Start communicating

[gluadys]

So then is it fair to say that you understand theory to only be an expression of what we expect to see and not an explaination of what we have seen? Is the toc also able to revise itself?

Will you please read again---very carefully---what I said about predictions.

No, theory is not an expression of expecting to see a prediction verified. The whole point of the test is to see if the prediction is verified or falsified. A good prediction is a risky prediction--one that has a definite probability of not living up to expectations.

If, and only if, the prediction is verified, can we say the theory explains what we observed when testing it. We can say that because the prediction was originally derived from the theory.

As for toc, I reiterate there is no theory of creation.

There is a doctrine of creation---one that all Christians hold to by faith. That cannot be revised.

There is also a theology of creationism that some Christians hold to by faith, although they sometimes claim it is science. But no, it cannot be revised either, as the essence of creationism is a statement of faith which is considered to be unrevisable even if the evidence contradicts it.

This is completely contrary to scientific method which requires revising a theory if it is contradicted by the evidence.

The question is in relation to what circumstancial evidence is, for example, if my fingerprint is found at say my grandmothers house, that doesn't automatically mean that I stole her banana.

No, it only means that you were at your grandmother's house. Additional evidence would be needed to place you at the house at the time of the theft.

When is scientific evidence to weak to explain a theory?

Never. Evidence never explains theories. Theories explain evidence.

Is all evidence even my fingerprint at my grandmothers (so to speak) enough to support the theory I want to support?

Scientific method does not begin with a theory and seek a way to support it.

It begins with evidence that the theory attempts to explain, then seeks to show that the theory is not good enough to explain the evidence. Scientific method is about showing that a theory is false.

But if a theory has been thoroughly tested and never shown to be false, scientists generally treat it as being true---for the time being.

 

[gluadys]

My husband and I were both taught that species are identified by appearance, and not by ability to reproduce.

My goodness! Where on earth did you go to school? I can scarcely believe that even a very bad science teacher would say that any time within the last 300 years!!! or more!

The ability to reproduce has been essential to the definition of sexually reproducing species since long before Linnaeus drew up his taxonomy. In fact, in Darwin's day there were many biologists who considered that some groups were different species even if they could reproduce (e.g. a poulter and a tumbler pigeon).

But no one questioned that if two groups could not reproduce, they were definitely separate species, even if they did look much alike.


btw, I should make one more correction. The biological species concept much used today is not based on ability to reproduce but on the actual occurrence of reproduction. Two similar groups may be able to reproduce, but if for some reason they do not (refusal of females to mate with males of other group, different breeding seasons, etc.) they are still classified as separate species, even if, in experimental conditions, they can reproduce.

 

[Randall McNally]

So when then does philosophy and science seperate?

I don't know that there is such a general place; there are a number of characteristics that would preclude a philosophical argument being scientific - non-empirical, unfalsifiable, etc.

For example, I am a philosopher by nature, but I have limited scientific abilities why is that if philosophy and science are so closely tied? What is the line that seperates the two in your opinion?

"Limited scientific abilities" is not a very meaningful phrase. Anyone who can follow a method can do science. Although we speak in the vernacular about "having a scientific mind" and so forth, what we mean is that a person tends to think analytically or methodically.

 

[gluadys]

I have been told on this forum to look at the scientific defintions, okay, the closest definition I can find from an actual scientific discussion is ....In other words, science is a method of discovering reliable knowledge about nature. .... so I am still stumped by your claims. The above is how I understand science and what it is, the above definately can and does include my understanding of the toc as stated in an earlier post, so what do you understand differently and why and where are you getting your ideas?

Razzelflabben,

When I read the underlined portion above, I was a bit puzzled because I did not remember you posting your understanding of the toc.

I reviewed the thread and found this:

The theory of creation however, is the mechanism and predictions as to how the world and life came into existance, centering on a creator rather than chance. (note nothing about whether it is scientific or not, that is a different discussion)

Would you confirm that this is your understanding of the toc? Or point me to some other post?

btw Why not tell us all what your understanding is of all the terms listed in the OP? As you pointed out to someone earlier, communication is a two-way street, and I am sure we will all understand you better if you gave us your point of view as you have asked us to do.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Conclusions are still hypothetical, because they do not allow the possibility of catastrophe.

Sure they do. Decay of radioactive isotopes have been tested under a variety of conditions and physicists have a pretty good idea of what it would take to alter decay rates.

