Start communicating

[ImmortalTechnique]

Creation- the act of creating (generally in reference to god creating the universe)
Evolution- change
The theory of creation- there isn't one, in that a scientific theory is a explanation of all available facts supported by a wide body of evidence and contradicted by none
The theory of evolution- A well supported scientific theory (like gravity) that states that life on this planet is descended from a common anscestor, and changes (dsescent with modification) have occured over time by means of genetic mutation and natural selection.
Speciation- when a new species emerges
Kind- a meaningless, undefined term used by reationists
will finish on these in a bit
Theory
Evidence
Scientific method

 

[Edx]

Evolution- change
The theory of creation- there isn't one, in that a scientific theory is a explanation of all available facts supported by a wide body of evidence and contradicted by none

I think we can do better than that. From:
http://www.studentofnature.org/debatereference.htm
(for more see link)

Biological evolution:
A process of varying allele frequencies among populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of reproductive organisms, compiled over successive generations, which can increase biodiversity when continuing variation among genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from the parent population.

Evolution Theory:
The study of the facts and processes within biological evolution, and the collective body of hypotheses and theories which best explain those facts. Chief among them are Darwin's theory of natural selection, and the concept of common ancestry.

Species:
A population of organisms which can interbreed to produce viable offspring.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

I think we can do better than that. From:
http://www.studentofnature.org/debatereference.htm
(for more see link)

Biological evolution:
A process of varying allele frequencies among populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of reproductive organisms, compiled over successive generations, which can increase biodiversity when continuing variation among genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from the parent population.

Evolution Theory:
The study of the facts and processes within biological evolution, and the collective body of hypotheses and theories which best explain those facts. Chief among them are Darwin's theory of natural selection, and the concept of common ancestry.

Species:
A population of organisms which can interbreed to produce viable offspring.

well sure we can do better, but we are starting from scratch with a lot of these people... i figured i'ld build them up to the good stuff

 

[Edx]

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.

And? You asked why is the subject important. It is important because Creationists want their beliefs taught in school as science.

To which I replied that the question was not originated from the school nor directed at what is taught in school.

No you didnt, you acted as if I was actually literally talking about your sons experience. And you did it again, you twist your own position at will like a chameleon then pretend you didnt.

"I replied that the question was not ...directed at what is taught in school."
"The question was totally unrealated to school"

but you also said:

"why is it important enough to even teach in schools? That was the original idea behind the question"

Now I have ignored most of the rude comments on this topic in order to encourage communication and have accepted your insults with dignity,

Or so you claim.

but please explain to me how you have addressed any of the questions presented or how I have twisted any of your words?

1. You dont think I addressed any of your questions?
2. I have show in many places where you have misrepresented my position and in many places where you have twisted your own words (including this very post)

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

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

Is mathematics science?

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.

The letter if authenticated is evidence that a donation was made, but it is not a documentation of the donation. That would mean that we don't know how much, who recieved it, who gave it, what it was used for, etc. Look at it like evolution is evidenced but the toe is still theory. The letter is evidence that a donation exists, but the letter doesn't specify if the donation was money or clothing, large or small, when it was given, etc.

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.

You need to go back and reread the posts that started this whole discussion.

 

[razzelflabben]

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:




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.




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.

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.



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.



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.

Okay, the whole question was why is the subject of our origins so important of a topic to so many people? (note further explaination) Isn't it more important to understand who we are and where were going than it is to argue about where we came from?

That was the question not pulled apart so as to make a point about what we are teaching in schools. If you want to continue to pull it apart so as to start a discussion about what we teach in school, I can't stop you, but I would appreciate an answer to the question. So if you have answered the question as you claim, then I can assume that in your opinion, the toe is the basis of modern biology and I can gracefully and compassionately disagree with you. Modern biology is so much more than just the toe that I cannot accept that the toe is modern biology. Now this idea would make more sense if you believe that evolution and the toe are the same thing, but they are not and that is a fairly common agreement. Thanks for the explaination.

