Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

Seems to me that Gluadys uses authorities as meaning 'persons', while you include more in it, namely things like 'logic', 'nature' etc. Now, basing it on what you have quoted from Gluadys, she does see those as the basis of the argument, however she does not refer to them as 'authorities'. When she says something like "authority except reason and nature" she doesn't mean that those are authorities in the real sense, only that those should be the basis of our arguments.

Thank you glaudys for telling me what I mean and then what you mean. Oh, you aren't glaudys, sorry. In each of these instinces, glaudys is using the word exactly as I have been and as was defined many many oh so many pages ago. But I was told point blank that I was wrong only to come here and see that the word is used identically by glaudy and that is okay but when I use it the same way, I am wrong. This is one of the overriding communication problems. If you are the "accepted" anything you say is good. If you are viewed as the "opposition" you can't be right no matter what you say. It's about consistancy. glaudy's according to her own words accepts that reason and nature, evidence, etc. can be and are authorities. As such, either she is wrong, and you need to correct her, or she was wrong when the issue was first brought up and she and others need to admit they were wrong. It is how was it that ed put it, a simple thing to admit when you are wrong. (something like that) When you contridict yourself, there is an inconsistancy someplace, making you wrong somewhere along the line. Wonder where that wrong place is? Can you answer that for glaudys?

BTW, I also understand that glaudys does accept an authority and not one unlike my own in this discussion but if we can't establish what that authority is, we can't assume anyone to be able to effectively communicate what the differences are and why because the shifting, unchanging bases for discussion is nonexistant.

 

[Tomk80]

Thank you glaudys for telling me what I mean and then what you mean. Oh, you aren't glaudys, sorry.

And nowhere was I pretending to be, neither was I claiming devine knowledge on how Gluadys meant what she wrote. The phrase "it seems to me" should have conveyed to you, I infinite wise man in communications, that this is the impression it makes on me as a bystander. Your sarcasm is wholly uncalled for.

In each of these instinces, glaudys is using the word exactly as I have been and as was defined many many oh so many pages ago. But I was told point blank that I was wrong only to come here and see that the word is used identically by glaudy and that is okay but when I use it the same way, I am wrong. This is one of the overriding communication problems. If you are the "accepted" anything you say is good. If you are viewed as the "opposition" you can't be right no matter what you say. It's about consistancy. glaudy's according to her own words accepts that reason and nature, evidence, etc. can be and are authorities. As such, either she is wrong, and you need to correct her, or she was wrong when the issue was first brought up and she and others need to admit they were wrong. It is how was it that ed put it, a simple thing to admit when you are wrong. (something like that) When you contridict yourself, there is an inconsistancy someplace, making you wrong somewhere along the line. Wonder where that wrong place is? Can you answer that for glaudys?

BTW, I also understand that glaudys does accept an authority and not one unlike my own in this discussion but if we can't establish what that authority is, we can't assume anyone to be able to effectively communicate what the differences are and why because the shifting, unchanging bases for discussion is nonexistant.

But it is not at all clear from her wording that she would call nature and such authorities. The context she has used the words seem to imply a more figurative way of using this words. In which case you are getting all worked up over very little. Considering that may lead to a resolve, which was all I tried to steer at. I'm not trying to be patronizing, I'm not claiming to know Gluadys' mind. Gluadys might tell me I'm wrong, she might tell me I'm right. Whichever way, the suggestion will help in resolving the main conflict you seem to have at the time. A more relaxed attitude from you might not be uncalled for either.

 

[Edx]

It is what I have said and why I asked you to clarify what you meant, because common ancestry is not evolution (speciation), it is however the toe. Common ancester being large scale, macroevolution, common decent, ancestrial kind. You know the common use for the term

"Common Ancestor", the scientific usage is common ancestry on the species level. As gluadys says, use the term "universal common ancestry" or "universal common decent" if that is what you are talking about so everyone can be sure what it is you are really refering to. You can usually tell by the context when someone uses the term 'common ancestry' what they mean by it, but sometimes it isnt clear and since you seem incapable of looking at the context of anything so that is how you must refer to it so we are all clear.

and later you said that the foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution which is why there was a question of clarity. Go figure, there is a difference between the two and when you used the two independantly, you were asked which you were refering to. Go figure.

And I told you. And the only difference would be if I used the word differently. I used it in the same way both times. In context it would make no sence if I were not referring to the theory. But even if you were confused, why couldnt you look at both statements and be sure that that is what I was saying? That second statment where I say the "theory of" only makes it more clear not less.

Example below. Here is what I actually said to begin with:

Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together. (page, 29post 285)

See, I actually wrote "theory", but you say thought I might have been talking about a specific process? Then later I said the same thing, "The theory of Evolution", and suddenly you are all confused? Since I specifically wrote theory, how exactly was I not clear?

Why dont you just accept that you didnt read it properly? Its this "science"/ "biology" thing again.

Your opinion of which I respect you for, but know for fact, since it is me that we are talking about, that you are wrong and refuse to see how or why.

So the words you are typing arent really what you are thinking? That the truth is you really do know this stuff? Well, Im no mind reader. I can only go by what you write and what you write shows a lack of understanding. If you understood these scientific terms and the scientific method I would not continue to post, and neither would gluadys or anyone else be correcting you.

You don't want to go there, I said one time that all opinions were valid and got reamed fearsely from the evolutionist group.

I dont care about some mysterious argument you had with someone else. All opinions really arent worth the same. Someones opinion that the earth is flat is not the same as someones opinion that is is a sphere. Someones opinion that there are small invisible monkeys flyings around London is not the same as someone with the opinion that there arent. Now I suspect if I bring up logic you are going to go off on some crazy rant about about how logic is subjective and how it can mean whatever you want if your "authority" says otherwise, but I'll say it anyway. If someones opinion is based off unsound reason or logical fallacies that opinion cannot be 'the same' as someones opinion that is not. Opinions can be weighed and measured.

Why must a "theory" be the unifying tie of modern biology? Why is it impossible for an observed process (speciation) to be the foundation for our modern biological exploration? That I can agree with. Like taking an observation and doing a host of studies on it thus learning much about our empirical world. On the other hand, when we rely on theory and not observations to determine everything we know about biology, we are accepting assumptions as fact and thus removing the possibility of knowing objectively what fact is. That is why I can agree that evolution is the foundation of modern biology but not with the statement that the foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

1. A scientific theory is not "assumptions". Without theory observations mean nothing. Without theory, there would be no way to know what the experiment or observation meant nor how whatever it was happened, or why it happened at all. We could never know anything about anything without theory.

And this is how you get "theory" all wrong. You claim I am somehow creating a strawman by saying you dont understand, and you claim that you really do despite what I say. Yet if you do understand, why then do you use the word "theory" then call them "assumptions"? Scientific theories are not assumptions. And a scientific theory stays a theory, it will never become anything else because a scientific theory doesnt mean the commen use of the word "theory" you continue to confuse it with. A theory does not rely on assumptions.

2. Speciation is a consequence of the process, it is not a process in itself. And evolution as the process, (the change in alle frequencies over time), cannot be the foundation of modern biology. Without the theory none of it would mean anything, and could be of no use in biology, to science or to anyone else at all.

3. And the scientific method is the only method to know "objectively" what is true and what isnt.

"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

You've said it many times but other than opinion you have not shown me any misuse. For example you claim that I misuse scientific terms but when asked how, you go into long discourse about how the toc/c is not scientific and therefore the theory of creation has no meaning. To which I said, if the term is used is has a meaning and it is the meaning that we must address. Note nothing about whether or not it is a scientific theory but rather that if a word or term is used it does have some kind of meaning and in order for communication to prevail, we must understand what meaning it is trying to convey. So please tell me how that is not understanding the menaing of scientific terms? I'm anxious to see how you explain that one away because we are sure you can't be wrong.

Well lets take this one step at a time.

1. You cant talk about a scientific theory as assumptions, and say we must disregard these "assumptions" and look only at the facts - if you undertsand what is is you are talking about. Without the theory, any observations are totally meaningless. And no one talks about a scientific theory as being "only a theory" if they understand it. And no matter what facts or evidence we find to back up our theory it will still be a theory. So calling a scientific theory "only a theory" just shows your ignorence.

2. The "theory of Creation", as I said before, is not a scientific theory. And yes I know you say you know this, before you say it, but you still use it next to theory of Evolution. This creates the implication that you consider them, at the very least, equal on some level. Next, as I already said, the word theory as used in popular vocabulary meaning "educated guess" does not describe the "theory of Creation" either. The reason is because a theory, by definition, can be wrong. So how does that describe the "Theory of Creation"? So Im saying your use of "theory of Creation" is misleading, nor does it describe what it is anyway. Thats why I say calling it a theory is wrong in every way.

. For example. I said that common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, common descent, ancestrial kind was not observed and I got an agruement that common ancestry only means parent or grand parent, and that that is like saying that we can witness the birth of our great grand parents. How does that address the issue I raised? I would love to know, but that is the type response I have gotten from the beginning.

No you are confusing different things. I told you Creationists accept a certain amount of common ancestry, and told you that it didnt nesessarily have to mean universal common ancestry. The thing was, I was saying, is that Creationists claim there is a point where an species cannot evolve past some barrier for which they have no evidence for. Now Gluadys was trying to explain to you about how you can logically infer your grandparents' birth even though you never witnessed it. That since you cannot observe something directly, doesnt mean you cant know.

I asked glaudy's to explain what she means when she says that a theory must be evidenced before it can be called a theory and I am told that I don't understand scientific method because glaudy says that a chicken must mature into a chicken so that we can call it a chicken and I'm question her comment.

That is what is called an analogy, and you are seriously oversimplifying it. And be carefull, you are very close to creating another strawman.

I ask you to explain if you mean evolution or the toe and I don't understand scientific terms have exact meanings because I asked you to tell me which of the accepted meaning you meant.

You asked me what I felt the difference was between them many times, and I answered many times. Then I stated that Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together. But you thought I wasnt refering to the theory, even though I actually wrote "theory"? If you really did read that properly, then you cannot undertsand what the scientific term means at all or it would be obvious what I meant.

See, this is the problem I have, I say somthing and you and others read into it whatever you want to, make an arguement accordingly and never once take responsibility for listening to the question asked. Big big huge problem.

The confusion has always been yours, when you use words with your own definition and in vague ways, when you are eternally pedantic about trivial matters so as nothing can move forward and when you make mistakes you never take responsibility for. None of that aids communication.

and yet when I used it properly I was told that I didn't use it properly that I don't understand evolution and I need to get an education. So I went to putting a string of explanations in my use to avoid misunderstanding only to come to this point and here you say, yes you used it correctly but you didn't want to accept why I said so you twisted the meaning to mean parent and thus you can prove that I know nothing about evolution. Thanks for being so civil in our discussion. (sarcasm)

State the exact place where I told you you didnt use it properly, where now you claim you did use it properly. IOW, back up this please.

Now we are talking aobut the theory of biology, not the observations of biology. Why keep shifting our discussion?

Im tired of you claiming Im shifting the discussion because you cant be bothered to look back and see what the reply was about.

The process of evolution cannot be the single unifying theory of biology, but you thought I may have been talking about that even though I actually said the word theory. You didnt read properly. Face it.

Ed

 

[Edx]

read my words again, I think both sides do it way more than they should.

The only sides are science verses the pseudoscience Creationist movement motivated by purely religious (and politcal) reasons.

See again, you are using the creationist arguement rather than the arguement I gave you thus showing even more evidence that you are not listening. It is understood that scientific theory is based on observation (fact) because it is understood it does not need to be stated every time we talk about a scientific theory.

I did not misrepresent you. You said evolution is only a theory, and you talk as if theory = assumptions and that you cant know anything objectively using scientific theories. How have you not been using Creationist arguments, that a scientific theory means something like a assumption and a guess?

And did you not say you thought Gravity is not taught as a fact and a theory? Showing you were not aware of General Relativity and what that means. Without General Relativity "gravity" doesnt mean anything other than the obvious.

.

I have an issue with evolutionist going around parading the terms as if they have some special meaning to the toe and not to the other theories

It doesnt have a special meaning. Gravity, Evolution, Aerodynamics... They are all facts and theories. There is no special meaning that is different to Evolution.

Didn't skipp it, don't know what you want me to say, I disagree with you that the toe is the foundation of modern biology and have explained why. Move on.[/i]

Read it again.

You said you cant see any use for Evolution in modern biology.

And this is now the fourth time you have skipped this part of my post:
Now, back to what you said. It (Evolution) has everything to do with modern biology. See the last time I told you that, and where you disregarded the link becasue it said "evolution" and you needed clarification. Now considering I told you they were refering to the fact and theory of biological evolution and everything therein you can now address it properly, cant you?
[page 38, post 397]

and how does any of this address the issue of you reading into my arguements what is not there?