" Radioactive atoms used for dating have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions far beyond anything experienced by rocks, without any significant change." - Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

The evolutionist who says, "I know this rock is one million years old because I can test the radioactive decay rate and extrapolate," can not substantiate the original makeup of the rock or what external forces were exposed to the rock.

Sure they can. Furthermore, radioactive decay rates can be correlated, not only using various isotopes for cross-checking, but also with non-radioactive dating methods. Correlation of dating methods is always something that seems to get ignored.

"A good part of this article is devoted to explaining how one can tell how much of a given element or isotope was originally present. Usually it involves using more than one sample from a given rock. It is done by comparing the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes relative to a stable isotope for samples with different relative amounts of the parent isotope. For example, in the rubidium-strontium method one compares rubidium-87/strontium-86 to strontium-87/strontium-86 for different minerals. From this one can determine how much of the daughter isotope would be present if there had been no parent isotope. This is the same as the initial amount (it would not change if there were no parent isotope to decay). Figures 4 and 5, and the accompanying explanation, tell how this is done most of the time. While this is not absolutely 100% foolproof, comparison of several dating methods will always show whether the given date is reliable." - Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Take the simple potato-peeling model:

<snip>

Of course, combinations and adjusting the parameters will cause even more corruptions of the conclusions.

However, with respect to decay rates we are dealing with natural forces, not ones subject to human intervention.

So what's the point? Observation only occurs in the present. In the potato peeling example, science was used to observe processes in the present, but the conclusions were only theoretical. The concept of uniformatarianism (things proceed at the same rates at all times with no interference) is flawed. That is why this huge chunk of human knowledge is indeed unreliable!

The concept of uniformatarianism is simply based on the idea that the laws of physics are constant in the universe (unless we have reason to suspect otherwise). This what I was getting at earlier with the basic philosophy of science. Science assumes that the universe is objective. If you want to reject that you can make up anything you want, but then you are no longer doing science.

 

[PMM]

However, with respect to decay rates we are dealing with natural forces, not ones subject to human intervention.

OK, so here is an explanation of how chemical forces affecting decay rates. The analogy still stands.

Furthermore, observable evidence of catastrophism confirms that uniformitarianism is only a theory, not fact. Science can not prove the past, it can only infer what might have happened.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

OK, so here is an explanation of how chemical forces affecting decay rates. The analogy still stands.

Maybe you should read the link I provided first:

"Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. According to theory, electron-capture is the most likely type of decay to show changes with pressure or chemical combination, and this should be most pronounced for very light elements. The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment (Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 171, 325-328, 1999; see also Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 195, 131-139, 2002). In another experiment, a half-life change of a small fraction of a percent was detected when beryllium-7 was subjected to 270,000 atmospheres of pressure, equivalent to depths greater than 450 miles inside the Earth (Science 181, 1163-1164, 1973). All known rocks, with the possible exception of diamonds, are from much shallower depths. In fact, beryllium-7 is not used for dating rocks, as it has a half-life of only 54 days, and heavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent."

You've also ignored the point about correlation of independent dating methods. If dating methods were as random as some creationists would have you believe, there should be no consistancy among independent methods.

Furthermore, observable evidence of catastrophism confirms that uniformitarianism is only a theory, not fact.

What are you talking about? Geologists accept that catastrophic events can and have occurred. It's a matter of finding evidence that they did occur.

Science can not prove the past, it can only infer what might have happened.

Like I said, you can reject the basic philosophical framework for doing science and make up any old story you want. I could argue that the world was created yesterday, you could argue that it was created 6000 years ago, and meanwhile geologists claim it looks 4.5 billion years old. But only one of those conclusions was reached by the scientific method.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

OK, so here is an explanation of how chemical forces affecting decay rates. The analogy still stands.

Irrelevant. The point remains that radiometric dating methods correlate with each other and with other known processes. This should be impossible if radiometric dating methods were as flawed as you want them to be. The relationship between the data in such examples have never been addressed by any creationist from my experience:

http://www.christianforums.com/t50891
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

Furthermore, observable evidence of catastrophism confirms that uniformitarianism is only a theory, not fact. Science can not prove the past, it can only infer what might have happened.

The problem is that you don't understand what uniformitarianism actually is, evidenced by your previously given incorrect definition: "things proceed at the same rates at all times with no interference."