 

[razzelflabben]

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

Ed

Forensic science is the study of empirical evidence. The assumptions of how it translates into what happened is not science. What is hard to understand?

 

[razzelflabben]

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?"

Again, we ignore the question mark? Question marks are inserted for a reason. Occasionally I don't get a punctuation in where it goes, but when a punctuation is placed, there is a reason for it being there, maybe you need to attempt to see it and use it properly.

 

[Jet Black]

I hope that applies to whole sentences too

 

[razzelflabben]

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
Okay, that is the last time I show you my claim. If you don't get it by now, you never will.

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.

Actually, I said that all the sources of our origins are biased. Remember you talking about how bias and credible were not the same thing?

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.

And so instead of agreeing with me when I say there are crdible scientists that have creationist beliefs, you go into a long arguement, asking we to step outside you beliefs and claims to satisfy your need to argue? Man, all I wanted from this thread was a bit of communication!

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

Now if comes out, you are not interested in what I think or in what I believe, you simply want exchange on your thread. Bully! I find that underhanded and devious but, that thread is for creationists and not people like me, so I think you will have to rely on those who are creationists for you agueing.

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.

And so then what is your arguement with me? That is all I have ever claimed existed, real scientists that are creationists. All of this just because we agree? What is it that you seek so desperately?

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"

Everyone is biased, we had this talk about the difference between bias and credible. Move on.

 

[Edx]

Forensic science is the study of empirical evidence. The assumptions of how it translates into what happened is not science. What is hard to understand?

There is no difference. You are using your own personal definition of science, just like everything else.

Ed

 

[Edx]

Again, we ignore the question mark? Question marks are inserted for a reason. Occasionally I don't get a punctuation in where it goes, but when a punctuation is placed, there is a reason for it being there, maybe you need to attempt to see it and use it properly.

Boy you do love playing semantics games. Youve been defensive of the Creationist position from the start. You were asking a rhetorical question, as that is how it is phrased and in context that is what you meant.

Is English your first language?

Ed

 

[Edx]

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

Okay, that is the last time I show you my claim. If you don't get it by now, you never will.

I know you said that, why do you think I keep quoting it?

In response to my statement that there were no credible Creationists, you posted this. If you didnt think "reputable, well educated scientists" were anything to do with being credible then why tell me this at all? And you keep fighting me on this credible Creationists topic, so you must think there are.

Actually, I said that all the sources of our origins are biased.

I know you said that, thats my point. You totally wrote off peer review without a second thought, the most unbiased source you could find anywhere because it suited your argument that Creationist sources were comparable. Nothing could be further from the truth, they are worlds apart and they arent comparable.

Remember you talking about how bias and credible were not the same thing?

What I said was that since Creationists dont have peer review to check to see if their bias has had any deterimental effect on the science, it will be hard to find a Creationist source that doesnt fail point 2 or 3 of the criteria because of this.

You see everyone is biased in some way. But peer review isnt an individual, its the best method we have to remain as unbiased as possible. Bias isnt a good thing, however Creationists almost always seem to prop it up like some kind of medal of honour.

"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

And so instead of agreeing with me when I say there are crdible scientists that have creationist beliefs, you go into a long arguement, asking we to step outside you beliefs and claims to satisfy your need to argue?

You are misrepresenting my position again. I said 'there are no credible Creationists" originally, not: 'there have never been any credible Creationists in history ever'. I also told you so many times that there used to be real scientists that were creationists, over and over again, even before I told you the challenge. So I say again, there are no credible scientific creationist sources anywhere, nor are there any credible creationists.

Man, all I wanted from this thread was a bit of communication!

No, you are playing a game. You twist and turn your position whenever you feel like it, and then pretend you havent. You misrepresent other peoples position, and ignore everything that doesnt support your argument so you never have to admit you were wrong. You claim you want to aid commucation by using words properly but refuse to use them properly, and refuse to understand anything. Your idea of communication is to get the other person so busy untangling your knots that no progress is made. Like someone else told me privately; you arent here to learn, you are hear to confuse, and apparently its not the first time either.

