Start communicating

[Physics_guy]

So again I am asking you if by this you are saying that creationists always rely on the Goddidit idea and since we cannot falsify there being a God, then the theory is unscientific? This is what it sounds like you are saying, but I don't want to read into what you are saying and make assumptions as to your understandings.

Pretty much. Though a creation "scientist" may make a scientific sounding claim to explain something in their model, when pushed on the that claim and that claim is put up to a falsifying test (such as the Vapor Canopy Model or Humphrey's White Hole Cosmology for example), the creationists falls back on "Goddidit" to save their claim.

The claim is that there are testable predictions. Now, to claim God did it dispite the observations would most certainly fall into this catagory of not scientific, however, there are also most certainly creationists that do not rely on the God did it answer to every question presented.

Yet their "scientific" explanations always fall apart under scrutiny and are then forced to rely upon God to save them.

I have not seen observations that falsify the toc as put forth in the book of gen

Depends upon how literally you read the text.

I have seen many things that do not line up with the traditional creationist so before jumping to a conclusion about what I believe, listen to what I am saying. I have yet to see scientific observations that falsify the toc as put forth in Gen.

A literal reading is inconsistent with what we observe without direct intervention from a supernatural being (and a decieptful one at that). Once you add in that intervention, suddenly you have a non-scientific explanation.

I have given my understanding for both

And I think you have a limited understanding of both.

I spoke about my belief that a theory about our history is not scientific in nature. The history of how we can to be is not empirical by nature, it is historical. To study and theorize how our world evolves, is changing, will change, is scientific in nature. I have even read evolutionist papers that talk about our inability to go back in time, or sciences inability to know history. So I voice this idea and I am told I don't understand what science is. What makes my opinion unscientific when the same opinion voiced by a scientist is scientific understanding?

Pretty sure you misinterpretted those writings. We cannot know for certain what happenned, but we can make hypothesis for what happenned and search for evidence that remains that would support or falsify that hypothesis. That is the very definition of science.

 

[razzelflabben]

I am reasonably familiar with presentations of creationism and have only seen one testable (and false) prediction derived from any “theory of creation”. (see below) I know you like people to do their own research, but I have researched this and not found any other. So I would appreciate it if you would point to any other testable prediction of the “theory of creationism” that you are familiar with.

Actually I did not make the claim that the toc does make testable prediction, only that we can see sites that claim they do. The question was directed at clarifying your claims as to what science/scientific methods are. According to the definition given, a theory is scientific if it makes testable predictions. I pointed you to a site that offers testable predictions made by the toc. The question then is not whether or not the predictions are testable but whether or not the toc would move into the realm of science if it proves itself as making testable predictions. What still seperates it from science if it has met the criteria, (even once because I see nothing in the definition requiring a specific number of predictions) is it then a scientific thoery or are there other criteria that would keep it from this realm. The burden of the discussion is on you to clarify your claims as to what is scientific, not on me to evidence somthing I have not claimed.

Since you wish to discuss an understanding of a toc along with the theory of evolution, it is very much a discussion about whether or not it is scientific. If the toc is not scientific, well then, it is not scientific and there is no more to say about it. Meanwhile the theory of evolution is a scientific theory---one of the best we have.

I did not ask to discuss an understanding of the toc along with the toe, I asked you to clarify your understanding of what is and is not scientific theory. This is why listening skills are vital because you have totally and completely ignored the point of the post. Nothing in my post indicated if I think the toc is scientific or not, that isn't the point. The point is, what criteria determines what is scientific and what is not.

Science cannot test for the super-natural. Remember what I said about risky predictions. To be useful, a prediction must be capable of being wrong. When it comes to the supernatural, it is not possible to make a prediction that could turn out wrong. Hence, there is no scientific test for the supernatural.

Not a problem, but not all creationists rely solely on the God did it mentality, therefore, aspects of the theory can offer testable predictions. Is the root for what is scientific or not somewhere in this paragraph?

It must be scientific to be credible in a scientific discussion. Outside of science, it is no longer a scientific theory; it is mere philosophical/theological speculation. So, yes, within the framework of a scientific discussion about the creation of the world and the creation of life, a theory must be scientific. Creationism is not a scientific theory and, therefore, does not qualify as an entrant in scientific discussion.

This discussion is about our understanding of the terms, it is not a discussion about whether or not science can evidence our origins in any theory. so when discussion the term toc, it is sufficient to say that the term is not able to be defined by science because you don't believe it to be scientific. Some of the claims made on this thread that is has no meaning is a show of total ignorance for lang. and how it works, either that or a total lack of listening skills as to what is being discussed and why.