That is not uniformitarianism. That is geologic gradualism.

Uniformitarianism is the principle that the processes working at present worked the same way in the past. We see varves forming today, we see them in the sedimentary rock record; the logical conclusion is that they form by the same process. We see volcanic lahars forming rapidly today, we see them in the geologic record; the logical conclusion is that they form by the same process. Uniformitarianism does not state that the geologic record was formed by uninterrupted, constant processes. Not only is that not uniformitarianism, it's absurd to think that that principle actually underlies the geological sciences.

Uniformitarianism does not preclude catastrophic explanations, provided they are evidenced, of course.

You have created a false dichotomy rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the pertinent science at hand.

 

[razzelflabben]

You will understand if you argue with them long enough and have the understanding that they want their unscientific nonsence taught in science lessons.

I try very hard not to argue at all but instead to discuss and I have discussed many times with both sides. And I have found both sides to be over emotional and disturbing at times. Which is in essences what prompted this thread, and attempt to get both sides to set aside their emotions long enough to listen to what the other group is saying. Isn't hard to do, btw, they consider the evolutionist view the same as you do, that the evolutionist wants their unscientific nonsence taught in the science lessons and the reasons are very much so the same. Take some time to listen and you might be able to better explain your side of the issue.

Yes. Now "Creationists" would think the book was magically poofed out of nothing fully formed.

Not necessarily, what you are missing in this idea is that creation has nothing to do with our orgins. The term creation is not specific to origins. Creation means to make something. The theory of creation then explores a smaller, more detailed, specific creation, that of the world and life. Much as the general understanding of evolution is different from the theory of evolution. More is included and excluded alike. So the book we made, is not assumed to be in existance magically because the creationist doesn't apply the idea of "magical existance" to everything created. Does that make sense now? The creationist is dealing not with creation alone, but with the creation of our world. That is why it is important to understand that whether or not you see the theory of creation as scientific, it does have a meaning. That meaning to you might only be that we are removing certain variables to isolate out what we are talking about, but it does have meaning.

There are no mechanisms, and one of the main reasons why "the theory of Creation" isnt science in any way at all is that it has no idea what mechanisms there are except it was gods magic


Ed

Okay, as I said earlier, my understanding for the word creation is broad, it means in essence to make something. That does not say in anyway shape or form who, what, how, when it was created. Even if we specify creation to be the world and/or life, we have not addressed the who what when and wheres. As I understand the words, the theory of creation is where those things are addressed and as I understand it, that is the machanics of the creation of the world/life. This is the differences I see between the words creation and the theory of creation.

 

[razzelflabben]

My point was that it isnt science, and Creationism and ID are inherently unscientific.

Ed

This can be disputed, but it is your opinion, just as mine is that God has evidenced himself to us. To discuss it further is outside the purpose of this thread which is why I offered to discuss it in a pm. This thread is not about disproving one anothers ideas or understandings, but to listen to what others believe and understand.

 

[Ledifni]

Now, when I do a web search to find out what part of the idea of science I am missing here, this is the definitions that come up that fit the discussion....
<LI>Science is a process for evaluating empirical knowledge (the scientific method), a global community of scholars, and the organized body of knowledge gained by this process and carried by this community (and others). Natural sciences study nature; social sciences study human beings and society.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

[size=-1]<LI>a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study
www6.nos.noaa.gov/coris/glossary.lasso[/size]
Last time I checked, our existance was empirical knowledge and any study of that empirical knowledge is included in science. In addition, the toc does include making empirical observations, proposes hypotheses of explaination, and tests can and are done to examine those hypotheses. So how please is the toc not scientific? I have been told on this forum to look at the scientific defintions, okay, the closest definition I can find from an actual scientific discussion is ....In other words, science is a method of discovering reliable knowledge about nature. .... so I am still stumped by your claims. The above is how I understand science and what it is, the above definately can and does include my understanding of the toc as stated in an earlier post, so what do you understand differently and why and where are you getting your ideas?

Forget all of that. The so-called "Theory of Creation" is neither a theory nor science, because it meets none of the conditions for a theory nor was it developed using the rules by which science discovers reliable knowledge about nature. Science has these rules because common sense and intuition ARE NOT RELIABLE. Thus, there are rules -- which we call the Scientific Method -- that define how we must do science in order for it to accomplish its purpose. As creationism flatly ignores these rules, it is not science.