Now if comes out, you are not interested in what I think or in what I believe, you simply want exchange on your thread. Bully! I find that underhanded and devious but, that thread is for creationists and not people like me, so I think you will have to rely on those who are creationists for you agueing.

Except we have been discussing that exact challenge ever since post #147 on page 16. You only directly responded to the challenge on page 19 post #190.

So now we are now on page 32 and the post I am replying to is post #310, yet you act as if I have only just shown this to you.

And so then what is your arguement with me? That is all I have ever claimed existed, real scientists that are creationists.

And there arent any. There have been, but there isnt anymore. Creationists back then werent the antiscientific variety around today. I wonder how many times Ive said that to you.

All of this just because we agree? What is it that you seek so desperately?

No, we dont agree. We are at this point because:

1. You kept fighting me on my statement that there are no credible creationists.

2. You kept claiming my challenge to find a credible scientific creationist source was unfair and wrong.

Everyone is biased, we had this talk about the difference between bias and credible. Move on.

And once again you ignore what peer review is, because it suits your argument that Creationist sources are comparable. They arent.

And you still failed to admit you misrepresented peer review and my challenge, that you were wrong for saying evolution borrowed from genesis and wrong to cite Louis Pasteur. But you have never admitted your error, because that would make you accountable. I have found Creationists are never accountable for anything, and for all your complaining about being unfairly labelled you sure do sound like one.

Ed

 

[Humanista]

Okay, the whole question was why is the subject of our origins so important of a topic to so many people? (note further explaination) Isn't it more important to understand who we are and where were going than it is to argue about where we came from?

You asked 2 questions. It's the first one that was addressed. Now you complain because the answer to the first question didn't address your request for affirmation of your opinion in the 2nd.

When the question is, "Why is it important to so many people?" the answer can't possibly be "Because it's more important to understand who we are and where we are going ". That may be your opinion: that origins actually AREN'T important, relatively speaking, other things are MORE important.

But the question is--why are so many people talking about it, arguing about it, trying to pass laws about it? Well--why ARE they arguing about it?

That's the question---WHY?

The answer is, no matter what YOU think about it, all the people doing the arguing think it IS important---- that's why THEY are arguing about it!

They care about what is being taught in schools because they either want correct science taught, or they find science to be a threat to their literal interpretation of the Bible.

Remember, the question is

"Why is it important to so many people?",

not "What is razzelflabben's opinion on this and do you agree with it?"

Your opinion is fine, it makes a valid point. But you asked what was the motivation of OTHER PEOPLE--you know--the other people who are arguing about it.

Not whether or not they OUGHT to be arguing about it. WHY they WERE!

That was the question not pulled apart so as to make a point about what we are teaching in schools. If you want to continue to pull it apart so as to start a discussion about what we teach in school, I can't stop you, but I would appreciate an answer to the question.

Can you really be this obtuse?

When you ask someone a question,(Why do people think origins is important enough to argue about?) and they give their answer (because of the issues's relationship to education), then how is that NOT an answer to the question? Pulling apart? It's simply the answer to the question. THAT's why it is important, because it is being pushed to be taught in schools, that's why people argue about it.

So if you have answered the question as you claim, then I can assume that in your opinion, the toe is the basis of modern biology and I can gracefully and compassionately disagree with you.

Please, save your compassion for the suffering, not for me. I can assure you I have no need for compassion just because my opinion differs from yours. It sounds as though you are saying you pity me. Where is that courtesy for which you frequently pat yourself on the back?

Modern biology is so much more than just the toe that I cannot accept that the toe is modern biology.

Suit yourself. Personal increduality is not an argument.

Now this idea would make more sense if you believe that evolution and the toe are the same thing, but they are not and that is a fairly common agreement.

I do not believe they are the same thing.

Thanks for the explaination.

You are welcome, I hope you understand it this time.

 

[Edx]

http://www.biosurvey.ou.edu/oese/NABTstatmnt.html

Now this article is talking about evolution and not our origins.