In the first place I would not refer to either creation or creationism as a theory. Neither is. Creation is a doctrine; creationism is a theology.

What then is a theory? Have you defined that one yet? Not necessarily a scientific theory, but just the term theory?

It is my understanding that only scientific theories are scientific.

But as far as I can tell, no claims were made as to the toc being scientific except by certain evolutionists who assumed to know what was being said but missed the point of the posts entirely. So to say that scientific theory are the only theories that are scientific in actuality is missing the point and sounds like somone who is talking down to someone else without ever listening to what is being said. The statement would take on a whole new light if the claim that the toc was scientific had been made. Maybe you mean this to be addressed to those who might make the claim, but it seemed to be directed otherwise. Maybe you can clarify it a bit.

You have to submit it to public scrutiny. You have to write up a paper describing your hypothesis, what steps you took to test it, what the results of the tests were, and what conclusions you draw from that. Then you have to submit it for presentation at a scientific conference or publication in a scientific journal. You have to allow it to be reviewed by other experts in the field, and consider their criticisms. Other scientists will try to replicate your study to see if they get the same results.

Cool, so then if someone could prove to you that this process can and does exist within the framework of the toc, then you would change your mind about whether or not it is a scientific theory? That is totally cool because it provides the creationist that believes their theory to be scientific, a guideline for evidencing their claims. Thanks that is so cool. I am also glad to see that you are willing to adjust your beliefs if the evidence is ever presented. Few people are willing to do that. (you are willing to aren't you, I kind of read that into your post)

Well, first you have to decide whether by toc you mean the doctrine of creation or the pseudo-scientific theory of creationism. As to the latter, it does say more than “God did it”, but the one testable prediction it does make has been shown to be incorrect. So the current status of creationism is not that of a theory, but that of a theology. The doctrine of creation does limit itself to saying “God did it” but it makes no scientific predictions, so it is not a scientific theory.

I wonder where people on this thread think one would go to learn about the toc/c/creationism? What it says and what it predicts?

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh, religion revises itself all the time. But a revision of doctrine is usually considered heresy. Which of the doctrines of the Apostles’ or Nicene creed have been revised by the bulk of the Christian church (i.e not counting such spin-offs as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians or Mormons which are rejected by most Christians).

You are shifting the goal posts here by broadening the discussion beyond its original reference.

What is doctrine? Posters brought up the idea of religion and as such, it is definatable by terms of the op. Now I did a quick web search to define doctrine because it appeared that our understandings of the words didn't match and my understanding fit the web def. So please explain what you see as doctrine and what is not. If creation is doctrine then we must be able to understand what doctrine teaches.

Apparently you misunderstood my previous answer. Theories are devised to explain evidence. When a prediction derived from a theory proves correct, the verified prediction is considered supportive evidence for the theory. Evidence is considered not sufficient to verify a theory when the prediction is incorrect. In fact, we can use stronger terminology. The results which negate a prediction go further than being “not sufficient” to support a theory; they contradict the theory and show that it must be revised.

No, your fingerprint is evidence of your presence at your grandmother’s house. Nothing more. It is enough to identify you as a suspect. But the investigator needs to know more than that you were at your grandmother’s house. The investigator needs to know if you were there at the time of the theft. This requires a second investigation. And if it can be shown that you were not there at the time of the theft, you will be removed from the list of suspects.

So now I am getting the picture that you see a difference between evidence that supports the toe and evidence that supports e. Let me ask you a specific in order to establish more clarity. Recently I was in a discussion in which vit c syn was presented as evidence for the toe, specifically common ancestry. I questioned the validity of this in that vit c syn evidences (my similarity-my being at the scene) rather than the common ancestry itself (who commited the crime) It sounds like you are seeing observations such as vit c syn not as evidence of the toe but rather evidence of a similar gene between man and apes. Is that correct? I know many people on both sides that are confused by what is considered evidence and what is being evidenced. Your ideas here might help to clear it up for us.

They didn’t find what they hoped to find in one particular place. Is that a reason not to look in other places?

Never said anything like that, what I said is that they didn't even question whether their theory was falsified, they only assumed they hadn't yet found the evidence this is a totally opposite behavior from what you are presenting as the scientific model. So is the average person to believe the "ideal" of the scientific model or the examples present to them from scientists? The controdiction can create misunderstandings.