And where did I do that? Nice dodge, btw.

When I ask you which definition you are referring to, giving me a list of acceptable definitions and then saying the context should be enough to answer the question, is NOTANSWERING THE QUESTION. But you have to understand this, you are just being dificult.

You said you had gotten no answer at all, and that I refused to answer you.

I did answer you several times, but you would ask it again in the same way a little while later having not showed you had read or understood what I told you previously. That is not 'getting no answer'. That is not 'refusing' to answer. If you wanted me to be more detailed like I have been recently you could have said so, but you didnt. If my explanation wasnt good enough, you didnt say so. All you did is ask the question over and over in the same way without showing any evidence that you had read anything I said before.

Okay, origins-how life came to it's present state. Note how many times evolutionist use the word origins then deny that the toe has anything to do with our origins. Interesting. theory- we cover how an idea becomes a hypothesis and then an evidenced hypthesis becomes a theory. What more of the definition do you need from me?

show me what terms I am not using correctly please.

As gluadys already told you "origin of species", or "origin of life", or 'cosmological origins' are something totally different to each other but when used in this context we can tell what you are talking about. There is no subject called origins in science like you spoke about, because its too vague and meaningless. The way stars form is not the same process as abiogenesis, or Evolution. That is why you must talk of a specific perocess, and use the correct terms in the correct ways. The way you talk at the moment to mean EVERYTHING, the term is meaningless.

And you want an example of you using terms badly. Below is example of you using the term origins inconsistently, even by your definition. Note that above you said "origins - how life came to it's present state". And that you had (later on) stated that evolution is included in that, but not limited to your idea of "orgins".

You: I fail to see how the issue of our origins is the foundation for modern biology...how then is out origins the foundation for modern biology?
Me: Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together.... (link snipped)
You: Now this article is talking about evolution and not our origins...

studied it, found it lacking, .

If this thread is any indication you have not studied it. That is clear. Even if you didnt come accross as a Creationist, I would not believe it.

I am on a quest to understand not evolution, I got that one down fairly well,

This is what Im talking about, you already think you know things you really dont and when someone tells you you are wrong, you dont listen because you are too arrogant and proud to admit when you are wrong.

but why communication cannot happen when evolutionist and creationist get together and how we can tear down the barriers that prevent communication and start talking.

Communication is difficult because Creationists hardly ever, in fact I have never seen it happen, use scientific terms correctly. You starting this thread as a way so people can use terms correctly, and get an idea of what terms really do mean is good. Your idea to simply say what you think and not correct it when its wrong, is not.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

And nowhere was I pretending to be, neither was I claiming devine knowledge on how Gluadys meant what she wrote. The phrase "it seems to me" should have conveyed to you, I infinite wise man in communications, that this is the impression it makes on me as a bystander. Your sarcasm is wholly uncalled for.

You are right, yesterday I was very harsh, my sincerest apologizes. I find it hard, after pages and pages and pages of attacks and lack of listening to always maintain a gentle tone. Thanks for calling me on it, I'll try to rise above the harsh attacks and stick to the gentleness.

But it is not at all clear from her wording that she would call nature and such authorities.

How please do you see that when she uses the word so freely and adeptly as nature being an authority and how please can you read into her posts that she doesn't use them as such when for pages I have explains the meaning of the term authority as what one turns to to find the answers and not a persons word about anything. Inclusing ample examples of different possible authorities including but not limited to evidence and logic only to have her use the word the same way but tell me I am wrong. What do you think I am missing here in her post when she uses the word the same way I do but disagrees with her own use of the word when discussing it with me?

The context she has used the words seem to imply a more figurative way of using this words. In which case you are getting all worked up over very little.

Problem is, she is using the word the exact same way I have been from the first mention of the word authority, which is in fact what really shocked me when the word was first mentioned because it is not a hard concept or odd use for the word. After I was attacked for the use of the word, I thought a simple clarification would fix it, only to find that pages, and days and posts later, we are still no closer to understanding than when I first typed the word authority and not a single person here said to glaudys or anyone else, this is how she is using the word, how she means the word, what she is trying to say, or anything other than accusations and arguements. This troubled me considerably, (I used the word troubled not because I was frustrated, etc. but because I really do care about communication whether anyone here believes that or not) then, we come to this point in which you seem to be defending glaudys for saying what I have been saying all along and not making any attempt to hold her or anyone else on this thread accountable for jumping to conclusions and not listening or trying to understand what I was saying. This happens way to often on this forum but especially on this debate. I have no problem accepting valid points from either side, and like it or not, they both do have at least one valid point. But here on the forum, the only way a point is valid is if it comes form somone that is deemed friend. This is crazy! In all the many pages, and posts and days of discussing authority, I am sure that at least one of the educated people here would have been able to understand what I was saying since everyone I talked to apart from the thread understood it fine. But no one offered to aid communication until I got harsh and then it was in defense of glaudys why is that? Why is it a war between the evolutionist and the creationist instead of a discussion and opertunity to learn what each thinks and why? Why can you only understand what your own side is saying and never what anyone you deem contrary to the cause of evolution is saying? This is the kind of behavior I was hoping to put an end to with this thread, only to find that it continues unchecked and responsibility replaced with excuses.

Considering that may lead to a resolve, which was all I tried to steer at. I'm not trying to be patronizing, I'm not claiming to know Gluadys' mind. Gluadys might tell me I'm wrong, she might tell me I'm right. Whichever way, the suggestion will help in resolving the main conflict you seem to have at the time. A more relaxed attitude from you might not be uncalled for either.

And you are right, I over reacted yesterday, but the overreaction was as much over you coming to glaudys aid (addressing me not her) as it was that I was tired of being told that I was wrong when she said the exact same thing and she was right. It is not an excuse on my part, I should have spoken more gently and I do hope you will forgive me, but I also hope you will see my point and be able to understand that communication is a two way street, it isn't everyone on my side is right and everyone on the other side is wrong. Anyone, no matter what side they are on, percieved or otherwise, can make valid good points on occasion and pretending they don't only adds fuel to the debate. Anyway, thanks again for holding me accountable, we all need somone willing to hold us accountable.

 

[razzelflabben]

"Common Ancestor", the scientific usage is common ancestry on the species level. snip for spacecontext of anything so that is how you must refer to it so we are all clear.

Yeah yeah we got all that please do present somthing worthwhile here, I used the term common ancestry to say that we have no observations of common ancestry, thus the implied meaning is universal common ancestry since we have already addressed that speciation is observed. but, glaudys ignored all that to say that common ancestry is different from universal common ancestry (by the way it is only resently I was informed that the proper term was universal common ancestry)and why and that means that I have no understanding of common ancestry. Only a post of two later, she used the term common ancestry to mean universal common ancestry and she is assumed to understand it very well. What then is the difference? How does she understand common ancestry when she uses it to mean universal common ancestry but I don't when I use it the same way? I won't even bring your use of the term into the discussion at the moment because you will ask me to week through all the posts to evidence where you used the term common ancestry to mean universal common ancestry and I don't have the time for that nonsense. So for now, we'll just stick with glaudys use and what makes you think when we both used the word identically that she understanding it but I don't?

And I told you. And the only difference would be if I used the word differently. snip for space.

We'll deal with this later and I hope for the last time.

So the words you are typing arent really what you are thinking? That the truth is you really do know this stuff? Well,snip for space

What are you talking about? I use the terms identical to your use but you understand them and I don't?

I dont care about some mysterious argument you had with someone else. All opinions really arent worth the same. snip for space.

I'll leave this for those who argued with me about it, but since you are a part of the evolutionist good old boys club, you will probably get a reputation for this comment, you know the same comment I made on another thread and was attacked for. Oh well, to be in the in group, I am quite satisfied to stay where I am thank you, I kind of like being held accountable for what I say and do, rather than to be alowed to say or do anything I want like a spoiled little brat.

1. A scientific theory is not "assumptions". Without theory observations mean nothing. Without theory, there would be no way to know what the experiment or observation meant nor how whatever it was happened, or why it happened at all. We could never know anything about anything without theory.

I don't recall ever saying that scientific theory is assumptions, but you are invited to show me the post where I did. Looking forward to it, thanks.

And this is how you get "theory" all wrong. You claim I am somehow creating a strawman by saying you dont understand, and you claim that you really do despite what I say. Yet if you do understand, why then do you use the word "theory" then call them "assumptions"?

theory is not what I am calling assumptions, some of the "evidence" for the theory of evolution is based on assumptions, some is not but some is. Doesn't sound to me like I am the one confusing theory with assumptions.

Scientific theories are not assumptions. And a scientific theory stays a theory, it will never become anything else because a scientific theory doesnt mean the commen use of the word "theory" you continue to confuse it with. A theory does not rely on assumptions.

Never said otherwise.

2. Speciation is a consequence of the process, it is not a process in itself. And evolution as the process, (the change in alle frequencies over time), cannot be the foundation of modern biology. Without the theory none of it would mean anything, and could be of no use in biology, to science or to anyone else at all.

Okay, I'm trying to follow you here, so you are saying that an observation cannot be the foundation for the study of organisms, it requires a theory to study organisms. Okay, you better explain that, and don't talk about individual theories that lead us to a study, because we are talking here about biology and not an independent segment, for example the theory might be cats meow, that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about how the theory of universal common ancestry helps us learn that cats meow. That will be a cool explaination. I hope there is at least one true scientist reading.

3. And the scientific method is the only method to know "objectively" what is true and what isnt.

Never said otherwise.

"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

You have to understand by now that science relies on the authority of observation, and method. Do try to understand what is being said, it would be to your credit.

Well lets take this one step at a time.

1. You cant talk about a scientific theory as assumptions, and say we must disregard these "assumptions" and look only at the facts - if you undertsand what is is you are talking about. Without the theory, any observations are totally meaningless. And no one talks about a scientific theory as being "only a theory" if they understand it. And no matter what facts or evidence we find to back up our theory it will still be a theory. So calling a scientific theory "only a theory" just shows your ignorence.

Oh boy, you haven't read what I was telling you about theory yet, no wonder you don't know what I have said. Theory is theory, no problem. A theory is based on observations, no problem. When discussing theory it is assumed that the theory because of how a theory comes to being, that it is fact and theory. No problem. The theory of gravity is fact and theory, the theory of anything scientific is fact and theory, brovo! The problem is when people are allowed and asked to understand that theory is fact and theory for every discussion except evolution. For the theory of evolution, we will no longer allow you to understand what theory is but instead make a big issue out of it being fact and theory. Kind of sounds like joke about the guy who drives a fancy car to hide other inadequacies. If the theory is as sound and evidenced as is claimed, then the issue of fact and theory would be allowed to be understood as it is in discussion of other theories. NOw, please tell me where in that umpteenth explaination did I say that theory was assumptions or that I didn't understand that theory is based on fact? Can't wait!

2. The "theory of Creation", as I said before, is not a scientific theory. And yes I know you say you know this, before you say it, but you still use it next to theory of Evolution. This creates the implication that you consider them, at the very least, equal on some level. Next, as I already said, the word theory as used in popular vocabulary meaning "educated guess" does not describe the "theory of Creation" either. The reason is because a theory, by definition, can be wrong. So how does that describe the "Theory of Creation"? So Im saying your use of "theory of Creation" is misleading, nor does it describe what it is anyway. Thats why I say calling it a theory is wrong in every way.

If the theory of creation has a meaning (must if it is used), then it's assumed meaning would be the mechanism of how creation occured. Makes logical sense. So if that is the meaning, then when talking about the mechanism for creation, using the term theory of creation would be acceptable. Do you want to offer a more logical meaning for the term theory of creation? And remember, theory does not have to mean scientific. Nothing in my definition or explaination for the term did I indicate that it was scientific.

No you are confusing different things. I told you Creationists accept a certain amount of common ancestry, and told you that it didnt nesessarily have to mean universal common ancestry. The thing was, I was saying, is that Creationists claim there is a point where an species cannot evolve past some barrier for which they have no evidence for. Now Gluadys was trying to explain to you about how you can logically infer your grandparents' birth even though you never witnessed it. That since you cannot observe something directly, doesnt mean you cant know.

I never quibbled with anthing about inferring that we have grandparents, I don't even know how that question arrose because I never knew there was a question about that. Thanks for leting me know that you didn't understand that we can infer that we all have grandparents, it helps me understand some of your other comments better, I can't wait to talk to you about evidence, it will be exciting.

That is what is called an analogy, and you are seriously oversimplifying it. And be carefull, you are very close to creating another strawman.

