on the site I referenced that said that when asked about evolution, Pastuer said that he did not believe the toe. Pretty blunt and straigt forward, doesn't need a lot of assumptions.

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.

Not at all, what I did do however, is show you that there are conflicting evidences as to what Pastuer believed about our origins.

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?

I never claimed a credible source, do you still not get this, I claimed a credible scientist. Please do read the large type in which this was pointed out to you so as to put this nonsense behind us.

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.

And to this assumption, I gave you a list of other scientists with creditials.

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

I have no clue what you are intending to say here, Of course I find science important, of coursed, I find peer review important, so what is your point? That because I ask questions I am stupid? Because I ask you to clarify your understandings that scientific method is of no use to me? If I though that peer review was of no use, I wouldn't rely on peer review for many of the responses to your posts. No, I don't quote myself repeatedly, I alow you to show me where you are having a problem, then, I leave it to peer review. That is why I will not requote things like the large letter credible scientist quote, because it was presented for peer review anyone who can't read it, should not be on the forum but rather in school.

 

[Humanista]

I agree that science is vital to our education system. But I fail to see how the issue of our origins is the foundation for modern biology. When I was in school, as well as when I look on line for empirical information, I find loads of information that is not related to our origins at all. So, how then is out origins the foundation for modern biology?

Perhaps I misunderstood. Do you think "origins" in the context of the question about a "hot topic" (meaning appearing prominently in the public debate about issues) was unrelated to evolution/theory of evolution?

If origins is a reference to abiogenesis--how life got started on this planet---there is no theory, only hypothesis, because it is still not well understood.
However, many people who are opposed to teaching about evolution/theory of evolution think that evolution/theory of evolution includes abiogenesis which it does not.Therefore, many people, including perhaps the person asking the original question, quite possibly erroneously refers to anything about evolution as "origins". Evolutionary theory describes change over time, which is why most theists are quite comfortable believing God created life, then used evolution as his means of effecting change.
So, to be clear, if you look back at my post, I didn't say origins was the foundation of modern biology, here's what I said:

The foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

For someone who harps on about semantic clarity and carefully reading what was said, you seem to be guilty of misreading this or assuming something--a deadly communication sin in your book.
It has not been established that the word "origins" is the same thing as "evolution" nor that the theory of evolution has within it a theory on "origins" or what "origins" is referring to.
Does origins mean anything that explains how humans came to be?
Does origins mean where life in general came from originally?

I find you to be a bit disingenuous when you claim that nothing related to origins (when you know good and well it is an imprecise word commonly used in relation to evolution) is to be found on line or when you were in school when searching for empirical evidence, or that you fail to understand my answer about evolution (I didn't say "origins") being the foundation of modern biology.

 

[razzelflabben]

The question was "why is origins such a hot topic?".
Then it was "why is it important enough to even teach in schools"

I dont know how you managed to twist it so badly. Why it important to teach evolution in schools? Because its important to teach science in schools.

You cant really be this slow. It has to be intentional.

Ed

The orginal question went something like this, (that is if you want to be fair enough to include the entire question) why is the topic of our origins so important isn't who we are and where we're going more important than where we come from? To which you relied. something along the lines of it's because of what is taught in school. To which I replied that the question was not originated from the school nor directed at what is taught in school. In fact, the explaination about our present and futures should clue you in to this. To which you relied that it should be taught in school because it is part of science and is in fact the basis for modern biology. To which I asked how it was the foundation for modern biology because I know of much biology that doesn't rely on our origins. To this I bring you to this post in which I have twisted your words, and am being told that it is important to teach science in schools. Now I have ignored most of the rude comments on this topic in order to encourage communication and have accepted your insults with dignity, but please explain to me how you have addressed any of the questions presented or how I have twisted any of your words?

 

[razzelflabben]

Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that actually thinks science education in schools is actually good, so thats a education issue.
I suggest you read this:
http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/NABTstatmnt.html

Now this article is talking about evolution and not our origins. I have asked you this question before and gotten no answer, I'll try again. Do you think there is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution?

 

[razzelflabben]

Why would the scientific study of tides be science and the scientific study of music not be science?

You say, because tides are empirical. But so is music. Music is a form of sound, and sound is empirical. Music also has patterns of rythm and harmony which can be studied with mathematical precision.

Music is also a form of culture, and culture has empirical characteristics which can be studied scientifically. We can, for example, trace which cultural group tends to buy which type of music, or attend concerts by which type of artist.

So why would the study of music not be science?

Sound would be empirical in nature, but not music specifically. Music is more mathematical in nature. How sound moves and motivates, etc. is a scientific study. How people are moved by music is a scientific question. But music in and of itself is mathematical in nature and not scientific.