As far as where I'm getting my ideas -- for the love of God, go to college, man. But in the meantime, this should explain the matter to you.

This is the first time I have read on this thread that science is unscientific, please show me where littlenipper said this! Much less that creationism is scientific, not science! I am trying to listen to all sides, but I fail to see where littlenipper said what you claim here. Please show me so that we are on the same page.

He claimed that evolution is unscientific and that creationism is, in the post I responded to. On the contrary, evolution is science and is fully accepted by the worldwide scientific community, whild creationism is not science is any way whatsoever.

Well first off, I have not seen anyone here claiming that creation is religion, in fact, I think this is the first time I have heard this claim. The claim that it is understood by religion is common, but that it is religion is a new one. Secondly, I would like to ask you to explain your ideas of what religion is.

I am telling you that creationism is religion, because it is. It is not science, it is a faith-based belief. And that is not a "new claim" -- it is what any reputable scientist will tell you.

Actually, I am trying to get people to start communicating and listening to each other rather than to always argue. Isn't that a terrible thing to have happen?!

But you're trying to get people to listen to what is false, confusing, and misleading. Rather, you would do better to exhort people to learn the correct terms and definitions and facts so that they can correctly discuss science. This idea of getting science to compromise with nonscience is a very bad idea, believe me.

Now, I really don't get this at all, firstly, theory is not limited to science at least in my understanding of theory,

As long as we're talking about evolution vs. creationism (which is the subject of this board) then the word "theory" is limited to science. When we start using the colloquial definition of "theory" it becomes impossible to discuss science, since that definition has absolutely nothing to do with science and is so ambiguous as to be virtually useless as a word even in common speech.

we can have theories in all kinds of things, like, the theory of why this thread was started as you mention above, the theory of, why my children are tall, the theory of why I sometimes can't spell a word right to save myself, there are thousands of things I can have a theory about and the only ones I have heard here making claims as to how scientific the toc is are evolutionists. (the above being the first to the contrary and believe it or not I am not a creationist nor and evolutionist by definition, so I guess that still leaves us at the same place) secondly, whether you believe that the toc is scientific or not, does not mean that the term does not exist. If the terms exist then there is a meaning to the terms somewhere in this discussion and any discussion that denys that is meaningless dribble. You may not know what it means, you may believe it means something different from what someone else thinks it means, etc. but there is a meaning and that meaning must be identified before communication can continue.

Yes, there is a meaning, of course. The meaning is well-defined and easy to learn. Unfortunately, creationists willfully misunderstand the meaning continually -- and you want us to solve this problem by using the completely useless definition used by creationists. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

Okay, so you then are saying that scientific theory is offered before an observation or after? I have talked to evolutionists that cannot agree with which it is, because their claims are inconsistant. Which do you hold to? Please review the following defintions for scientific theory before you claim that it is a consistant understanding. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2003-34,GGLD:en&oi=defmore&q=define:scientific+theory

Razzelflabben, I won't play this game. The scientific method is not in question, and if I answer your question as you've phrased it then I am implicitly claiming that what I say is merely my opinion. It's not. It's the way science is strictly defined by all scientists so it can proceed accurately. Now, go do some research, it really isn't that difficult, and learn something about how science works. Then we can discuss the scientific method and actually get somewhere.

WE are not preforming some scientific experiment here, we are trying to establish meaningful communication.

Correction: you are trying to establish meaningless communication, which does nobody any good at all.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, not every study of the empirical knowledge of our existence is included in science. The study has to follow the scientific method as well. Based on observed data, it has to construct a testable hypothesis and then run the test and analyse the results. And finally, one has to submit it to other scientists in the field for criticism.

Apparently, in spite of many people telling you that there is no theory of creation, you wish to assert that there is.

Now many claims have been made that the toc makes no testable predictions, a simple web search shows us just the opposite. But this is not a discussion about whether it is or is not scientific, so I will leave you to look for yourself. Suffice to say that there are testable predictions made and it is easy to find information that evidences this. Thanks for your opinion, I have shown you where my opinion comes from any further discussion should be done on a different thread or pmed.

So let me ask you: in your understanding of the "theory of creation" is it asserted that a deity used supernatural means to create at least one species?

If yes---that alone makes a "theory of creation" unscientific.

If you need further explanation of this, just ask.