All I asked glaudys was why a THEORY must be evidence in order to be a THEORY That souldn't be a hard question and would tell us if she understands the process or if it was a typo, but you took it to mean that I don't understand science. Thus, removing all responsibility from glaudys common and putting them all on me. That's what the good old boys club does though doesn't it. Remove all responsibility from those you deem allies.

You asked me what I felt the difference was between them many times, and I answered many times. snip for space.

Oh that was way into the discussion after I asked you which you meant and you acted like I was stupid for asking you to clarify. So I asked you if you saw any difference in the terms, you really do need to keep these things in context. Thanks for trying though.

The confusion has always been yours, when you use words with your own definition and in vague ways, when you are eternally pedantic about trivial matters so as nothing can move forward and when you make mistakes you never take responsibility for. None of that aids communication.

Okay whatever, over time I have learned to accept what is mine to accept and ignore what is not. This I will ignore because it is meaningless dribble.

State the exact place where I told you you didnt use it properly, where now you claim you did use it properly. IOW, back up this please.

No interest in another meaningless debate, but we can talk about biology if you like

Im tired of you claiming Im shifting the discussion because you cant be bothered to look back and see what the reply was about.

The process of evolution cannot be the single unifying theory of biology, but you thought I may have been talking about that even though I actually said the word theory. You didnt read properly. Face it.

Ed

Okay, biology-
the science that studies living organisms
characteristic life processes and phenomena of living organisms; "the biology of viruses"
biota: all the plant and animal life of a particular region

note nothing about a theory or even the indication of one. In fact, when I looked for the new term you presented, that of the theory of biology, I found somthing that should amaze you, never once did I see the term theory of biology but rather theories IN biology. Thus indicating that biology is not the theory that you are claiming it to be but rather consists of various theories of which evolution could and is one but is not what biology consists souly of. Now lets be fair, if you mean that evolution is the theory that unites biology, then you are ignoring all the individual theories that make up our understanding of biology. So either way you read your above statement, you have a problem. But I'm sure it is me again, I'm sure that I don't understand biology and science when I tell you that there are a lot of theories that make up our study of biology. Go figure, I'll be wrong again.

 

[razzelflabben]

The only sides are science verses the pseudoscience Creationist movement motivated by purely religious (and politcal) reasons.

I'd love to hear you say that to a reputable scientist who believes in creation. Heck in fact, I'd love to hear you and a reputable scientist who believes in creation debate, I dare say you would be in for a real let down in your own intelligence.

I did not misrepresent you. You said evolution is only a theory, and you talk as if theory = assumptions and that you cant know anything objectively using scientific theories. How have you not been using Creationist arguments, that a scientific theory means something like a assumption and a guess?

And did you not say you thought Gravity is not taught as a fact and a theory? Showing you were not aware of General Relativity and what that means. Without General Relativity "gravity" doesnt mean anything other than the obvious.

reread it til it makes some kind of sense, even on an elementary level of understanding of science then come back and tell me what you think I have said. We will go from there.

.

It doesnt have a special meaning. Gravity, Evolution, Aerodynamics... They are all facts and theories. There is no special meaning that is different to Evolution.

which is exactly the point I am trying to make, instead of trying to make it sound like there is a difference, deal with the issue on the basis that there is no difference. That shouldn't be hard to understand or do, but apparently it is.

Read it again.

You said you cant see any use for Evolution in modern biology.

Show me where I said there is no use for evolution in modern biology! I did say that I thought evolution was important to our modern understanding of biology but that the theory of evolution is not. Much different than the claim you are making that I said.

And this is now the fourth time you have skipped this part of my post:
Now, back to what you said. It (Evolution) has everything to do with modern biology. See the last time I told you that, and where you disregarded the link becasue it said "evolution" and you needed clarification. Now considering I told you they were refering to the fact and theory of biological evolution and everything therein you can now address it properly, cant you?
[page 38, post 397]

and I have said and still maintain, that evolution is important to modern biology but the toe does not. What is ignored? I will ignore this quote from now on because it has been addressed so very many times, but if you have a different question you would like to reword, then we can address it.

And where did I do that? Nice dodge, btw.

You said you had gotten no answer at all,

show me where I said at all please. I said you didn't answer the question. sounds like you are finally addmitting that you didn't but you don't like being told such.

and that I refused to answer you.

changing the subject, and accusing me of not understanding, and boasting that it should have been clear, is not, answering the question and when it goes for pages and pages, I think it fair to say that you are refusing to answer the question asked of you, but I know the answer now, so that is sufficient.

I did answer you several times, but you would ask it again in the same way a little while later having not showed you had read or understood what I told you previously. That is not 'getting no answer'. That is not 'refusing' to answer. If you wanted me to be more detailed like I have been recently you could have said so, but you didnt. If my explanation wasnt good enough, you didnt say so. All you did is ask the question over and over in the same way without showing any evidence that you had read anything I said before.

You could have easily answered the question with one sentence, heck it wouldn't even have taken that much, instead you insisted on pages and pages of sidestepping the question. Brovo! Move on!

As gluadys already told you "origin of species", or "origin of life", or 'cosmological origins' are something totally different to each other but when used in this context we can tell what you are talking about. There is no subject called origins in science like you spoke about, because its too vague and meaningless. The way stars form is not the same process as abiogenesis, or Evolution. That is why you must talk of a specific perocess, and use the correct terms in the correct ways. The way you talk at the moment to mean EVERYTHING, the term is meaningless.

Then your superior genius should be no problem for understanding my use of the word origins and communcation should prevail. I wonder why you choose to ignore what I mean when using the word origins then? Why not just understand the meaning as known from the context instead of going on and on about what it means and how it can be used?

And you want an example of you using terms badly. Below is example of you using the term origins inconsistently, even by your definition. Note that above you said "origins - how life came to it's present state". And that you had (later on) stated that evolution is included in that, but not limited to your idea of "orgins".

You: I fail to see how the issue of our origins is the foundation for modern biology...how then is out origins the foundation for modern biology?
Me: Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together.... (link snipped)
You: Now this article is talking about evolution and not our origins...


If this thread is any indication you have not studied it. That is clear. Even if you didnt come accross as a Creationist, I would not believe it.

I thought you could determine how a word was used by it's context. That is what you claimed. Go figure, now you are claiming to have problems doing such when you get after me for asking you to clarify your use of a word. Who could have guessed?

This is what Im talking about, you already think you know things you really dont and when someone tells you you are wrong, you dont listen because you are too arrogant and proud to admit when you are wrong.

I did not say that I knew everything, I said I knew enough, every day new "evidence" is being found and studied, no one can know it all. But we don't have to know it all to come here and discuss what we do kow either. I do listen and have learned some things that I didn't know before I first was thrown into this debate on the forum, but I also know enough to keep up, and that isn't arrogance or pride, that is education and learning.

Communication is difficult because Creationists hardly ever, in fact I have never seen it happen, use scientific terms correctly. You starting this thread as a way so people can use terms correctly, and get an idea of what terms really do mean is good. Your idea to simply say what you think and not correct it when its wrong, is not.

Ed

And when they do, you change what they are saying to try to make it sound like they don't and you aren't bad at it either. However, this tactic, no matter how skillful you are at it paints an unfair picture and is nothing more than lies. You should listen a while to what is being said, learn a new tactic for disputing the arguements and learn somthing, or do you already know everything?

 

[Garnet2727]

[delurk] I've read from post one to about post 162. My head hurts now...seriously. [/delurk]

 

[Tomk80]

You are right, yesterday I was very harsh, my sincerest apologizes. I find it hard, after pages and pages and pages of attacks and lack of listening to always maintain a gentle tone. Thanks for calling me on it, I'll try to rise above the harsh attacks and stick to the gentleness.


How please do you see that when she uses the word so freely and adeptly as nature being an authority and how please can you read into her posts that she doesn't use them as such when for pages I have explains the meaning of the term authority as what one turns to to find the answers and not a persons word about anything. Inclusing ample examples of different possible authorities including but not limited to evidence and logic only to have her use the word the same way but tell me I am wrong. What do you think I am missing here in her post when she uses the word the same way I do but disagrees with her own use of the word when discussing it with me? Problem is, she is using the word the exact same way I have been from the first mention of the word authority, which is in fact what really shocked me when the word was first mentioned because it is not a hard concept or odd use for the word. After I was attacked for the use of the word, I thought a simple clarification would fix it, only to find that pages, and days and posts later, we are still no closer to understanding than when I first typed the word authority and not a single person here said to glaudys or anyone else, this is how she is using the word, how she means the word, what she is trying to say, or anything other than accusations and arguements. This troubled me considerably, (I used the word troubled not because I was frustrated, etc. but because I really do care about communication whether anyone here believes that or not) then, we come to this point in which you seem to be defending glaudys for saying what I have been saying all along and not making any attempt to hold her or anyone else on this thread accountable for jumping to conclusions and not listening or trying to understand what I was saying. This happens way to often on this forum but especially on this debate. I have no problem accepting valid points from either side, and like it or not, they both do have at least one valid point. But here on the forum, the only way a point is valid is if it comes form somone that is deemed friend. This is crazy! In all the many pages, and posts and days of discussing authority, I am sure that at least one of the educated people here would have been able to understand what I was saying since everyone I talked to apart from the thread understood it fine. But no one offered to aid communication until I got harsh and then it was in defense of glaudys why is that? Why is it a war between the evolutionist and the creationist instead of a discussion and opertunity to learn what each thinks and why? Why can you only understand what your own side is saying and never what anyone you deem contrary to the cause of evolution is saying? This is the kind of behavior I was hoping to put an end to with this thread, only to find that it continues unchecked and responsibility replaced with excuses. And you are right, I over reacted yesterday, but the overreaction was as much over you coming to glaudys aid (addressing me not her) as it was that I was tired of being told that I was wrong when she said the exact same thing and she was right. It is not an excuse on my part, I should have spoken more gently and I do hope you will forgive me, but I also hope you will see my point and be able to understand that communication is a two way street, it isn't everyone on my side is right and everyone on the other side is wrong. Anyone, no matter what side they are on, percieved or otherwise, can make valid good points on occasion and pretending they don't only adds fuel to the debate. Anyway, thanks again for holding me accountable, we all need somone willing to hold us accountable.

Apologies accepted.

Now, you ask me why I come to the conclusion that Gluadys looks at the word 'authority' as excluding things like nature. Well, she quite clearly stated that she doesn't and she quite clearly defined what she means with the word authority:

Yes, if a person is relying on an authority for developing their premises, that person should identify the authority s/he is relying on. But science does not rely on authorities. It relies on evidence in nature. If you want to call evidence an “authority”, I suppose you can. But nature does not make pronouncements which have to be taken by faith, so to me, nature is not an authority.

Science is based on evidence, not authority. Nobody has authority in science, no matter how famous they are. The only basis for scientific work is evidence and scientific method. The only basis for accepting someone else’s work is the evidence they present to support their case.

Authorities require that you accept them at their word. Science never does that. Science says “Don’t accept this on my word. Examine the evidence to see if you can find something wrong with my hypothesis.”

So from what I can see in Gluadys' writings, she defines authority as someone whom' statements you have to accept by faith. Clearly, nature is not an authority by that standard, and clearly the mindset with which Gluadys looks at the word authority is not one that includes nature or evidence. From my reading through the thread (and admittedly, I have only read back some pages from here, so I haven't followed the whole thread) she never agreed with any other use of the word. She states that 'you could view 'evidence' as authority', but nowhere did she state that she would use the word that way.

When looking at other statements she has made, like "authority except reason and nature", she is making this statement from the above mindset. In that mindset, she does not view reason and nature as real 'authorities', so the use of the word authority becomes necessarily allegorical when referring to nature and reason in that sentence. This also means that in subsequent posts she will not call reason and nature 'authorities'.

Now, if you want to use 'authoritity' in such a way as to include such things as evidence, nature or reason, you will have to agree with Gluadys that you both will use the word the same way. But from my reading of the posts, you two never did that. Yes, Gluadys said that you 'could view evidence as authority', but the context in which she wrote this does imply that she doesn't agree with that use of the word 'authority', and nowhere is there any hint that she will use the word in that way herself.

At least, that's how I see the conversation around the word 'authority' between you two. The way Gluadys is using the word 'authority' seems very much like the way I would use it. It seems to me that if you want to clear up the misunderstandings, you will either have to accept that you are using the word in different ways and understand the differing ways in which you use it, or agree on a definition of the word. At present, it seems that both of you have done neither of the two.

 

[Edx]

Yeah yeah we got all that please do present somthing worthwhile here, I used the term common ancestry to say that we have no observations of common ancestry,

Observations are only part of science. We use geology to look back in time as it were, to study how the world is now to figure out how it existed in the past. We use forensic science to establish facts in legal cases with science such as DNA finderprinting, post mortems, ballistics, toxicology and also genetics. Now if we decided science was only restricted to what is directly observable we would have to throw out rather a lot of it, and crime scene investigaters would have no way to establish what happened at a crime scene.

but, glaudys ignored all that to say that common ancestry is different from universal common ancestry (by the way it is only resently I was informed that the proper term was universal common ancestry)and why and that means that I have no understanding of common ancestry.