So in this case, you have empirical evidence of an historical event. Is this science? i.e. given a scientific authentication of the letter, is it a scientific conclusion that the donation existed?

It is evidence for the donations existance, but is not in and of itself evidence of it's existance.

Well, my review of the conversation would be different. But all that matters to me is that we end up on the same page.

So you understand now why a toc is not scientific.

I never said or even suggested that the toc was scientific, in fact, the closest I have ever come to this claim is that I don't think it is scientific but for other reasons than whether or not it makes testable predictions.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think Razzel is one of these "we werent there" people, who thinks unless you were there to personally witness a crime no one can ever discover what happened because "we werent there".

Ede

Actually, if you cared to ask, I would tell you that I believe there are two different questions, one being can we know. As my historial friend says, history is revisionary, to that end, we can not know for certain. The other question is whether or not the evidence is compelling enough to remove reasonable doubt. Two different issues to the same question. BTW, thanks for asking what I think rather than just assuming to know.

 

[gluadys]

Sound would be empirical in nature, but not music specifically. Music is more mathematical in nature. How sound moves and motivates, etc. is a scientific study. How people are moved by music is a scientific question. But music in and of itself is mathematical in nature and not scientific.

And science is founded on mathematics. So what is not scientific here?

It is evidence for the donations existance, but is not in and of itself evidence of it's existance.

You have just broken the first law of logic.

The same thing cannot be A and not-A in the same circumstances.

But here you tell us the authenticated letter is evidence of the donation's existence and also is not evidence of its existence.

And in just one sentence too.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

I never said or even suggested that the toc was scientific, in fact, the closest I have ever come to this claim is that I don't think it is scientific but for other reasons than whether or not it makes testable predictions.

I never said you claimed a toc was scientific. I said you asked why a toc which made testable predictions would not be scientific. When I replied that the predictions needed to be actually tested and found true, so that there is evidence -- not just predictions--you asked why evidence was necessary. Now you have that answer too.

 

[razzelflabben]

Perhaps I misunderstood. Do you think "origins" in the context of the question about a "hot topic" (meaning appearing prominently in the public debate about issues) was unrelated to evolution/theory of evolution?

If origins is a reference to abiogenesis--how life got started on this planet---there is no theory, only hypothesis, because it is still not well understood.
However, many people who are opposed to teaching about evolution/theory of evolution think that evolution/theory of evolution includes abiogenesis which it does not.Therefore, many people, including perhaps the person asking the original question, quite possibly erroneously refers to anything about evolution as "origins". Evolutionary theory describes change over time, which is why most theists are quite comfortable believing God created life, then used evolution as his means of effecting change.
So, to be clear, if you look back at my post, I didn't say origins was the foundation of modern biology, here's what I said:



For someone who harps on about semantic clarity and carefully reading what was said, you seem to be guilty of misreading this or assuming something--a deadly communication sin in your book.
It has not been established that the word "origins" is the same thing as "evolution" nor that the theory of evolution has within it a theory on "origins" or what "origins" is referring to.
Does origins mean anything that explains how humans came to be?
Does origins mean where life in general came from originally?

I find you to be a bit disingenuous when you claim that nothing related to origins (when you know good and well it is an imprecise word commonly used in relation to evolution) is to be found on line or when you were in school when searching for empirical evidence, or that you fail to understand my answer about evolution (I didn't say "origins") being the foundation of modern biology.

The orginial question dealt with origins. My understanding of the term origins includes anything from the toe to the toc to ID, to some alien origins of life. The beginnings of life as it were.

Now thank you for the explaination but before you get too boastful about my abilities here, let's look at your quote

Quote:

The foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

Note the words theory of evolution. This then would indicate the theory of evolution and not evolution alone. If you claim is that modern biology deals with evolution, then that is fine, but if your claim is that modern biology's foundation is the toe, then I think you are still failing to either understand the question or failing to answer the one asked of you. Please specify so we can move on. Thanks

 

[Humanista]

razzelflabben,

When you say "original question" do you mean this one:

"Why is origins such a hot topic? Why does it matter?"

I am assuming that is the original question.
Edx replied that it was important and mattered to him because he wanted correct science taught in schools. He was, of course, using "origins" in reference to evolution/theory of evolution.

I said that the theory of evolution is the foundation of modern biology and you responded by saying you failed to see how origins is the foundation of modern biology.

When I corrected you on what I actually said (theory of evolution not origins, because origins is such a broad and sometimes vague word) you replied with this:

The orginial question dealt with origins. My understanding of the term origins includes anything from the toe to the toc to ID, to some alien origins of life. The beginnings of life as it were.