I know it is. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology.
"Origins" is abiogenesis and not evolution.

The way you were talking about origins and evolution I thought you must have been using a loose understanding of the word "origins", meaning evolution, since no one says abiogenesis is the "foundation of science". Since you continued to use it in the same way even when I pointed out the difference to you in a previous post, I figured that is what you meant.

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?

Oh really? You got no answer? Funny then that I actually answered it all the way back on page 9 on post #84. I know I also addressed it way more times than that, but im not in the mood to go searching for all the instances.

"Evolution means change. That is why we hear scientists talking about the "evolution" of the universe, or people talking about the "evolution" of the nature fast food plays in our society. "The Theory of Evolution" however is biological and that is all."

For more indepth definitions:
http://www.studentofnature.org/debatereference.htm

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

I know you said that, why do you think I keep quoting it?
In response to my statement that there were no credible Creationists, you posted this. If you didnt think "reputable, well educated scientists" were anything to do with being credible then why tell me this at all? And you keep fighting me on this credible Creationists topic, so you must think there are.

And yet it is the result of this comment that you challenge me to find a credible creationist source? What's up? I have shown you many scientists that believe the toc that have creditials much longer and more impressive than yours I am sure, but you ignore them (as I predicted you would do) so as to continue argueing with me. Apart from correct your misrepresentations of me, the subject is closed, not only did I meet the challenge in light of my claims, I also predicted that you would discard the evidence because it didn't fit your agenda. The same problems you have with creationists. You claim that they can't admit when they are wrong even when it is right in front of thier face, and yet you do the same thing. I wonder

I know you said that, thats my point. You totally wrote off peer review without a second thought, the most unbiased source you could find anywhere because it suited your argument that Creationist sources were comparable. Nothing could be further from the truth, they are worlds apart and they arent comparable.

If you remember, what I said about bias is that if the peer review is also biased, then we still don't know fact, what we know is what the biased peers will say. This is commonly understood and evidenced with jurer selections.

No, you are playing a game. You twist and turn your position whenever you feel like it, and then pretend you havent. You misrepresent other peoples position, and ignore everything that doesnt support your argument so you never have to admit you were wrong. You claim you want to aid commucation by using words properly but refuse to use them properly, and refuse to understand anything. Your idea of communication is to get the other person so busy untangling your knots that no progress is made. Like someone else told me privately; you arent here to learn, you are hear to confuse, and apparently its not the first time either.

Let's be honest okay? I came here asking for communication, soon it became obvious that that wasn't likely to happen, so I made predictions based on my theory as to why that is and then I tested those predictions on you. Every one of those predictions was evidenced, so I wonder if you are now ready to accept the theory as fact? Why or why not? It was a blind study and every test evidenced the predictions.

Except we have been discussing that exact challenge ever since post #147 on page 16. You only directly responded to the challenge on page 19 post #190.

So now we are now on page 32 and the post I am replying to is post #310, yet you act as if I have only just shown this to you.

Okay, I have tried this about a hundred difference ways, so let's use an example. You have claimed that there are no credible creation scientists today, so I challenge you to find one. Now isn't that a rediculous challenge? That is the kind of challenge you gave me! I claimed that there were credible scientists that believe in the toc and you challenged me to find a credible creationist source. I have spent many pages, posts, and time in explaining to you that I find all sources to be biased and therefore not credible, only to have you come back here and accuse me of all kinds of nonsense.

And you still failed to admit you misrepresented peer review and my challenge, that you were wrong for saying evolution borrowed from genesis and wrong to cite Louis Pasteur. But you have never admitted your error, because that would make you accountable. I have found Creationists are never accountable for anything, and for all your complaining about being unfairly labelled you sure do sound like one.

Ed

Actually there have been two times on this thread when I was wrong, both were admitted and both were corrected and both were met with repeated assults on my mistakes, and neither times were the admittions, appologies or corrections accepted.