I understand what you are saying, at least I think I do, you are saying that science cannot evidence the supernatural. Now I could say that it can and does, it just can't prove it, but again that is off topic and in fact is off the e vs. c debate as well. What I am suggesting to you that is valid to this discussion is that 1. the theory of creation does not have to be considered scientific in order to be considered a theory. So your understand of the theory of creation must be that the term is only refering to the scientific nature of the creation of the world? or life? or both? and 2. That the theory of creation offers more to us than simply "God did it" which apparently you do not understand. Would that also be correct? You see the theory of creation only as saying "God did it"?

Scientific theories are limited to science. Scientific theories are not mere guesses or opinions. They are conclusions based on testing out hypotheses.

Right, but theories don't have to be restricted to scientific in my opinion and in fact, I have heard those on this thread express the idea that the toc is not scientific theory. So it would seem that your understanding is that only scientific theory exists?

You may have an opinion about why your children are tall, or why you can't spell. But unless you have tested that opinion using the scientific method, it is not a theory in the sense that science uses the term.

If I form a hypotheses, and test that huypotheses, and observe within and without that hypotheses, when what makes it not scientific? By the criteria you presented of your understanding, I can identify my "opinion" theory as scientific if I follow through with scientific methods.

There are lots of terms that apply to things that don't exist: e.g. tooth fairy or unicorn. The terms for them exist, and the terms have a meaning. It doesn't mean that what the terms apply to exist.

Just so, we can use a phrase like "theory of creation" and even give it a definition. That doesn't mean that a "theory of creation" actually exists any more than it means a unicorn exists.

In scientific terms, there is no "theory of creation".

So then, if it makes testable predictions, what seperates it from scientific theory? Your above explaination does not isolate the toc from science unless...you assume the only thing the toc says is that God did it. Is this your premise?

 

[Ledifni]

In fact, I am a woman and though my children think I know everything about the age of the dinosaurs, I assure you I am no where close to that age young one, the changes to the definitions of species are relatively new ones though I would not expect you to understand this at your age.

Oh, really? As you're so much older and wiser than me, why don't you explain this? Please, tell me how the definition of "species" is today "much different" from what it was when you were in school. What was the definition then, and what is it now?

(The accusation of a "changing definition of species" is one of the typical creationist PRATTs, so your reply to me should be amusing)

Change in definitions equals a time when there is confusion in getting the changes known. It is these changes, and the time in which change is occuring that people get lost and confused and loose track of what people are saying.

No, not really. Scientific definitions change rarely enough that for any reasonably educated person, such moments of confusion at a new definition will be few and far between. Furthermore, when scientific definitions do change, they change only slightly -- a large change means a new term with a new definition. Last and most important, for a scientist who cares to be honest and reliable, one need explain the change in the definition only once and then there is no more problem. Creationists do not listen to correction -- you guys believe that you know everything and science knows nothing, and thus you assume that science should drop everything, shut up, and learn from you.

There is really no issue here except that you people refuse to learn about or understand the subject you're discussing. If you would, there would be no confusion.

Huh? communication is a two way street young one, it involves two or more people, not one. No one is at fault, it is a flaw in the speaking and listening and the interpretation there of. Someone has had to explain this to you somewhere along the line. Communication is the responsibility of two individuals not just one.

Not when the discipline they are discussing is impossible to discuss or properly conduct without using the correct definition, old one. When one does not know one's subject, old one, such as you do not, one needs to learn that subject before discussing it, isn't that so? You would do well to get an education.

Does this mean you are lumping me in the catagory of creationist without knowing what I believe?

Pretty much. Everything you've posted so far has been full of typical creationist misunderstandings and PRATTs. If you accept evolution but have this many misconceptions, you might as well be a creationist for the purposes of this discussion. But I don't for one second believe you're not a creationist.

This is a totally different picture I have gotten from the creationist that are willing to communicate. I wonder why the differences in our experiences?

Why? I don't know, my dear, but I suspect that you see no problem with creationists entrenching themselves in ignorance because you believe that their ignorance is actually wisdom.

I have run into quite a few, sorry to disappoint you.

Nope, you haven't

You've perhaps run into nonscientists pretending to be scientists (creationists, for example) who think such a ridiculous thing. But you haven't run into any scientists who think that. For such a thing to be true, the person would have to be completely ignorant of the scientific method, which would mean that he/she is a nonscientist by definition.