Yes, "origins" is not precisely defined and can be used in reference to scientific and non-scientific concepts, but this useage does not make various ideas which fall under the umbrella term "origins" interchangeable. If "origins" CAN refer to evolutionary theory, this does not permit you to take this statement:

The foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution

and turn it into

Origins are the foundation of modern biology


because "origins" covers many topics which are not connected to biology or science.

Now thank you for the explaination but before you get too boastful about my abilities here, let's look at your quote

Since "boastful" means exhibiting pride in oneself, I would not be able to boast about your abilities.Only you yourself can boast about yourself. Just a bit of a vocabulary note, since you have a keen interest in exact definitions.

Quote:

The foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

Note the words theory of evolution. This then would indicate the theory of evolution and not evolution alone.

Theory means an explanation of the facts. The facts are evolution. ToE explains what we see in nature. So yes, modern biology is based on this explanation of nature and how it changes over time, how various species are related, how genes and DNA operate, lots of things. It's very useful.

If you claim is that modern biology deals with evolution, then that is fine, but if your claim is that modern biology's foundation is the toe, then I think you are still failing to either understand the question or failing to answer the one asked of you.

Which question would that be? At the beginning of your post, you referenced the "original" question. Is that "Why is origins such a hot topic?"
I'm sorry but so many questions have been asked, I may not know which one you mean when you say "the question". It is really helpful to quote the question, as I try to do.

Please specify so we can move on. Thanks

I stand by what I said. I meant the theory of evolution is the foundation of modern biology.

Now YOU specify which question I failed to answer or misunderstood, Ok? Thanks ever so much.

 

[Edx]

-ignore... this forum has gone weird. anyone else noticed?

 

[Edx]

Actually, if you cared to ask, I would tell you that I believe there are two different questions, one being can we know. As my historial friend says, history is revisionary, to that end, we can not know for certain. The other question is whether or not the evidence is compelling enough to remove reasonable doubt.

See in your mind Forensic Science cant really be science. Its history, so not science. Right?

Ed

 

[Edx]

I never said or even suggested that the toc was scientific, in fact, the closest I have ever come to this claim is that I don't think it is scientific

You "never" claimed" it? The closest you came is to say you "don't think it is scientific"?

"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?"

 

[Edx]

Now, let's back up just a moment. I claimed that there were credible scientists, not sites. You challenged me to find a credible creationist site,

No I didnt. I said there were no credible Creationists. I then went on to say there were no credible scientific Creationist sources. I said it should be simple to prove me wrong if there really are as there are a lot of Creationists on the internet. And when I said I was not talking about random websites, what did you think I meant?

I even highlighted for you my quote that there are crdible individuals, then proceeded to point to some of them for you.

No you didnt. ICRs list is not good enough because you know as well as I do that even if I did refute them all here you could just throw another list at me. Like I said do your own homework and find someone yourself. See below.

This after pages of discussion about what credible means. So now, you come here and claim that I am wrong because the list of credible scientists was taken from a ICR site.

No I didnt. The point was that ICR is an intentionally dishonest (and ignorant) group of people and not a credible source for anything. They have many of their own on that list, so if they would cite them I have no reason to think the rest are different. Your response was lazy, and your grip on your argument must be very weak if you have to resort to such a "source". So if you think these guys on their list are credible scientific sources pick 1 or 2 and look them up then find a whole lot of stuff I can read and review.

Do you listen to anything but your own thoughts?

Do you ever remember your own?

You asked me to evidence something that I did not even claim existed,

Yes you did in responce to a statement I made that "there are no credible Creationists". Everything after that was you playing semantics games, fighting me on what "credible" means. And btw if they are "well educated", but still not understand what evolution is they can hardly be credible (failing point 3 btw). Then the challenge changed slightly after that to a credible scientific Creationist source.

Me: Its not a coincidence that there are no credible Creationists to be found anywhere

You: A quick web search shows us reputable, well educated scientists that hold to the toc or id

in fact, I told you that I didn't think it was possible to find a site about our origins that was unbiased and misrepresenting for either of the theories,

That was much later, and you are wrong. There are many scientific sources on evolution and on science exploring our "origins" etc that are peer reviewed, and are as unbiased as any source can get. However when I mentioned that you chose to write off peer review without a second thought, because it suited your argument that Creationist sources are an equivilent comparison.

yet you keep pushing the idea that I must evidence a credible creationist source.

Thats because you keep fighting me on it.