No she didnt ignore it. She was trying to explain to you what common ancestry actually is. It doesnt have to always mean "universal" common ancestry. She, and myself, tried to explain that common ancestry is usually used when talking about a specific species' lineage, and that Creationists accept a certian amount of common ancestry. We are just trying to make sure you understand all that first, but in your usual arrogant pretentious and seemingly infinitly patronising way would rather take that as some kind of cheap insult because clearly you think you know all this already.

Only a post of two later, she used the term common ancestry to mean universal common ancestry and she is assumed to understand it very well. What then is the difference? How does she understand common ancestry when she uses it to mean universal common ancestry but I don't when I use it the same way?I won't even bring your use of the term into the discussion at the moment because you will ask me to week through all the posts to evidence where you used the term common ancestry to mean universal common ancestry and I don't have the time for that nonsense.So for now, we'll just stick with glaudys use and what makes you think when we both used the word identically that she understanding it but I don't?

See above. You can tell by the context. We were simply trying to explain that common ancestry isnt just used to describe universal common decent. In a thread about communication and clarity, call me crazy, but I would have thought that someone truly interested in such a thing would welcome these explanations and clarifications so that everyone knows and understands the terms that are being used.

What are you talking about? I use the terms identical to your use but you understand them and I don't?

No, you dont use them identically at all. The scientific method, you describe as something totally different to what it is (eg, that peer review is like a jury). You dont understand that an observation without theory is meaningless. You use the word origins in a way that renders it vague and meaningless, and you suggest people say "origins" is the foundation of modern biology when no one suggests such a thing. And then of course words like authority, credibility and religion were all rendered rather meaningless by you earlier.

No one agrees with the way you use the words you use, but the thing about scientific terms is you cant use the same tactic of dumbing them down and using them in in appropriate ways as easily because they are objective and specific.

You have to understand by now that science relies on the authority of observation, and method. Do try to understand what is being said, it would be to your credit.

No one agrees with your use of the word authority. Why do you even think Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy anyway?

I'll leave this for those who argued with me about it, but since you are a part of the evolutionist good old boys club, you will probably get a reputation for this comment, you know the same comment I made on another thread and was attacked for. Oh well, to be in the in group, I am quite satisfied to stay where I am thank you, I kind of like being held accountable for what I say and do, rather than to be alowed to say or do anything I want like a spoiled little brat.

You are so, so paranoid.

I don't recall ever saying that scientific theory is assumptions, but you are invited to show me the post where I did. Looking forward to it, thanks.

"...when we rely on theory ...we are accepting assumptions..." [page 43, post 429]

theory is not what I am calling assumptions, some of the "evidence" for the theory of evolution is based on assumptions,

.

Not that we are discussing the evidence in this thread, and I refuse to, unless you can actually stow your pride and actually start to use scientific terms correctly by accepting that you dont know as much as you think you do, and not come accross as such as pretentious jerk. That said, you clearly do not understand Evolution if you think the above. Then again, you could have a legitmate point, though past experience has shown that you probably dont. So how about you discuss the evidence with gluadys when you can come to an agreed set of terms (unlikely). Im not going to go into a highly indepth topic while you are so resistent to even using and understanding important scientific terms correctly.

Okay, I'm trying to follow you here, so you are saying that an observation cannot be the foundation for the study of organisms, it requires a theory to study organisms. Okay, you better explain that, and don't talk about individual theories that lead us to a study, because we are talking here about biology and not an independent segment,.

Theory is what explains the observations. Without theory, observations mean nothing.

for example the theory might be cats meow, that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about how the theory of universal common ancestry helps us learn that cats meow. That will be a cool explaination. I hope there is at least one true scientist reading

We know cats meow. That is an observation. The theory would be to why cats meow, and the relationship to other feline species' meows, and what it all means when a cat meows. Without theory, all we have is a cat meowing. Zoology would be the study of such things.

Ed---And the scientific method is the only method to know "objectively" what is true and what isnt.
Razzelflabben---Never said otherwise

"when we rely on theory ...we are accepting assumptions as fact and thus removing the possibility of knowing objectively what fact is."[page 43, post 429]

Oh boy, you haven't read what I was telling you about theory yet, no wonder you don't know what I have said. Theory is theory, no problem. A theory is based on observations, no problem. When discussing theory it is assumed that the theory because of how a theory comes to being, that it is fact and theory. No problem. The theory of gravity is fact and theory, the theory of anything scientific is fact and theory, brovo! The problem is when people are allowed and asked to understand that theory is fact and theory for every discussion except evolution.

No one is doing that.

Evolution is a fact and theory. Natural Selection for example. A fact, but also a theory because we dont know everything about the mechanics. Gravity. A fact, but also a theory because we dont know everything about the mechanics.

For the theory of evolution, we will no longer allow you to understand what theory is but instead make a big issue out of it being fact and theory

No big issue, but when someone says Evolution is "only a theory" it is nesessary have to correct them as to what a theory is, and that Evolution is a fact and a theory just like gravity, aerodynamics are facts and theories.

And remember, theory does not have to mean scientific. Nothing in my definition or explaination for the term did I indicate that it was scientific.

You dont read anything. I just said in bold letters that the ToC wasnt "a scientific theory. And yes I know you say you know this". My point was that you use it next to the 'theory of evolution' and so it is misleading to do so as it makes people think that you consider it to be equal somehow, on some level.

Now if you want to use "theory" as to how you imagine a creation myth happened, fine, call it the "theory of creation" if you really must, but it a very wishy washy, inappropriate and odd way of calling it what it is especially in a discussion about scientific terms.

I never quibbled with anthing about inferring that we have grandparents, I don't even know how that question arrose because I never knew there was a question about that. Thanks for leting me know that you didn't understand that we can infer that we all have grandparents, it helps me understand some of your other comments better, I can't wait to talk to you about evidence, it will be exciting.

Well now its obvious you really didnt understand. We can know for a fact that your grandparents were born, even though you never "observed" it. The reason you being told this was to show you, in a very simple way, that you can know things without observing them. That you can logically infer them from the evidence.

All I asked glaudys was why a THEORY must be evidence in order to be a THEORY That souldn't be a hard question and would tell us if she understands the process or if it was a typo, but you took it to mean that I don't understand science. Thus, removing all responsibility from glaudys common and putting them all on me. .

The chicken anaology was simply talking about the "maturity" of a scientific theory and the relationship to a hypothesis. Thats all

That's what the good old boys club does though doesn't it. Remove all responsibility from those you deem allies

More paranoia.

Ed --- You asked me what I felt the difference was between them many times, and I answered many times
Razzelflabben---Oh that was way into the discussion

No it wasnt, and I answered every single time you asked it.

I have already listed all of them I could find on page 37 in post 366, verbatim

after I asked you which you meant and you acted like I was stupid for asking you to clarify.

(I guess there is no point beating around the bush... )

Thats a lie. I dare you to try and prove that that is what I did. I listed them all (see above) in a previous post, so you are free to go look.

So I asked you if you saw any difference in the terms.

And I answered.

Ed --- You said you had gotten no answer at all
Razzelflabben --- show me where I said at all please. I said you didn't answer the question. sounds like you are finally addmitting that you didn't but you don't like being told such.

No, you said you had "gotten no answer."

"I have asked you this question before and gotten no answer..." -- (page 30, post 291)

Ed --- ...and that I refused to answer you...
Razzelflabben --- changing the subject, and accusing me of not understanding, and boasting that it should have been clear, is not, answering the question and when it goes for pages and pages, I think it fair to say that you are refusing to answer the question asked of you, but I know the answer now, so that is sufficient.

I did not change the subject. I didnt "boast", (and I challenge you to prove that assertion.) I did say you didnt understand, obviously

And I did answer the question. Just because you dont like the answer doesnt mean I didnt give you one. And you cant just ask the same question again and again in the same way and not even say what it was about my last reply that wasnt good enough. "Getting no answer" is getting no answer, "refusing" is refusing. Call it what it is. Sure I answered briefly, but if you wanted me to get more detailed I would have as I have done recently, but you didnt ask..

All you did is totally ignore what I said, and lied when you said that I 'acted like you were stupid' and that I "refused" to answer. As usual you cannot take responsibility for when you were the one who didnt communicate effectively.

You could have easily answered the question with one sentence, heck it wouldn't even have taken that much, instead you insisted on pages and pages of sidestepping the question. Brovo! Move on!

1. Thats a lie, I never sidestepped the question. It just wasnt very detailed.

2. Provide the short sentence I could have said that would have answered your question to your satisfaction. That sure would be interesting.

Okay whatever, over time I have learned to accept what is mine to accept and ignore what is not. This I will ignore because it is meaningless dribble.

No, all of what I said is true. You do use words in vague ways, in ways no one but yourself agrees to. You really are endlessly pedantic and argue into obscurity, and you really do never take responsibility for your mistakes. The above situation is a case in point.

Ed --- State the exact place where I told you you didnt use it properly, where now you claim you did use it properly. IOW, back up this please.
Razzelflabben --- No interest in another meaningless debate, but we can talk about biology if you like

In other words you arent willing to back up your claim, which was the basis for your paragraph long rant in the previous reply.

Ed

 

[Edx]

Okay, biology-

the science that studies living organisms

characteristic life processes and phenomena of living organisms; "the biology of viruses"

biota: all the plant and animal life of a particular region

note nothing about a theory or even the indication of one. In fact, when I looked for the new term you presented, that of the theory of biology, I found somthing that should amaze you, never once did I see the term theory of biology but rather theories IN biology.

Thus indicating that biology is not the theory that you are claiming it to be but rather consists of various theories of which evolution could and is one but is not what biology consists souly of. Now lets be fair, if you mean that evolution is the theory that unites biology, then you are ignoring all the individual theories that make up our understanding of biology

Another example of you not understanding AND not listening.

I didnt say there was a "theory of biology".I also didnt say it was "what biology consist souly of".

I didnt actually say the theory of Evolution WAS biology. What I actually said was that it is the single unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together, such as genetics, zoology, molocular biology, botany and taxonomy. etc

. But I'm sure it is me again, I'm sure that I don't understand biology and science when I tell you that there are a lot of theories that make up our study of biology. Go figure, I'll be wrong again.

Yes you are wrong again, because you are too proud to admit when you dont know something. You know you are your own worst enemy, you set yourself up in a situation where you have been so rude and patronisingly arrogant talking to someone about something, that even when you are shown to be wrong you cant admit it because you dont want to bruise your pride.

I'd love to hear you say that to a reputable scientist who believes in creation. Heck in fact, I'd love to hear you and a reputable scientist who believes in creation debate,

You have to earn reputability. And in order to be classified a scientist you have to actually do science. Creationists by definition work backwards from the scientific method, essentially pledging not to do science. They have no desire to actually contribute to science, it is purely a way to try and attack any part of mainstream science they disagree with for religious reasons to back up their beliefs and preach this to lay people. It is apologetics repackaged and nothing more.

"Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life."
- Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution

I dare say you would be in for a real let down in your own intelligence

Ad hominem.

reread it til it makes some kind of sense, even on an elementary level of understanding of science then come back and tell me what you think I have said. We will go from there.

You said Evolution is "only a theory". Evolution is not "only a theory", neither is Gravity "only a theory", or Aerodynamics "only a theory".

You also said "So either teach the theory of gravity as fact and theory (of which I have never ever heard done)" , except it is taught as such. Gravity is a fact and a theory, just like Evolution and every other scientific field of study.

which is exactly the point I am trying to make, instead of trying to make it sound like there is a difference, deal with the issue on the basis that there is no difference. That shouldn't be hard to understand or do, but apparently it is.

Dear, you really dont read. "...It doesnt have a special meaning..There is no special meaning that is different to Evolution."... YOU have been saying that we have been treating Evolution differently from other scientific theories. We havent. You have invented that out of nothing.

Show me where I said there is no use for evolution in modern biology! I did say that I thought evolution was important to our modern understanding of biology but that the theory of evolution is not. Much different than the claim you are making that I said.

and I have said and still maintain, that evolution is important to modern biology but the toe does not. What is ignored? I will ignore this quote from now on because it has been addressed so very many times, but if you have a different question you would like to reword, then we can address it.

1. This proves to me you did not look it up anyway, as I actually gave the wrong post number by accident. It was page 38, post #378.

2. I WAS talking about the theory of Evolution. So unless you are prepared to go address that part of my post like I told you do, dont say the same thing again.