 

[razzelflabben]

You asked 2 questions. It's the first one that was addressed. Now you complain because the answer to the first question didn't address your request for affirmation of your opinion in the 2nd.

Okay, if you refuse to accept the question in light of how it was intended, the second question further defining the first. And if you refuse to accept that you might not have understood it the way it was intended, (both possible communications issues), then please at least answer the second question. Thanks

Please, save your compassion for the suffering, not for me. I can assure you I have no need for compassion just because my opinion differs from yours. It sounds as though you are saying you pity me. Where is that courtesy for which you frequently pat yourself on the back?

Read it again, the compassion is for the disagreement with you that the foundation of modern biology is the toe, and not for you. Though with the arguementative nature of this discussion, I might find some compassion for you, the compassion is for the disagreement and refers to the degree of disagreement.

 

[Physics_guy]

Actually there have been two times on this thread when I was wrong,

You have been wrong a whole lot more than two times on this thread - not that you will admit those mistakes however.

 

[Humanista]

Okay, if you refuse to accept the question in light of how it was intended, the second question further defining the first.

So---you asked why origins is such a hot topic, but you didn't really want the question answered? Sorry if I misunderstood that. As you chastised someone for not observing a question mark at the end of a sentence, I assumed --incorrectly it seems--that a question mark means an answer is expected. I didn't get that it was rhetorical. You could have saved a LOT of time if you had made that clear the first time the 1st question was answered--i.e. that you didn't really want an answer to it, you wanted an answer to "Shouldn't we be more concerned about the present and future" (paraphrasing).

In fact, (just a helpful suggestion,) if that was your intention, a better way of communicating that would have been to say:

"Even though origins is a hot topic and people think it is important, don't you agree that it is more important to focus on the present and future?"

And if you refuse to accept that you might not have understood it the way it was intended, (both possible communications issues),

This is the first time you came out and admitted the first question was never intended to have been answered, only the 2nd one.

then please at least answer the second question. Thanks

Do I think the present and future is more important than origins? Yes.

Read it again, the compassion is for the disagreement with you that the foundation of modern biology is the toe, and not for you. Though with the arguementative nature of this discussion, I might find some compassion for you, the compassion is for the disagreement and refers to the degree of disagreement.

That is a very odd use of the word compassion, which means a sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

You say that you are not having compassion for me, but for the argument. Since the argument in and of itself is not something which can experience distress, it would not be possible for you to alleviate the argument's "distress".

IOW, you can feel compassion for people or animals but not arguments.
Arguments have no feelings. They might EXPRESS the feelings of the person arguing, but that is not the same thing. Careful how you use words.

I can assure you I am not distressed by arguing, I find it stimulating, else I would not do it. I do not seek out distress.

 

[Edx]

And yet it is the result of this comment that you challenge me to find a credible creationist source?

No, the result of this comment shows you believe there are credible Creationists.

Here's a brief summary of this topic...

You disagreed with my statement that "there are no credible creationists" to which you replied ."A quick web search shows us reputable, well educated scientists that hold to the toc or id". So I said:

"Like I said, there are no credible Creationists that do not...

1. ... pretend they are qualified to comment or know what they are talking about.
2. ... intentionally distort, mislead or misrepresent anyone or anything.
3. ... ignorantly distort, mislead or misrepresent anyone or anything.
4. ... have wild paranoid conspiracy theories."

Note that the criteria for the above is exactly the same as the later one asking for a credible scientific Creationist source. You then replied to the above with: "I guess that would beg the question what do you mean by credible creationist?" And thus began the long semantical drivel of an argument as to what credible means. For more than a few exchanges I gave you the link to my other topic which was asking for a credible scientific Creationist source which you must have ignored, since it was only when I directly copy and pasted it in a separate post did you actually acknowledge it and reply to it properly (page 19, post #190). You then claimed my challenge was totally unfair, and again continued to fight me on what credible means.