So are you cliaming that every person debating here on the forum is a scientist or just that every evolutionist debating on the forum is a scientist? I have talked to both that admit to the contrary.

I don't know who on here is or is not a scientist. There's no way to verify claims about who somebody is over the Internet. I can point to people who are not scientists, due to their obvious ignorance of science, but I can't point with certainty to anyone who is a scientist IRL.

I am not asking for the meanings to be changed, only clarified. And btw, I take it from this paragraph that you don't believe that there is any belief system involved in the toe?

I won't play this game, lady. I will not let you ask me questions about matters on which science must remain consistent if you are going to phrase it as "my belief" or "my opinion." I will not stake the very foundations of science on how wise others think me. I suggest you do the research yourself.

 

[razzelflabben]

There is a doctrine of creation---one that all Christians hold to by faith. That cannot be revised.

There is also a theology of creationism that some Christians hold to by faith, although they sometimes claim it is science. But no, it cannot be revised either, as the essence of creationism is a statement of faith which is considered to be unrevisable even if the evidence contradicts it.

This is completely contrary to scientific method which requires revising a theory if it is contradicted by the evidence.

This is new to me, the idea that religion cannot revise itself. I see this revision taking place in all kinds of denominations even today. The Catholic church is probably the most publisized but it exists in everything from birth control to women clergy, and many many more. It seems that our observations would falsify your claims here, but your opiniion is safe. religion cannot revise itself, thus the doctrine of creation cannot revise itself. Debate left for another thread or a pm. Thanks, helps me to understand what you are saying.

No, it only means that you were at your grandmother's house. Additional evidence would be needed to place you at the house at the time of the theft.

Right, so back to the original question when is "evidence" not sufficient to verify a theory. Let's see if I can clarify the question even more. I would predict that my fingerprint would be found at the scene of the crime, how does that evidence tell us anything about who stole the banana? When is evidence to weak to tell us anything about the original theory?

Never. Evidence never explains theories. Theories explain evidence.

So then by this explaination, then even my fingerprint at my grandmothers house is evidence of the crime because it is predicted by the theory that I was at my grandmothers home around the time of the crime? Is that what you are saying?

Scientific method does not begin with a theory and seek a way to support it.

Right but many scientists work this way, they begin with a theory and seek a way to support it. Case in point, I watched a documentary on Mars, the scientists, when they didn't find what they expected, didn't say, humm, we may have been wrong, let's keep looking, instead they said, keep looking it has to be there somewhere. This is backwards from what you are expressing but definately part of the scientists world. Again, an example of why this thread exists and why it is important to communication.

It begins with evidence that the theory attempts to explain, then seeks to show that the theory is not good enough to explain the evidence. Scientific method is about showing that a theory is false.

In the ideal world. Thanks

 

[razzelflabben]

My goodness! Where on earth did you go to school? I can scarcely believe that even a very bad science teacher would say that any time within the last 300 years!!! or more!

The ability to reproduce has been essential to the definition of sexually reproducing species since long before Linnaeus drew up his taxonomy. In fact, in Darwin's day there were many biologists who considered that some groups were different species even if they could reproduce (e.g. a poulter and a tumbler pigeon).

But no one questioned that if two groups could not reproduce, they were definitely separate species, even if they did look much alike.


btw, I should make one more correction. The biological species concept much used today is not based on ability to reproduce but on the actual occurrence of reproduction. Two similar groups may be able to reproduce, but if for some reason they do not (refusal of females to mate with males of other group, different breeding seasons, etc.) they are still classified as separate species, even if, in experimental conditions, they can reproduce.

I must have expressed that poorly, relying too much on the referenced site and not enough on my ideas of species. We were taught the old definition. He began school in Nigeria then moved to Ohio then Fl then back to OH. I spent my entire school in Oh. But that isn't really the point is it. The point it that the definition has changed and it is important to understand this change and how it affects our understanding of the discussion. I will try in the future to not rely so heavily on sites that I reference. Sorry for the miscommunication.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't know that there is such a general place; there are a number of characteristics that would preclude a philosophical argument being scientific - non-empirical, unfalsifiable, etc.

"Limited scientific abilities" is not a very meaningful phrase. Anyone who can follow a method can do science. Although we speak in the vernacular about "having a scientific mind" and so forth, what we mean is that a person tends to think analytically or methodically.