Then your superior genius should be no problem for understanding my use of the word origins and communcation should prevail. I wonder why you choose to ignore what I mean when using the word origins then? Why not just understand the meaning as known from the context instead of going on and on about what it means and how it can be used?

Because you dont use it properly. You keep talking as if "origins" is some kind of scientific subject and term in itself. IT ISNT. I dare you to find a scientific source that uses the word the way you use it.

I thought you could determine how a word was used by it's context. That is what you claimed. Go figure, now you are claiming to have problems doing such when you get after me for asking you to clarify your use of a word. Who could have guessed?

Except using the word "origins" in this way is MEANINGLESS. It must be attached to something like origin of species(evolution), origin of life(abiogenesis) etc. Two different process'. Two different fields of study. Two fields of study that do not rely on the other to be validated. Use the appropriate terms. I dare you to find a scientific source that uses the word the way you use it.

And if Evolution did not mean origins, then you are talking complete nonsence. Just what exactly were you talking about when you said "how is origins the foundation for modern biology?" I took that to mean Evolution, since no one considers anything but the theory of Evolution as the foundation for modern biology. So if Evolution isnt "origins" in this case, just what could you possibily be talking about?

I did not say that I knew everything, I said I knew enough, every day new "evidence" is being found and studied, no one can know it all. But we don't have to know it all to come here and discuss what we do kow either. I do listen and have learned some things that I didn't know before I first was thrown into this debate on the forum, but I also know enough to keep up, and that isn't arrogance or pride, that is education and learning.

I didnt say you thought you knew everything either. I said "you already think you know things you really dont and when someone tells you you are wrong, you dont listen".

You said "I am on a quest to understand not evolution, I got that one down fairly well,". Because you dont, at all. You just seem to think you do. And thats part of your problem.

And when they do, you change what they are saying to try to make it sound like they don't and you aren't bad at it either. However, this tactic, no matter how skillful you are at it paints an unfair picture and is nothing more than lies.

Thats another lie. I challenge you again to prove it.

You should listen a while to what is being said, learn a new tactic for disputing the arguements and learn somthing, or do you already know everything?

Pretentious till the last I see. I most certainly dont claim to know everything, but that doesnt mean I dont know anything. And I did listen, and I saw you not understanding

Ed

 

[gluadys]

Shall we look at your very own words again?
post #423 on pg. 43 where you said
Neither of these requires an appeal to any authority except reason and nature.
and again pg 42 post 412
The authority for logic is the rule of logic which disallows upholding false premises with fallacious argumentation.
and even yet again pg. 42 post 420
In science, the final and only authority is always the observed facts. Logic can steer us toward finding what the facts are, but it does not replace them.

ok. Let's try to untangle this authority business. In one of his posts, ed cited this quote from Carl Sagan.

"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​

Clearly, Sagan is contrasting "authority" with "fact". Just as I have been contrasting "authority" with "reason" and "nature".


Does this mean that Sagan also rejects the "authority" of fact? Clearly not. What he is saying is that no "authority" can override the authority of fact.

Similarly, I am saying that no authority can override the authority of reason and nature. (And I might add, that the authority of reason is also sub-ordinate to the authority of nature. However reasonable an argument might be, if facts of nature contradict it, it is reason which must yield to fact, not vice versa.)

A similar situation occurs in scripture:

1 Corinthians 27 begins with the statement, "For God has put all things in subjection under his [Christ's] feet."

All things? Not quite. As Paul goes on to explain: "When it says 'all things are put in subjection' it is plain this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him."

So "all" in this case does not include God the Father, but only all the things which the Father puts in subjection under Christ. (Equally clearly, it does not include Christ himself.)

In the same way, when Sagan says arguments from authority are worthless, he is clearly exempting arguments from fact, and upholding the authority of fact in the face of competing authorities. And that is also what I was saying in my statements above.

Who then are the competing authorities? They are human individuals, human institutions, human traditions who may have legitimate authority in other fields of human life. e.g. the President has legitimate authority over the armed forces; the Supreme Court has authority over the interpretation of the constitution; for Christians the bible is authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine, etc.

But in science, these do not have authority. Their authority can never take precedence over the authority of the facts of nature. They can't even stand in the position of an alternative of equal value. As Sagan says: "Whatever is inconsistent with the facts ... must be discarded or revised."

So when I said I rejected authority, it was on the same basis as Sagan does here. Just as God himself is exempt from the "all things" which are placed under subjection to Christ, so the facts of nature are exempt from the authorities implied in "arguments from authority".

So, yes, I do accept the facts of nature (observations, evidence) as authoritative in science. And I do accept reasonable inferences from the evidence, with the proviso that the reasonable inferences have themselves been tested against the facts of nature.

(So, I am eating my words here, as requested. I am sorry that I assumed what I thought was obvious.)

But I do not accept any competing authority as having the capacity to override the authority of fact and valid reasoning as a basis of science.

Other authorities may have legitimacy in their own fields, but, by definition, they are not scientific authorities.

If that is clear, can we drop the conversation on authority?

all of these are general statements about what the majority of people know or don't know and have no specific relationship to what I have said or not said,

They are general statements which, judging as best I can from your own words, I believe can be applied to you personally. My judgment, of course, can be in error, but I would need to see something from you to correct it.

But, it is not evidence for universal common ancestry, it is evidence for speciation.

And speciation is evidence for universal common ancestry. It is not the only evidence, but it is part of the evidence for universal common ancestry.

We have a dear friend who is color blind,

Exceptions don't change the general rule. In fact, as the proverb says: "Exceptions prove the rule." My background is language and literature, and you have many examples there. "I before E, except after C, or when sounded like "ay" as in "neighbour" and "weigh". The two exceptions do not change the fact that in most words, I does come before E. The perceptual difficulties of one person don't change the fact that in most cases our own observations are reliable---especially when there are many eyewitnesses agreeing with our observations.

sure, the popular scientific opinion is not the same thing as popular opinion because......Right....okay..... still stumped, still waiting for consistancy.

I did not say "popular scientific opinion" I said "scientific opinion". Please stop attributing your words to me.

and yet evolutionists freely use it.

Freely use what? The word "origin"? Of course they do. But unlike you, they do not use it without qualification. They specify "origin of the universe" "origin of galaxies" "origin of the earth" "origin of biotic organisms" "origin of species" "origin of the eye" "origin of H. sapiens" etc. They don't use the bare term "origins" to lump all these together as if it was one scientific subject.

Not if you accept that gossip as fact.

But I didn't.

When you read the misquoted, twisted words of another, you accepted them automatically as fact, that is accepting gossip as your authority.

But I didn't read them. As I told you when I entered that conversation, I read only your own posts and responded only to your own posts.

I still have not even read the "misquoted, twisted words of another" much less accepted them "automatically" as fact.

 

[razzelflabben]

Apologies accepted.

Now, you ask me why I come to the conclusion that Gluadys looks at the word 'authority' as excluding things like nature. Well, she quite clearly stated that she doesn't and she quite clearly defined what she means with the word authority:




[/font]

So from what I can see in Gluadys' writings, she defines authority as someone whom' statements you have to accept by faith. Clearly, nature is not an authority by that standard, and clearly the mindset with which Gluadys looks at the word authority is not one that includes nature or evidence. From my reading through the thread (and admittedly, I have only read back some pages from here, so I haven't followed the whole thread) she never agreed with any other use of the word. She states that 'you could view 'evidence' as authority', but nowhere did she state that she would use the word that way.

When looking at other statements she has made, like "authority except reason and nature", she is making this statement from the above mindset. In that mindset, she does not view reason and nature as real 'authorities', so the use of the word authority becomes necessarily allegorical when referring to nature and reason in that sentence. This also means that in subsequent posts she will not call reason and nature 'authorities'.

Now, if you want to use 'authoritity' in such a way as to include such things as evidence, nature or reason, you will have to agree with Gluadys that you both will use the word the same way. But from my reading of the posts, you two never did that. Yes, Gluadys said that you 'could view evidence as authority', but the context in which she wrote this does imply that she doesn't agree with that use of the word 'authority', and nowhere is there any hint that she will use the word in that way herself.

At least, that's how I see the conversation around the word 'authority' between you two. The way Gluadys is using the word 'authority' seems very much like the way I would use it. It seems to me that if you want to clear up the misunderstandings, you will either have to accept that you are using the word in different ways and understand the differing ways in which you use it, or agree on a definition of the word. At present, it seems that both of you have done neither of the two.

Fair enough but since you have addmitted to not being around the entire thread, let me explain how the whole thing got started and why I am asking glaudys why she uses the word to mean one thing but defines it as somthing else but refuses to accept what I am saying. (that was a confusing sentence wasn't it) In some of the earlier of posts in this thread I said, that in order for communication to prevail we must identify what authority we are using. In order to make the point clear, I not only listed things like evidence . observations scientific method, science, along with things like bible, religion, and God. I also included at that time definitions for the word authority. Thus trying to clearly make the point that if one is discussing the scientific evidence and another is discussion the biblical perspective they are not likely to come to an agreement. So in order to communicate we need to know where you are looking for the answers. Now doesn't that sound like a challenging idea/concept? Anyway, I was told in no uncertain terms that we did not need to establish said authority because science did not require an authority to which I once again expressed the meaning for authority as used in this situation. To which I was further challenged. Now I would have had no problem with glaudys or anyone else saying I see what you are saying but I prefer to use the word.... but that isn't what happened. What happened was a long and drawn out arguement about not having to accept an authority when discussing somthing like this. So after it became painfully obvious that no one was going to listen, I dropped the issue for a while. Now, come to present. the statement was made that universal common ancestry is the logical conclusion. I disagreed because that depends on the premesis one holds to and since we refuse to accept what the discussion is based on, we must assume that it is a conclusion based on self and not on evidence, observation, science, etc. See, it is all about communication and not about what is or is not evidenced. Anyway, this concept was still foreign and unacceptable, and no one was accepting the defined use I provided for the term authority. But suddenly, glaudy denied that evidence and observation could be an authority only to turn around and use the term as I have defined it's use in this discussion from the beginning. To which you come here and defend glaudys. That's okay, but I wonder why is she is so freely able to use the word as I have defined it, that she is so adminate about not accepting the definition as such when I use the word the same way. And to be honest, this is not the first time that I have used a word, been told I used it wrong, had that same person use the word identically and then blame me for not understanding. We have been through it with the words evolution, common ancestry, authority, etc. When using the term or word that same way, they are right and I am wrong. This double standard is NOT beneficial to communication and needs addressed in a discussion about effective communication.

 

[razzelflabben]

When I came to this thread, I had hopes of real communication, but one thing I have learned over many years of learning to listen to others is that sometimes, no matter what evidence is in front of thier face, some people just can't bring themselves to accept truth/fact. When talking to these people, the arguement can go on endlessly, it is much more effective to simply state what is known and leave it go. This is what I am going to do with this post. We have been over these things so many times it is sad, and I have humored you by addressing them so many times, but it is obvious that you would rather live in your idalistic world and ignore the truth/facts that are staring you in the eyes, so....stay in your little world and say what you must, I will address the things that I don't think have been fully covered yet and leave the rest for you to do which what you want.

Observations are only part of science. We use geology to look back in time as it were, to study how the world is now to figure out how it existed in the past. We use forensic science to establish facts in legal cases with science such as DNA finderprinting, post mortems, ballistics, toxicology and also genetics. Now if we decided science was only restricted to what is directly observable we would have to throw out rather a lot of it, and crime scene investigaters would have no way to establish what happened at a crime scene.

and your point is......

No she didnt ignore it. She was trying to explain to you what common ancestry actually is. It doesnt have to always mean "universal" common ancestry. She, and myself, tried to explain that common ancestry is usually used when talking about a specific species' lineage, and that Creationists accept a certian amount of common ancestry. We are just trying to make sure you understand all that first, but in your usual arrogant pretentious and seemingly infinitly patronising way would rather take that as some kind of cheap insult because clearly you think you know all this already.

But what I asked you is why you assumed that I didn't understand common ancestry when I used the word correctly, and in fact, said the same thing about it that glaudys had said only a few posts earlier. So I don't care if someone corrects me when I am wrong, I don't even care if people check to see if I understand something, that is challenging and stimulating and holding me accountable. However, I do object to people assuming that I don't know something just because they want to assume such. We have gone over this before but it bears repeating, when I use a word identically to someone else, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the other person understands it's meaning but I don't. This is a double standard and since the theme of this thread is communication and not who is right and who is wrong, it is appopriate to tell you that this reasoning is harmful to communication.

See above. You can tell by the context. We were simply trying to explain that common ancestry isnt just used to describe universal common decent. In a thread about communication and clarity, call me crazy, but I would have thought that someone truly interested in such a thing would welcome these explanations and clarifications so that everyone knows and understands the terms that are being used.