So we talk about Pasteur, and I give you lists of scientists that have crditials, and all you can do is continue to ask me to evidence what I have never claimed exists

Pasteur cannot be a creationist source. I already told you why several times and in several different ways. Those "lots of scienists" list contains many individuals that I already know are intentionally dishonest and those that are painfully ignorent, so their list is extremely dubious. If you believe there is someone in that list that is actually a credible scientific source then cite him along with a link so I can review what they have said.

and then boast of how smart you are. Boast all you want, my claim has been evidenced! It is all a matter of record!

Nowhere did I "boast about how smart I am".

I don't even know what you want!

Yes you do. Someone who doesnt intentionally or ignorently misrepresent. Its all there in those points. I also gave you examples as to what I was talking about, but you chose to misrepresent my position every time including making out that I was being stubborn and unfair in those points.

You asked me for a credible source, I never claimed there was any in existance,

Yes you did. What erroneous definition are you using for credible now? Perfection I suppose. In addition to those points I gave credibility also means accountability and reputability. I have found Creationists to be neither. You yourself havent ever admited your error, and either stubbornly stick to your argument no matter how wrong, or ignore the issue all together like when you claimed evolution theory could be based on Genesis.

I did claim there were reputable scientists who believed creation. I provided you with a list and that list includes their creditials,

See above.

so now are you presenting me with another challenge or just changing the rule so you can claim that you won?

I have never changed the rules, you just keep trying to weazel around them by misrepresenting them.

See, this is why you needed more criteria

Ok heres some more: To be a credible scientific source for Creationism...

...They cant have been dead for more than a hundred years, they have to actually have done or even said something relevant to creationism. ...and they cant be an invisible made up pixie.

Seriously, you'd think this was obvious.

It wasn't my claim or challenge, what would you like me to have added? Isn't it the burden of the challenger to put forth criteria and not the challengee?

This is getting ridiculous. I already did set the criteria but you keep claiming my critera is wrong and unfair, but wont offer any changes to make it better.

Because my claim was not that there were crdible sites, but rather credible scientists, I demonstrated this too you with large letters in my post and you ignore that to assert that I have not met your challenge.

I know there are "credible scienitists". I also know there were real scientists that had Creationist beliefs, and you know that as I have stated many times even in that post you were replying to. But I wasnt looking for that, I was looking for a credible scientific Creationist source. Pasteur wouldnt fit even if he didnt die a hundred years ago, since there is nothing you could use from Pasteurs work as a source for Creationism.

I understand the difference fine

If you did understand gluadys wouldnt have had to correct you so often.

actually, my claims about pasteur were based on the site I referenced that said that when asked about evolution, Pastuer said that he did not believe the toe. Pretty blunt and straigt forward, doesn't need a lot of assumptions.

You ignored what I wrote. The site is dubious, it certainly doesn't understand evolution or even Louis Pasteurs relationship to evolution (there is none), and it doesnt give any references for their quotations. So despite all that you decided they were a credible source of knowledge, why?

Not at all, what I did do however, is show you that there are conflicting evidences as to what Pastuer believed about our origins.

You ignore the fact that your source was a dubious creationist site which didnt understand the subject whatsoever and gave no references. My quote came from his biography, which is just a little more credible than yours. But like I said it wouldn't matter even if he was a Creationist, as you cant use anything from him as a source and he is more than a hundred years out of date.

I never claimed a credible source, do you still not get this, I claimed a credible scientist.

Too bad. Thats what the challenge was asking for, so go read it again. http://www.christianforums.com/t1559052-credible-creationists.html

And as I keep saying I know there were real scientists that were Creationists, I even told you that myself in the last post which you have again ignored.

Please do read the large type in which this was pointed out to you so as to put this nonsense behind us.

For all your whining about my challenge you show above that you havnet even read it properly. Cant say Im surprised.

And to this assumption, I gave you a list of other scientists with creditials.

What assumption? Will you admit that you were wrong to cite Pasteur? And see above about that list.

I have no clue what you are intending to say here, Of course I find science important, of coursed, I find peer review important, so what is your point? That because I ask questions I am stupid? Because I ask you to clarify your understandings that scientific method is of no use to me? If I though that peer review was of no use, I wouldn't rely on peer review for many of the responses to your posts. No, I don't quote myself repeatedly, I alow you to show me where you are having a problem, then, I leave it to peer review

You said you cant find a unbiased source about our origins, essentially claiming that Creationisnt and "evolutionist" (ie, real science) sources were comparable. I then told you about peer review and you totally wrote it off even though you demonstrate you have no idea how it works, telling us:

"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"

For some reason you also felt the need to compare science to a court room again.

That is why I will not requote things like the large letter credible scientist quote, because it was presented for peer review anyone who can't read it, should not be on the forum but rather in school.

You want to try that again and make more sence, please?