So then would it be fair to say that the seperating point is the way the observations are processed?

 

[razzelflabben]

Razzelflabben,

When I read the underlined portion above, I was a bit puzzled because I did not remember you posting your understanding of the toc.

I reviewed the thread and found this:



Would you confirm that this is your understanding of the toc? Or point me to some other post?

btw Why not tell us all what your understanding is of all the terms listed in the OP? As you pointed out to someone earlier, communication is a two-way street, and I am sure we will all understand you better if you gave us your point of view as you have asked us to do.

Yes this is my broad understanding of the toc. For specifics, we would need a new thread.

I have talked about my understand of the words evolution, toe, creation, toc, let's see, what other words did I include on the list.

To me evidence is either hard or soft. Hard evidence be directly observed, where as soft evidence is like circumstancial, it need explaination or interpretation in order to link it to the original theory.

speciation: The evolution of one species into another as is currently defined by science for the term species. This type of speciation relies heavily on genetic mutations caused by a host of different possible variables.

kind: usually refered to as a general group. Though not well defined, is close in understanding to the old definition for species.

Theory; an explaination of the machanics of what we observe.

Scientific method; this one throws me a bit because we can talk about what it is or we can talk about what it is suppose to be but you and I have already covered that.

A bit more of an explaination of where I am coming from when discussing anything including e or c. I have disiplined myself to see things through different "eyes" as it were. We have the eyes of my religious beliefs. But my religious beliefs, don't always fit with the philosphical eyes, or the scientific or the psycological. So when we are discussing something it is important to establish which eyes we are seeing with. In a discussion of origins, the usual discussion runs scientific and as such I view the discussion from my understanding of science, my religious, philosophical, and psycological beliefs are left out of the discussion. One usual sign (though not always the case) that someone is discussing thing from a religious standpoint is the degree of emotion, especially uncalled for emotion. The philo. discussion usually relies on what ifs. While a hint to the psycological is a combination of all the above. In short, when I discuss a topic, I try to discuss it on the level of what the other individual is discussing and as such the terms I use can vary as the discussion varies. The above are understood from a scientific standpoint but are not offered as scientific definitions. For actual definitions, we would want to look in a science book or a dictionary.

 

[razzelflabben]

OK, so here is an explanation of how chemical forces affecting decay rates. The analogy still stands.

Furthermore, observable evidence of catastrophism confirms that uniformitarianism is only a theory, not fact. Science can not prove the past, it can only infer what might have happened.

So then you believe that history is not scientific? How then is the toe which deals with history a scientific theory?

 

[razzelflabben]

Maybe you should read the link I provided first:

"Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. According to theory, electron-capture is the most likely type of decay to show changes with pressure or chemical combination, and this should be most pronounced for very light elements. The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment (Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 171, 325-328, 1999; see also Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 195, 131-139, 2002). In another experiment, a half-life change of a small fraction of a percent was detected when beryllium-7 was subjected to 270,000 atmospheres of pressure, equivalent to depths greater than 450 miles inside the Earth (Science 181, 1163-1164, 1973). All known rocks, with the possible exception of diamonds, are from much shallower depths. In fact, beryllium-7 is not used for dating rocks, as it has a half-life of only 54 days, and heavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent."

You've also ignored the point about correlation of independent dating methods. If dating methods were as random as some creationists would have you believe, there should be no consistancy among independent methods.



What are you talking about? Geologists accept that catastrophic events can and have occurred. It's a matter of finding evidence that they did occur.



Like I said, you can reject the basic philosophical framework for doing science and make up any old story you want. I could argue that the world was created yesterday, you could argue that it was created 6000 years ago, and meanwhile geologists claim it looks 4.5 billion years old. But only one of those conclusions was reached by the scientific method.

It seems to me that the arguement is whether or not there is consistancy. The one side seems to be saying that because there is consistancy, we can determine history. While the other side is saying that life is full of the inconsistant and even if science creates a consistant environment, it is not accounting for the inconsistant nature of our world. That is how I am understanding this debate, any corrections?

 

[Ledifni]

This can be disputed, but it is your opinion, just as mine is that God has evidenced himself to us. To discuss it further is outside the purpose of this thread which is why I offered to discuss it in a pm. This thread is not about disproving one anothers ideas or understandings, but to listen to what others believe and understand.

No, it really can't be disputed, and it's not just his opinion. It is fact, lady.