If this is the pure motive behind the post in question, then begin by saying somthing like right...., or yes but do you understand....., or common ancestry can take on two meanings....., or something that is not automatically distructive to effective communication and disrepectfully assumes that the individual knows nothing when the opposite has been demonstrated but you don't want to accept it.

No, you dont use them identically at all. The scientific method, you describe as something totally different to what it is (eg, that peer review is like a jury).

I only recall addressing this issue once, so I'll quickly review it for you. I told you that peer review could be biased just as a jury could be biased and If I were wanting to objectively look at the evidence, I would reject the biased juror just as I might reject a biased peer review. Your response to this was a long quote that showed several times this bias that I am talking about and even evidenced it's practice. It is not an observation that says peer review is evil, bad, horible, not part of science, etc. it is an observation that peer review can and often is biased and therefore not a good authority to determine what is fact/truth and what is theory.

You dont understand that an observation without theory is meaningless.

huh? Based on what?

You use the word origins in a way that renders it vague and meaningless,

defined it as is often defined, even looked up the definition go figure!

and you suggest people say "origins" is the foundation of modern biology when no one suggests such a thing.

where did I say that?

And then of course words like authority, credibility and religion were all rendered rather meaningless by you earlier.

see the first part of this post.

No one agrees with the way you use the words you use, but the thing about scientific terms is you cant use the same tactic of dumbing them down and using them in in appropriate ways as easily because they are objective and specific.

be careful, glaudys used the word authority exactly as I have, but I am the one using the word wrong and no one accepts the use of the words as I use them. Right......

No one agrees with your use of the word authority. Why do you even think Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy anyway?

see above and glaudys posts using the word identically to the way I have used the word from the moment it was first used.

You are so, so paranoid.

"...when we rely on theory ...we are accepting assumptions..." [page 43, post 429]

see the missing parts, we'll look at them below for convienience.

.

Not that we are discussing the evidence in this thread, and I refuse to, unless you can actually stow your pride and actually start to use scientific terms correctly by accepting that you dont know as much as you think you do, and not come accross as such as pretentious jerk. That said, you clearly do not understand Evolution if you think the above. Then again, you could have a legitmate point, though past experience has shown that you probably dont. So how about you discuss the evidence with gluadys when you can come to an agreed set of terms (unlikely). Im not going to go into a highly indepth topic while you are so resistent to even using and understanding important scientific terms correctly.

looking forward to discussing it with you when this and glaudys thread are done. All in good time.

Theory is what explains the observations. Without theory, observations mean nothing.

We know cats meow. That is an observation. The theory would be to why cats meow, and the relationship to other feline species' meows, and what it all means when a cat meows. Without theory, all we have is a cat meowing. Zoology would be the study of such things.

but the toe doesn't explain why the cat meows, it can theorize why, it can explain it in light of the toe, but it requires a seperate theory which is why the toe is the foundation of modern biology is a troublsome statement to make. It is however your opinion and when I have time we can discuss it's merits on another thread.

"when we rely on theory ...we are accepting assumptions as fact and thus removing the possibility of knowing objectively what fact is."

[page 43, post 429]

now this isn't even the entire text but lets look at the part you are willing to post. The post is not talking about the theory itself, but the assumptions made by the theory. In context, what it is saying is that if we believe theory to be fact, we are allowing our inferrances, assumptions, speculations, etc. to be viewed as fact/truth and not allowing our observations to be the determination of fact/truth. Scientific method requires that observation be our evidence of what is fact, but I have a totally different understanding of scientific method than you do and apparently glaudys does to, but since this thread is about how to communicate and not about correcting someone, I'll let glaudys correct your understanding of scientific method.

No one is doing that.

Evolution is a fact and theory. Natural Selection for example. A fact, but also a theory because we dont know everything about the mechanics. Gravity. A fact, but also a theory because we dont know everything about the mechanics.

every time someone says evolution is fact and theory they show one of two things, 1. lack of knowledge of what theory is, or 2. a total lack of respect for what others know and understand about science. That is the problem with allowing people to understand that theory is based on facts when talking about things like gravity but specify that the toe is fact and theory. It makes the toe sound inferrior and quite frankly I don't think it is an inferior theory though the more "evidence" I am shown here on the forum the weaker I find the theory becoming, so maybe you do have a point, maybe the toe is weak enough of a theory to require the one who believes the toe to be fact, to specify that what is common knowledge is indeed not common knowledge for the toe. Can't wait to discuss those evidences with you.

No big issue, but when someone says Evolution is "only a theory" it is nesessary have to correct them as to what a theory is, and that Evolution is a fact and a theory just like gravity, aerodynamics are facts and theories.

see above

You dont read anything. I just said in bold letters that the ToC wasnt "a scientific theory. And yes I know you say you know this". My point was that you use it next to the 'theory of evolution' and so it is misleading to do so as it makes people think that you consider it to be equal somehow, on some level.

If the theory of evolution is the mechanism of evolution (note nothing about whether or not it is scientific, see other definitions as well) and the theory of creation is the mechanism of creation, then they are able to be used side by side in a discussion that is comparing the two theories. If we are limiting our discussion to some authority that requires scientific terms, then that needs to first be identified and secondly, we need to determine it either, both, or neither of the theories is scientific in nature. None of which has been done on this thread.

Now if you want to use "theory" as to how you imagine a creation myth happened, fine, call it the "theory of creation" if you really must, but it a very wishy washy, inappropriate and odd way of calling it what it is especially in a discussion about scientific terms.

But nothing in the op limited the discussion to scientific terms and you refused to identify an authority and so any term is acceptable in the discussion and long as an understanding is attached, which I have done.

Well now its obvious you really didnt understand. We can know for a fact that your grandparents were born, even though you never "observed" it. The reason you being told this was to show you, in a very simple way, that you can know things without observing them. That you can logically infer them from the evidence.

It's obvious I don't understand that we can know that we have grandparents because I ask how that concept applies to my comments that we can not observed universal common ancestry. Okay then, moving on.

The chicken anaology was simply talking about the "maturity" of a scientific theory and the relationship to a hypothesis. Thats all

More paranoia.
No, I answered every single time you asked it.
I have already listed all of them I could find on page 37 in post 366, verbatim
(I guess there is no point beating around the bush... )
Thats a lie. I dare you to try and prove that that is what I did. I listed them all (see above) in a previous post, so you are free to go look.
And I answered.
No, you said you had "gotten no answer."
"I have asked you this question before and gotten no answer..." -- (page 30, post 291)

Okay, you could misinterpret that so let me clarify, I had gotten no answer to my question. But oh wait a minute, you left out some of my post, maybe that is why you didn't understand what I was saying. Either way, it should be cleared up now.

I did not change the subject. I didnt "boast", (and I challenge you to prove that assertion.) I did say you didnt understand, obviously

And I did answer the question. Just because you dont like the answer doesnt mean I didnt give you one. And you cant just ask the same question again and again in the same way and not even say what it was about my last reply that wasnt good enough. "Getting no answer" is getting no answer, "refusing" is refusing. Call it what it is. Sure I answered briefly, but if you wanted me to get more detailed I would have as I have done recently, but you didnt ask..

All you did is totally ignore what I said, and lied when you said that I 'acted like you were stupid' and that I "refused" to answer. As usual you cannot take responsibility for when you were the one who didnt communicate effectively.

1. Thats a lie, I never sidestepped the question. It just wasnt very detailed.

2. Provide the short sentence I could have said that would have answered your question to your satisfaction. That sure would be interesting.

You could have answered the question with less than a sentence, the question was, do you think that evolution is the foundation of modern biology or that the theory of evolution is modern biology? and your short answer could have simply been "the theory of evolution". that only took for words and you could have left of the word the and still been clear as well you could have shortened the aswer to 3 letters and answered the question with toe. How cool and simple is that?

No, all of what I said is true. You do use words in vague ways, in ways no one but yourself agrees to. You really are endlessly pedantic and argue into obscurity, and you really do never take responsibility for your mistakes. The above situation is a case in point.



In other words you arent willing to back up your claim, which was the basis for your paragraph long rant in the previous reply.

Ed

[/quote] see the first part of this post.

 

[razzelflabben]

Another example of you not understanding AND not listening.

I didnt say there was a "theory of biology".I also didnt say it was "what biology consist souly of".

I didnt actually say the theory of Evolution WAS biology. What I actually said was that it is the single unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together, such as genetics, zoology, molocular biology, botany and taxonomy. etc

I offered two different understandings for your post and you only choose one to show I don't understand or listen. Very savy.....

Yes you are wrong again, because you are too proud to admit when you dont know something. You know you are your own worst enemy, you set yourself up in a situation where you have been so rude and patronisingly arrogant talking to someone about something, that even when you are shown to be wrong you cant admit it because you dont want to bruise your pride.

You have to earn reputability. And in order to be classified a scientist you have to actually do science. Creationists by definition work backwards from the scientific method, essentially pledging not to do science. They have no desire to actually contribute to science, it is purely a way to try and attack any part of mainstream science they disagree with for religious reasons to back up their beliefs and preach this to lay people. It is apologetics repackaged and nothing more.

"Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life."
- Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution

And I have never heard you say a kind word or anything that resembles a kind of understanding about what creation says but you want me to bow before your superior understanding of creation and those who believe creation, ignoring all the science and scientific evidence so that I can view creation the same cynical and bitter way you do. No thanks, I will give them both equal billing until science shows otherwise. And so as not to get into that discussion as the moment. I did not say that science hasn't done this, only that I will view them equally until science shows otherwise. A discussion about what science shows on either or both is reserved for another thread and I can't go there until the threads I am currently on are done. So hear the words and don't read into them what is not there.

Ad hominem.

You said Evolution is "only a theory". Evolution is not "only a theory", neither is Gravity "only a theory", or Aerodynamics "only a theory".

You also said "So either teach the theory of gravity as fact and theory (of which I have never ever heard done)" , except it is taught as such. Gravity is a fact and a theory, just like Evolution and every other scientific field of study.

Do you understand what a scientific theory is or should I point you back to a discussion with glaudys were she assumed that because I held her accountable for what she said that I didn't understand how a theory becomes a theory? A scientific theory is based on fact/observation. It is elementary science. Therefore when talking about theory (scientific), we understand by reason of what a theory is that it is based on fact. In fact, when we teach that scientific theories we in essence teach that theory is fact and theory. So that when we teach gravity and aerodynamics, we understand that it is fact and theory and thus do not need to bring it up or specify that theory is fact and theory. And indeed, I have yet to read a paper on one of these theories or be a a class where one is being taught, and hear someone say that "the theory of gravity is fact and theory", "the theory of aerodynamics is fact and theory". This is would be considered nonsence waste of words. On the otherhand, it is all to common to hear evolutionists spout the words "the theory of evolution is fact and theory." This makes the theory of evolution sound like an inferior theory and in fact makes the person saying it sound like they do not understand what a theory is. All I am saying is that evolutionists need to be consistant, it is not necessary to specify that the toe is fact and theory, the fact part is understood in the term theory. Now how hard of a concept can you real make that out to be?

Dear, you really dont read. "...It doesnt have a special meaning..There is no special meaning that is different to Evolution."... YOU have been saying that we have been treating Evolution differently from other scientific theories. We havent. You have invented that out of nothing.

see above and try again.

1. This proves to me you did not look it up anyway, as I actually gave the wrong post number by accident. It was page 38, post #378.

2. I WAS talking about the theory of Evolution. So unless you are prepared to go address that part of my post like I told you do, dont say the same thing again.

Because you dont use it properly. You keep talking as if "origins" is some kind of scientific subject and term in itself. IT ISNT. I dare you to find a scientific source that uses the word the way you use it.

http://www.macalpine.org/research/
http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW1/MG132.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/059733.htm

Except using the word "origins" in this way is MEANINGLESS. It must be attached to something like origin of species(evolution), origin of life(abiogenesis) etc. Two different process'. Two different fields of study. Two fields of study that do not rely on the other to be validated. Use the appropriate terms. I dare you to find a scientific source that uses the word the way you use it.

second time you dared me so I will post it again so you don't miss it
http://www.macalpine.org/research/
http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW1/MG132.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/059733.htm

And if Evolution did not mean origins, then you are talking complete nonsence. Just what exactly were you talking about when you said "how is origins the foundation for modern biology?" I took that to mean Evolution, since no one considers anything but the theory of Evolution as the foundation for modern biology. So if Evolution isnt "origins" in this case, just what could you possibily be talking about?

In that sentence it was referring to evolution, being that is the prominant theory.

I didnt say you thought you knew everything either. I said "you already think you know things you really dont and when someone tells you you are wrong, you dont listen".