Later, in reply to the above post, we see you are complaining about a point in that above challenge (page 20, post 199) After I explain what I meant by point 1 of the criteria, and show how it isnt actually unfair, you cite Louis Pasteur. "Would you say the same of Louis Pasteur?". I then told you why Louis Pasteur couldnt be a Creationist source. I also had reminded you at various points previously that when I said there are no credible Creationists I meant modern ones, as scientists in Darwins time werent the antiscientific self deceptive variety around today - so Louis Pasteur didnt fit that either.

You then must have got desperate and threw ICRs list at me claiming victory, and also warning me, "you must discredit every scientist listed" as presumably that was the only way you considered it possible for me to prove you wrong. You were also still fighting me on Pasteur in the same post. I reminded you that you were being lazy to throw ICRs list at me, when I was saying. "you know as well as I do that even if I did refute them all here you could just throw another list at me." I also reminded you that ICR are inherently unscientific, and in that list they have their own fake-scientists, so of course the rest were extremly dubious. But I told you if you truly believed ICR to be a valid source you were free to do this properly by choosing any 1 or 2 of the individuals on that list, and allow us to look at what they have said by presenting it here. You also completely ignored that, twice. (page 28+30, post #280+300)

You also misrepresented my challenge by saying things like "You challenged me to find a credible creationist site" which of course I didnt, since a source doesnt have to be a website in itself. And despite giving you all kinds of examples of what would discredit them, and the degree of ignorence and dishonesty I was talking about, you still insisted on misrepresenting it as a totally unfair impossibility. In the same post you also say "I never claimed a credible source, ... I claimed a credible scientist". Now it was probably due to your own ineptitude through not paying attention that you had actually cited Pasteur in a direct responce to the posts about the 'credible scientific Creationist source challenge', but then instead of admitting that when it must have became apparent, you instead argued through it blaming it all on me claiming I wasnt listening to you.

Unfortunately, Pasteur didnt count for either point anyway. He did not fulfill what I asked for in a credible Creationist, as barring every other reason which I had already told you about, I already had said previously that I was talking about modern Creationists. So no match there then. In regards to your ICR list you have totally ignored both times where I have told you to cite someone properly (even from that list if you want), and not be such an intellecual coward about it by presenting it in the way that you did. So what we are waiting for now is again for you to either show me a credible Creationist, or a credible scientific Creationist source. Like I said this should be quite simple if there were such individuals, as there are a lot of Creationists on the internet

What's up? I have shown you many scientists that believe the toc that have creditials much longer and more impressive than yours I am sure, but you ignore them (as I predicted you would do) so as to continue argueing with me.

The thing is Razzel, I didnt actually ask for credentials. What I did say about them was, "....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." -- (page 26, post 254)

And be carefull, you wouldnt want to make the appeal to authority fallacy.

Apart from correct your misrepresentations of me, the subject is closed, not only did I meet the challenge in light of my claims,

See above for everything else you say in this post. And you didnt meet the challenge. Pasteur didnt count for either point, and your list was a dishonest and cowardly cop out. I said if you wanted to use that list you could, but I told you to pick 1 or 2 of those individuals who you feel are the best examples and present them here along with a link to something they have written. I told you that twice which was totally ignored both times..

I also predicted that you would discard the evidence because it didn't fit your agenda. The same problems you have with creationists. You claim that they can't admit when they are wrong even when it is right in front of thier face, and yet you do the same thing. I wonder

I have no agenda. You have shown me only one person that might fit the challenge, Louis Pasteur. Someone we cant even be absolutely sure was a Creationist anyway, let alone a source for it. Thats how little Pasteur fits. I also told you many times that scientists that had Creationist beliefs back then were not like the anti-scientific variety around today, so you knew I was talking about modern Creationists. Pasteur doesnt fit either point. Your ICR list is a cop out.

If you remember, what I said about bias is that if the peer review is also biased, then we still don't know fact, what we know is what the biased peers will say. This is commonly understood and evidenced with jurer selections.