 

[razzelflabben]

This is a good start. But you know what would be really helpful.

Gather all you understandings about all the topics you named in the OP into one post. Then we don't have to scramble through nearly a hundred posts to find them. We just need to refer back to that one.

At the moment I don't have time for all of that, however, I wonder why this would be helpful. The post is about being able to communicate by learning to listen not about debating what I personally may or may not think so how would my collective understandings help with the basic concept of the post. When you provide me with a valid reason I will take the time to collect them.

 

[razzelflabben]

No you were not taught "the old definition". You are not old enough to have been taught an "old definition" which does not include the fact that species are defined by their reproductive habits. No such definition has been taught in at least 300 years, and I would venture to say that no such definition has been taught since humans realized that males are necessary to reproduction.

Look at Genesis 1 in the bible: it clearly speaks of each sort of living thing reproducing "after its kind" i.e. each species reproduces itself. It says nothing about whether they look like one another at all.

So the definition has not changed since Genesis was written.

You were not taught an old definition. You were taught an incorrect definition.

All I get out of theis post is circular argueing that makes no point, if you clarify it for me maybe I can address it for you.

 

[razzelflabben]

Depends upon the creationist. There are then a host of answers to that question. On this forum, the most common use of the term "creationist" is to describe young-earth christian creationists that base their beliefs on a literal reading of Genesis. This group is quite prolific in its writings, making it quite easy to learn what they believe.

Other creationists can vary greatly in their beliefs. Common other forms of creationism include Day-Age, Old Earth, or Intelligent Design. These vary quite a bit.

One could also call any believer that a god of some sort was responsible for the creation of the Universe as a creationist, but this is a much less used definition of the term - although it is the most broad and inclusive.

Sounds like a fair explaination, next question, when you talk to a creationist do you first establish which of these catagories they fit into?

 

[razzelflabben]

gluadys, I have always enjoyed the first few posts of my discussion with you and even commented to my husband that you were one of the least "emotional" arguers for the toe, however, I have also sinced and increasing animosity from you as our discussions continue, an assumption of what is being said rather than an actual evaluation of what is being said. I don't know where this is coming from, you, me, type of communication we are dealing with, or something I can't identify, but I will try to continue to communicate in as non threatening manner as I can so as not to exastporate the issue. sorry if I have said anything to make you feel theatened.

post 69Emphasis added

Sounds like an ID position. The theory of evolution does deal with the what, when and where of creation, and is very well supported by all the evidence it has correctly predicted. Also, although the theory of evolution does not predict who is responsible for evolution, it is compatible with the belief that God is.

Never said or indicated otherwise, the definition was offered for the toc not the toe, that one has already been addressed.

When you say "theory of creation" I believe you are actually referring to creationism, which attempts to deal with the who, what,when and wheres. But it is problematical for two reasons.

1. It does predict that God is responsible for the existence of species. Since this prediction is not testable, it has no place in a scientific theory.

2. Its predictions on the other questions have been shown to be incorrect.

Now, if by "theory of creation" you mean something other than creationism, you will have to correct me and inform me of what you do mean.

Actually, I am dealing with the "statement" (not sure that is the correct term) as to the whos whats where and hows of creation. Creation being to make. So the toc tells us what we are observing as being made, by whom, when, and where. Not all are clearly defined but it is where these things are addressed. Creationism, I would guess then would mean the belief of creation as fact. Just as evolutionisms would be the belief that evolution is fact. What the belief is based on is outside the realm of the definition and is dealt with in the realm of evidences.

Post 70

The question remains if God has "evidenced" (do you mean "revealed"?) himself in a scientifically testable way.

The bible says that faith is the essence of things hoped for and the EVIDENCE of things not seen. So I would have to say that God has evidenced himself as well as revealed himself to man. Both, however, this is ourside the eyes of science alone and must include religion and phil. and psycol.

Post 83

Perhaps you are not aware that most of the regulars here are very well acquainted with creationist web sites, both young-earth and old-earth varieties. There is good reason to say that no scientific method is used on any of these sites.

If you disagree--present what you think is evidence of them using scientific methods. We have already reviewed your links and found no such evidence.

It doesn't matter what I believe as to the question asked. In other words, the question is not about if there is or isn't evidence that the toc is scientific, the question is what would be needed to make the toc fit the definitions for scientific methods. When a word is being defined, all possible interpretations are discussed, and the definition attempts to clarify those variables. This is what I ask you to do, clarify the variables.