You said "I am on a quest to understand not evolution, I got that one down fairly well,". Because you dont, at all. You just seem to think you do. And thats part of your problem.

Thats another lie. I challenge you again to prove it.

Pretentious till the last I see. I most certainly dont claim to know everything, but that doesnt mean I dont know anything. And I did listen, and I saw you not understanding

Ed

And you haven't comprehended yet that that is all I am asking of you?! That just because I don't know everything doesn't mean that I don't know anything, and that I don't listen. You misrepresent what I say, you ignore the clarifications, you take things our of context, read into them what is not there, you read a comment but don't read it instead read a creationists argueemnt that might sound similar all so that you can accuse me of not knowing anything and not listening. It requires a little tiny bit of respect to give people the benefit of the doubt, and really take the time to listen before jumping to conclusions and labeling and that is all I have asked for in this thread, enough respect that you listen to what I have to say without first assuming that I know nothing, and enough respect to find out what I know before trying to correct what I didn't say. Now isn't that a lot to ask for. But it had to come to this point, to the point that you ignored all the compliments and benefits of the doubt before you could comprehend the feeling and still, I'm sure you will come back to this post and say but see I didn't do that your posts say you don't know anything, amd still you will refuse to listen to what I am saying. Such is life, Have a great Day!

 

[razzelflabben]

ok. Let's try to untangle this authority business. In one of his posts, ed cited this quote from Carl Sagan.

"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
​

Clearly, Sagan is contrasting "authority" with "fact". Just as I have been contrasting "authority" with "reason" and "nature".


Does this mean that Sagan also rejects the "authority" of fact? Clearly not. What he is saying is that no "authority" can override the authority of fact.

Similarly, I am saying that no authority can override the authority of reason and nature. (And I might add, that the authority of reason is also sub-ordinate to the authority of nature. However reasonable an argument might be, if facts of nature contradict it, it is reason which must yield to fact, not vice versa.)

A similar situation occurs in scripture:

1 Corinthians 27 begins with the statement, "For God has put all things in subjection under his [Christ's] feet."

All things? Not quite. As Paul goes on to explain: "When it says 'all things are put in subjection' it is plain this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him."

So "all" in this case does not include God the Father, but only all the things which the Father puts in subjection under Christ. (Equally clearly, it does not include Christ himself.)

In the same way, when Sagan says arguments from authority are worthless, he is clearly exempting arguments from fact, and upholding the authority of fact in the face of competing authorities. And that is also what I was saying in my statements above.

Who then are the competing authorities? They are human individuals, human institutions, human traditions who may have legitimate authority in other fields of human life. e.g. the President has legitimate authority over the armed forces; the Supreme Court has authority over the interpretation of the constitution; for Christians the bible is authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine, etc.

But in science, these do not have authority. Their authority can never take precedence over the authority of the facts of nature. They can't even stand in the position of an alternative of equal value. As Sagan says: "Whatever is inconsistent with the facts ... must be discarded or revised."

So when I said I rejected authority, it was on the same basis as Sagan does here. Just as God himself is exempt from the "all things" which are placed under subjection to Christ, so the facts of nature are exempt from the authorities implied in "arguments from authority".

So, yes, I do accept the facts of nature (observations, evidence) as authoritative in science. And I do accept reasonable inferences from the evidence, with the proviso that the reasonable inferences have themselves been tested against the facts of nature.

(So, I am eating my words here, as requested. I am sorry that I assumed what I thought was obvious.)

But I do not accept any competing authority as having the capacity to override the authority of fact and valid reasoning as a basis of science.

Other authorities may have legitimacy in their own fields, but, by definition, they are not scientific authorities.

If that is clear, can we drop the conversation on authority?

Finally after examples and definitions and pages of debate, you are comprehending the base of what I am saying. To expound a bit, the whole issue begans when I tried to explain way back when that if one person can to the debate accepting science, or observations as our only means of knowing truth/fact. And another, accepting the authority of God or the bible as truth/fact. Then they are not likely to see things the same way, so it is important when promoting communication to establish what authority we are using to determine fact/truth. All of this just to come to the same conclusion that I started with and ....oh well, I'm not going to start anthing, we have at least some level of agreement and that is like gold on this thread.

They are general statements which, judging as best I can from your own words, I believe can be applied to you personally. My judgment, of course, can be in error, but I would need to see something from you to correct it.

don't recall what this was in reference to.

And speciation is evidence for universal common ancestry. It is not the only evidence, but it is part of the evidence for universal common ancestry.

It is not observation, but inferrance.

Exceptions don't change the general rule. In fact, as the proverb says: "Exceptions prove the rule." My background is language and literature, and you have many examples there. "I before E, except after C, or when sounded like "ay" as in "neighbour" and "weigh". The two exceptions do not change the fact that in most words, I does come before E. The perceptual difficulties of one person don't change the fact that in most cases our own observations are reliable---especially when there are many eyewitnesses agreeing with our observations.

but an exception can falsify an entire theory aren't you the one who told me this about the toc? As I recall it, it was you who said this.

I did not say "popular scientific opinion" I said "scientific opinion". Please stop attributing your words to me.

okay, forget the popular for the moment, focus on the word opinion. A scientists opinion is no more valiable than my opinion, his may or may not be based on more scientific "evidence", but opinion is not fact, nor must it be the basis for our understanding of fact.

Freely use what? The word "origin"? Of course they do. But unlike you, they do not use it without qualification. They specify "origin of the universe" "origin of galaxies" "origin of the earth" "origin of biotic organisms" "origin of species" "origin of the eye" "origin of H. sapiens" etc. They don't use the bare term "origins" to lump all these together as if it was one scientific subject.

see the references to sites in my last post to ed.

But I didn't.

But I didn't read them. As I told you when I entered that conversation, I read only your own posts and responded only to your own posts.

I still have not even read the "misquoted, twisted words of another" much less accepted them "automatically" as fact.

Except that the twisted out of context stuff was the basis for the thread in question and when I addressed the lies, you among others ignored what I said to bring the discussion back to the things that were twisted and our of context. But water under the bridge if you at least begin to listen to what I am telling you rather than assuming based on your assumptions.

 

[gluadys]

I tried to explain way back when that if one person can to the debate accepting science, or observations as our only means of knowing truth/fact.

No one here has said that science is our only means of knowing truth. But it is axiomatic that science is our only means of knowing scientific truth. You can't use the bible as a basis for science. You would have to check out a biblical statement using science to determine if it was scientifically true.

It is not observation, but inferrance.

Speciation is an observation. Do you want the references again?

but an exception can falsify an entire theory aren't you the one who told me this about the toc?

That would depend on the nature of the exception. If it affects only part of the theory, and if it is possible to revise the theory to include the exception, then the entire theory is not falsified. But it does have to be revised to include the exception. It cannot be left as it is.

If no possible revision of the theory can account for the exception, then the theory as a whole is falsified.

okay, forget the popular for the moment, focus on the word opinion. A scientists opinion is no more valiable than my opinion, his may or may not be based on more scientific "evidence", but opinion is not fact, nor must it be the basis for our understanding of fact.

No. It is not true that all opinions are equally valid. That is why courts designate some people as "expert witnesses". This is a recognition that in their area of expertise, these people's opinions are more valid that someone who knows nothing or very little about the subject.

No one says that opinion per se is fact. But your opinion based on no evidence at all that speciation is not a fact is not of equal weight with a biologist's opinion based on actual observation that speciation is a fact. Since the biologist's opinion is based on his own experience, most people will assign more truth value to his opinion than yours and conclude that speciation is a fact. Some may ask to see the evidence or at least documentation of the observation before they come to that conclusion. And good on them if they do.

 

[Edx]

When I came to this thread, I had hopes of real communication, but one thing I have learned over many years of learning to listen to others is that sometimes, no matter what evidence is in front of thier face, some people just can't bring themselves to accept truth/fact.

And what "fact and truth" are you talking about? What evidence have you apparently provided to show this fact and truth are so obvious anyone should be able to accept it?

When talking to these people, the arguement can go on endlessly, it is much more effective to simply state what is known and leave it go. This is what I am going to do with this post. We have been over these things so many times it is sad, and I have humored you by addressing them so many times, but it is obvious that you would rather live in your idalistic world and ignore the truth/facts that are staring you in the eyes, so....stay in your little world and say what you must,

All this coming from a someone that believes in spontaneous magical Creation. Oh but wait... your not a creationist. I forgot.

and your point is......

I do wish you would take the time to think for a moment, maybe take a while longer on a post rather than rushing through it at light speed.

My point was simply that yes, we cannot "observe" universal common ancestry. Its not something anyone can "observe", just like one cannot observe the formation of the Grand Canyon. That doesnt make it any less science or an assumption to infer from the evidence how the Grand Canyon was formed. It doesnt make it any less a fact. See if we decided science was only restricted to what is directly observable we would have to throw out rather a lot of it. Common ancestry is also not an "assumption", its the only logical scientific conclusion that explains the evidence. If you ever get to the point where evidence is the discussion, you will be show this. Of course whether you are as pedantic, semantical and purposely difficult as you have been here to disregard anything you are shown, remains to be seen.

But what I asked you is why you assumed that I didn't understand common ancestry when I used the word correctly, and in fact, said the same thing about it that glaudys had said only a few posts earlier. ....This is a double standard and since the theme of this thread is communication and not who is right and who is wrong, it is appopriate to tell you that this reasoning is harmful to communication.

It was necessary that it be explained since you already demonstrated a lack of understanding of the scientific method and of various other scientific terms. Yes I assumed you didnt understand. Correct. But it was necessary to explain the term you had used, so we knew you understood what it was you were saying, since history had shown you would probably use it the wrong way, through ignorence. Your understanding has been like that of a Creationist, full of misconceptions. As such I had no reason to think you understood common ancestry anymore than you understood any of the other things.

and disrepectfully assumes that the individual knows nothing .

It wasnt disresprect. Youve been showing a ignorence of science since the beginning, you just cant accept that. All I did was to tell you what common ancestry was, as did gluadys. I should have known you would get stroppy. After all how dare anyone suggest Razzelflabben doesnt understand something?

I only recall addressing this issue once, so I'll quickly review it for you. I told you that peer review could be biased just as a jury could be biased and If I were wanting to objectively look at the evidence, I would reject the biased juror just as I might reject a biased peer review. Your response to this was a long quote that showed several times this bias that I am talking about and even evidenced it's practice.

Except for the millionth time, peer review does not work like a jury. Find me anything on peer review that says it works like a jury, I dare you to. You wont be able to. Your comparision is a fallacy, based on the fact that you dont understand what you are talking about (again). If you had read what Aron had said, you would have read that even if something does get published it still undergoes the peer review process when everyone then critiques it, and everyone critiques the critiques and so on. Eventually any bias that might have had any determental effect on the science will be found out, especially if its as obvious as what you are suggesting. That paper will then be cited again and again by critics, wishing to show every way you are wrong. It wont do much for your reputation.

The scientific method is a self corrective process. No one got anywhere in science without challenging accepted ways of thinking. Steven Hawking proposed the Big Bang Theory which flew in the face of the then generally accepted "steady state" Theory, and Einstein revised Newtons long-accepted Theory of gravity in the last century. Every landmark scientist and thinker in history has done exactly that as far back as Galileo and Socrates. Thats what you do when you want to gain prestige and respect in science, which IS to start a fight and challenge the dominant Theory and accepted way of thinking, and if you can, refine it or replace it with one of your own that explains the evidence better. The way The Nobel Prize is won, I might add, is by finding the flaws in revaluing theories and by proposing something that improves our understanding.

Yet despite all that you are suggesting some kind of monolithic worldwide conspiracy of silence throughout the entire scientific coummunity, where nothing against Evolution, Geology or Cosmology (or anything else Creationists feel like attacking) can ever be stated. To posit such a thing is paranoid and delusional, frankly. And your weak attempt to mischaracterize peer review is just a way to avoid these obvious implications because you want to believe that Creationist material is somehow on equal footing.

Ed: You dont understand that an observation without theory is meaningless

Razzel: huh? Based on what?

Based on the fact that you said this, among other things:

"Why must a "theory" be the unifying tie of modern biology? Why is it impossible for an observed process (speciation) to be the foundation for our modern biological exploration? That I can agree with"

Therefore you dont understand that without theory, the observed process is meaningless and tells us nothing. That is why Gravity, Aerodynamics and Evolution are all facts and theories.

be careful, glaudys used the word authority exactly as I have, but I am the one using the word wrong and no one accepts the use of the words as I use them. Right...... see above and glaudys posts using the word identically to the way I have used the word from the moment it was first used

No, not "exactly the same" at all. You use it to mean everything. In your world there is no such thing as an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy as you claim the scientific method, and facts and evidence (actually anything at all) can be called our authorites too in the same way the Bible is to a Creationist. So therefore everyone is commiting the Appeal to Authority fallacy all of the time. So explain why the Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy if this is the case. And explain how no one who understands why the Appeal to Authority fallacy is a fallacy uses the word authority the way you do.