Why on earth do you keep bringing up this court room nonsense! I keep telling you that a court room is not relevant in any way to this discussion, and that it has no resemblance to the scientific method. Ive told you this over and over again, and yet you continue to use it for an analogy. This is also the second time you have said that peer review is like a jury. Its unfortunate, I know, that it doesnt fit your argument that Creationist sources are comparable, but Im afraid peer review doesnt work anything like a jury, Razzel, so Im afraid you just have to deal with it.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/p/pe/peer_review.htm

Let's be honest okay? I came here asking for communication, soon it became obvious that that wasn't likely to happen,

I dont know what you were really after, but it wasnt communication. Apparently this isnt the first time you have acted this way either. If it isnt intentional, why do you think you get into these arguments every single time and with every single person? Why is it that it always everyone elses fault that they cant communicate with you? We gave you answers to your questions but very soon it became clear that you werent interested in learning, only arguing in endless subjective semantical circles. You dont admit you are wrong, use your own definitions of words, and you pretend things you say really meant something different when it suits you (for example see end)

so I made predictions based on my theory as to why that is and then I tested those predictions on you. Every one of those predictions was evidenced, so I wonder if you are now ready to accept the theory as fact? Why or why not? It was a blind study and every test evidenced the predictions.

Is this you being patronizing again?

Okay, I have tried this about a hundred difference ways, so let's use an example. You have claimed that there are no credible creation scientists today, so I challenge you to find one. Now isn't that a rediculous challenge?

Of course it is.

That is the kind of challenge you gave me! I claimed that there were credible scientists that believe in the toc and you challenged me to find a credible creationist source.

Both, actually. I asked you to show me a credible Creationist, and then later I asked you to show me a credible scientific Creationist source. You havent shown me anything that fits either.

I have spent many pages, posts, and time in explaining to you that I find all sources to be biased and therefore not credible, only to have you come back here and accuse me of all kinds of nonsense.

Talk about a change of direction. First you said you only have to be believable to be credible, and now you are saying you have to be without any bias at all in order to be credible.

And credible doesnt mean without bias, Ive been telling you that all the way through this. And even if you did want to fight me on the definition - I - told you what - I - meant. Everyone has a bias even if they dont know it, and that is the reason for peer review. However peer review is not a person it is a method. Bias is bad because bias can create inaccurate results. Peer review isnt perfect of course, but its the best method we have. The difference is Creationists usually make it out as if their bias is a good thing. And like I said, I can find innumerable credible sources that support evolution and various other sciences Creationists attack. You cannot do the same. All you do is continually play your semantics card.

"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

Actually there have been two times on this thread when I was wrong, both were admitted and both were corrected and both were met with repeated assults on my mistakes, and neither times were the admittions, appologies or corrections accepted.

Youve been wrong a lot more times than just 2! (and what were those times I would like to know)

1. You claimed that "if anything" Evolution borrowed from Genesis. (page26, post#255) You totally ignored your error, even when I pointed it out more than once.

2. You wrongly cited Pasteur, and continued to fight me on it. You then eventually totally ignored my responce, so you didnt have to admit you were wrong.

3. You have repeatedly misrepresented peer review and science as working like a jury and a court room, despite constant reminders that it simply does not work like that. You ignore your error, and are still at it.

4. You cited a page that didnt contain anything relevant for Louis Pasteur, even though you claimed it was. You never admitted that you were wrong and ignored it as you eventually did everything in regards to Pasteur.

5. You were wrong when you claimed I wasnt reading properly when I answered your "why are origins important?" question, with "because Creationists want it taught in school". In order to save face you pretended you were talking about something else, only you got hopelessly confused when you said "the question was not ...directed at what is taught in school." and "The question was totally unrealated to school". Which unfortunately meant you completely contradicted yourself when you said, "why is it important enough to even teach in schools? That was the original idea behind the question". It seems you are in such a rush to put people down with arrogant patronizing claims of them not listening and of how incredibly inconsiderate they are for not understanding you, that when you make a mistake like this instead of admitting it, you just try and pretend its someone elses fault to try and cover it up.


And theres plently more.