. looking forward to discussing it with you when this and glaudys thread are done. All in good time.

So are you going to start using scientific terms correctly, and seriously try and understand how the scientific method works then?

but the toe doesn't explain why the cat meows, it can theorize why, it can explain it in light of the toe, but it requires a seperate theory

The Theory of Evolution itself doesnt explain it, I didnt suggest that. Evolution theory does however tie together the studies such as Zoology and genetics to understand better the reasons and mechanisms behind the cats 'meow'.

now this isn't even the entire text but lets look at the part you are willing to post. The post is not talking about the theory itself, but the assumptions made by the theory. .

If we accept assumptions as fact that is wrong, of course. That is why.. "All assumptions must be critically examined...Whatever is inconsistent with the facts -- no matter how fond of it we are -- must be discarded or revised. "- Carl Sagan

Scientific method requires that observation be our evidence of what is fact, .

That is somewhat true. But conclusions can also be inferred from the evidence of what is not directly observable. Such as the birth of your grandparents, the formation of the grand canyon and science used in crime scene investigations. All of this must be logically inferred from the evidence, because they can not be observed directly. See also above.

every time someone says evolution is fact and theory they show one of two things, 1. lack of knowledge of what theory is, or 2. a total lack of respect for what others know and understand about science.

Well then since you apparently know more than everyone else, provide a scientific source that agrees with you here that science such as Evolution, Gravity and Aeodynamics are not facts and theories.

That is the problem with allowing people to understand that theory is based on facts when talking about things like gravity but specify that the toe is fact and theory. It makes the toe sound inferrior and quite frankly I don't think it is an inferior theory though the more "evidence" I am shown here

--snip--

Why arent you listening? I keep telling you that Evolution is no less a fact and theory than Gravity, yet you keep insisting we are treating it differently. Evolution doesnt have special treatment, okay? Now are you going stop misrepresenting my position?

If the theory of evolution is the mechanism of evolution (note nothing about whether or not it is scientific, see other definitions as well) and the theory of creation is the mechanism of creation,

You see this is what Im talking about. You are using the word "mechanism" completely inappropriatly. Evolution theory isnt the "mechanism" for Evolution. How could it be? The mechanism for Evolution is mutation and natural selection. How can you claim to understand what you are talking about when you say "the theory of evolution is the mechanism of evolution"? That just shows you have no idea what you are saying. Seriously sometimes its like you know less the more this thread goes on. Unless of course this is another typo.

then they are able to be used side by side in a discussion that is comparing the two theories.

Exactly my point. You used them together (ToC, and ToE) because you felt they were comparable. Since I have already pointed out that the theory of Creation is nothing like Evolution theory, its misleading to put them together because you consider them on some level equal. So that is why I argued against you using the term "theory of Creation" in this discussion for exactly this reason. See also below.

But nothing in the op limited the discussion to scientific terms .

There were only 3 words that werent scientific. "Creation", "theory of Creation" and "kind". You chose to call Creationism, "theory of Creation", which is misleading as it suggest you think its equally scientific as the theory of Evolution. "Kind" is a made up term by Creationists but is claimed to be scientific. See if Creationists dont claim to be doing science and that their objections are religious not scientific, I have no problem, but they do claim to be doing science and they do claim their objections are scientific, so this discussion is ultimately about scientific terms.

Okay, you could misinterpret that so let me clarify, I had gotten no answer to my question. But oh wait a minute, you left out some of my post, maybe that is why you didn't understand what I was saying. Either way, it should be cleared up now.

But you did get an answer. You also said that I refused to answer. Thats a lie. You also said I had acted as if you were stupid, thats also a lie. To anyone reading what you said, they would take what you said to mean that I didnt answer you at all, that I acted like you were stupid for asking and that I changed the subject and refused. Which is not true at all.

I answered your question in the same way I have done recently, it was just wasnt as detailed. So that doesnt mean you are getting no answer, it means I clearly havent understood what your question was asking for. But instead of saying what it was in my last answer that wasnt good enough, and rephrase, you just asked it the same way each time. The communication problem was yours.

Ed

 

[Edx]

You could have answered the question with less than a sentence, the question was, do you think that evolution is the foundation of modern biology or that the theory of evolution is modern biology?

Uh... no. Thats not what the question was at all...

"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?"

See now thats a different question. A question I had already answered all the other times you asked it. Of course you deny that, because you wont admit you didnt communicate properly.

and your short answer could have simply been "the theory of evolution". that only took for words and you could have left of the word the and still been clear as well you could have shortened the aswer to 3 letters and answered the question with toe. How cool and simple is that?

Yes, how cool and simple. Shame thats not the question you asked. Shame you asked why "origins" is taught as the foundation of modern biology, and when I answer with why Evolution theory is taught you say thats not "origins".

And how simple would it have been to read what was written? Was I refering to the specific process, or the theory? Well, what did I say?....I said: "Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together" See a process isnt a theory, its a process. So either you dont understand what a theory really is or you didnt read properly.

It's obvious I don't understand that we can know that we have grandparents because I ask how that concept applies to my comments that we can not observed universal common ancestry. .

And we told you several times. And I told you again in the post you were replying to. Are you seriously saying you dont understand the comparison?

Ed: Another example of you not understanding AND not listening.

I didnt say there was a "theory of biology".I also didnt say it was "what biology consist souly of".

I didnt actually say the theory of Evolution WAS biology. What I actually said was that it is the single unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together, such as genetics, zoology, molocular biology, botany and taxonomy. etc

Razzel: I offered two different understandings for your post and you only choose one to show I don't understand or listen. Very savy.....

No I didnt. Now dont sidestep, admit you didnt listen to what I said and read into it. I never "ignored all the individual theories", I simply said Evolution theory is the single unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together. But nowhere did I suggest it was a "theory of biology", or that it was "what biology consist souly of". You were attacking a strawman of your own creation.

And I have never heard you say a kind word or anything that resembles a kind of understanding about what creation says but you want me to bow before your superior understanding of creation and those who believe creation, ignoring all the science and scientific evidence so that I can view creation the same cynical and bitter way you do.

So you are claiming I have caricatured Creationism then. Nonsence. The way I have described it is exactly what it is. I have researched Creationism far more than you have, clearly. I know their arguments, and I know they are inherently unscientific, and that they are willing to caricature and misrepresent Evolution at every opportunity. And it all seems to start with the use of scientific terms and definitons. They never argue against Evolution (or whatever else) on a level playing field, because thats not their agenda

No thanks, I will give them both equal billing until science shows otherwise. And so as not to get into that discussion as the moment. I did not say that science hasn't done this, only that I will view them equally until science shows otherwise.

Do you think science has ignored all the evidence of Geocentricity? Same difference.

So hear the words and don't read into them what is not there.

Coming from you...

Do you understand what a scientific theory is or should I point you back to a discussion with glaudys were she assumed that because I held her accountable for what she said that I didn't understand how a theory becomes a theory? A scientific theory is based on fact/observation. It is elementary science.

A theory is more than that, but the understanding is certianly elementary. However someone with even an elementary understanding of science would not call scientific theories like Gravity "only a theory" or Aerodynamics "only a theory". Apples still fell even when Einstein proposed General Relativity revising Newtons theory, and Bowing 747s and fighter jets are still designed on the basis of Aerodynamics.

So that when we teach gravity and aerodynamics, we understand that it is fact and theory and thus do not need to bring it up or specify that theory is fact and theory. And indeed, I have yet to read a paper on one of these theories or be a a class where one is being taught, and hear someone say that "the theory of gravity is fact and theory", "the theory of aerodynamics is fact and theory

--snip---

How many times do I have to tell you the same thing? The only reason I brought up the fact that Evolution is a fact and a theory was because you said Evolution was "only a theory". Thats the only reason why someone would state this 'elementary' fact of science. Im afriad creationist misconceptions generally mean you do have to get this simple. See also above.

Ed: You use the word origins in a way that renders it vague and meaningless

Razzel: defined it as is often defined, even looked up the definition go figure!

No, you didnt look it up. If you mean a dictionary definiton that isnt a scientific source. Origins is not a subject in science. You cannot use it to mean everything. No one in science uses the word like that. It needs a qualifier to make it meaningfull.

Ed: and you suggest people say "origins" is the foundation of modern biology when no one suggests such a thing.

Razzel: where did I say that?

Many places. Heres two.

"the OP question that the question about our schools was about teaching origins in schools and not a specific theory thus your answer falls short.... The schools teach origins all the time...walk into any science classroom and you will see a section devoted to our origins"

"I fail to see how the issue of our origins is the foundation for modern biology.... how then is out origins the foundation for modern biology?"

second time you dared me so I will post it again so you don't miss it
http://www.macalpine.org/research/
http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW1/MG132.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evo...definition.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/059733.htm

I'll go through these one by one. As we will see when "origin" and "origins" is used it is used with a qualifier so it is meaningfull, unlike the way you use it as a subject in itself.

In the 1st link its about genes and DNA. "One of the most important unanswered questions in the field of replication is where and how metazoan origins are specified. Replication initiates from multiple sites (origins) throughout the chromosome. These origins are defined by both cis- and trans-acting factors."

In the 2nd link its subject is also Molecular Genetics. The heading is "origins", but the subject is everything to do with Genetics. Note that like the above it is also not being used as a subject in itself like you use it. "Characteristics used to define Origins: * The position on the DNA at which replication start points (see right) are found. **A DNA sequence that when added to a non-replicating DNA causes it to replicate.***A DNA sequence whose mutation abolishes replication. ****A DNA sequence that in vitro is the binding target for enzyme complexes known to function in initiation of DNA replication. "

In the 3nd, talk origins link, there is no mention of "origin" or "origins" here. Did you even read these links? I doubt it. Ive been trying to get you to read this ever since you asked what the difference between Evolution and Theory of Evolution was.

The 4th link is a news report. This site is not a scientific source, which is what I asked for. Common usage is irrelevant. But this news report still tells you what they are actually talking about.

Ed: And if Evolution did not mean origins, then you are talking complete nonsence. Just what exactly were you talking about when you said "how is origins the foundation for modern biology?" I took that to mean Evolution, since no one considers anything but the theory of Evolution as the foundation for modern biology. So if Evolution isnt "origins" in this case, just what could you possibily be talking about?

Razzel: In that sentence it was referring to evolution, being that is the prominant theory.

So it was referring to Evolution? And so when i said "Because Evolution is the framework and unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together". You responded with, "Now this article is talking about evolution and not our origins" ??

And all if this seems clear to you?

And you haven't comprehended yet that that is all I am asking of you?! That just because I don't know everything doesn't mean that I don't know anything, and that I don't listen.

But what you have written show you dont understand certain things. That being science as a whole, including its terms and methods.

You misrepresent what I say,

A lie and hypocrisy, wow.

you ignore the clarifications,

Considering the last few replies, thats laughable.

you take things our of context, read into them what is not there, you read a comment but don't read it

Same as above.

instead read a creationists argueemnt that might sound similar all so that you can accuse me of not knowing anything and not listening.

Nonsense. Your misconceptions and misrepresentations are creationist misconceptions. When you said Evolution is "only a theory" you ignored my response, even though it still fit your argument. In essence what you are accusing me of above is like the opposite of what you do. As soon as you think Im addressing your argument as if it was a Creationist argument you ignore it completely not even trying to understand despite the fact that it still applies.

It requires a little tiny bit of respect to give people the benefit of the doubt, and really take the time to listen before jumping to conclusions and labeling and that is all I have asked for in this thread, enough respect that you listen to what I have to say without first assuming that I know nothing, and enough respect to find out what I know before trying to correct what I didn't say.

I didnt assume you know nothing, what you have written has told me that you dont undertand the scientific method or its terms.

Now isn't that a lot to ask for.

Well you are misrepresenting the situation, presumabely to try and gain sympathy with any readers. Oh how badly you have been treated! Poor you!

But it had to come to this point, to the point that you ignored all the compliments and benefits of the doubt before you could comprehend the feeling and still!

Ignored "ALL" the compliments? All of them? Really? You must hide them well then through your thick veil of pretentiousness and sarcasm.


Ed

 

[Edx]

No one here has said that science is our only means of knowing truth. But it is axiomatic that science is our only means of knowing scientific truth. .

Technically though, that is kind of what I said. That the scientific method is the only way to really know what is true and what isnt. Though before Razzel remarks on that, that is the same as saying "scientific truth", since that is why I asked her what we really know thanks to anything but science.

Ed