You might have asked what people mean when they call creationism a religion, instead of presuming that this is the definition they hold. Did you not say communication is a two-way street and that we should listen to each other? You need to learn to practise what you preach. Instead of listening to people who disagree with you, you jump to conclusions as to what they mean. That is a waste of everyone's energy.

Worshipping creation is not the same thing as creationism.

I did ask for clarification and the assertion was made that it was a religion.

Yes. Here are three web sites (2 young earth and 1 old earth) which offer a good presentation of the religion of creationism. (There are many others as well)

http://www.icr.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.reasons.org/

Interesting, I will have to look into this further, the sights seem to be calling the religion as christianity and not creationism, I'll have to look into it with greater detail.

To churches which support those website ministries. e.g. the Baptist church my husband and I once attended.

So the Baptist church was creationist or the Baptist denomination?

With the exception of the scientist, all of the above.

What of the creation scientists. Why aren't they the leadership of the religion of creationism?

I expect the written resource they use is the bible. Of course, there are also other non-written guides such as the Holy Spirit.

What would the bible have to do with the religion of creationism?

Post 86

No, the definition was not changed. For some reason, after at least 2500 years (going back to Genesis) of using a definition of species based on reproduction, you were taught by some ill-informed and untrained teacher a definition which is incorrect. i.e. that species are defined by appearance, not by reproduction.

Read the referenced site I presented, the intent of my discussion though I have admitted was poorly communicated, was that the definition for species as understood in the times of Darwin was the definition we were taught. Hopefully that is sufficient to clarify the discussion.

post 77

The list is easy to find. It is in your opening post. Just respond to this post with any not already listed here, and we will have them all in one place.

Okay, I took a moment to streatch my memory and see how many I could remember off the top of my head, is that so wrong. I checked my memory against the OP, so nothing was missed. Man, I don't know why there is always such venom on these threads.

Now for some comments on your definitions.

It is interesting that in your original list you did not include a "theory of chance", but you did include the theory of evolution. You do know that evolution does not occur by chance don't you?

I don't recall making the list a comprehensive one, but rather a starting point, so since the term is not a common one, I don't see how it is an issue that it was left out, but oksy the theory of chance, hummm, sounds like it would be the mechanism and predictions of how something that occurs by chance could have occured. The hows whats, whys, and wheres as it were. It would be a starting understanding. I found no definition to base this understanding off. Are we going to define chance now or going to try to start a discussion on chance?

Although a scientific theory cannot comment on a creator, if the opposite to creation is chance, then there is no contradiction between the theory of evolution and the doctrine of creation.

If there is no contradiction why do you suppose there are so many debates and arguements?

Any "theory" that centres on a creator is, by definition, not scientific. But that does not make it anti-scientific either, just as a scientific theory which describes regular natural processes such as evolution are not anti-creation either.

Can you clarify, it sounds like you are saying that because a theory is not scientific doesn't mean it is against science?!?

This is not a definition of evidence. It is only an explanation of why you value one sort of evidence above another. Could you be more clear on what you understand evidence ---any evidence---to be?

I have explained my understanding of hard and soft evidence, but to recap, hard evidence is what is directly observed, that would be like, I can observe speciation so there for I evidence speciation. weak or soft evidence is anything that I must assume to be observed in order to observe it, for example, vit c syn evidences common ancestry. The hard evidence in relation to vit c syn is a common gene with apes, the soft evidence is what it says about our origins because it is not a direct observation of such.

It is interesting to see that this is your understanding. It is very different from a scientific definition. Perhaps you would be interested in learning a scientific definition of speciation?

go for it

Do you mean the old Genesis-based definition which defines species by reproduction or the incorrect definition you were taught which defines species by appearance?

I was taught the definition that was accepted when Darwin was using the word species to formulate his theory can I be more clear or say it any more times? I over simplified by original statement and then apologized for the miscommunication and corrected the comment and I am still being held accountable for the original mistake? Why? We all make mistakes, that is why we apologize and ask for clarify rather than reaming somone for a miss communication.

I would agree, by the way, that "kind" is often based on appearance rather than on breeding populations, and is therefore not a scientific definition of anything at all.

We can work of making it one so that communication can continue.

Since practicing the scientific method sometimes falls short of the ideal, it is better to set out your understanding of what it is supposed to be. We can chalk up the differences between ideal and actuality to human weakness.

Right, but it still exists and must be dealt with and not excused away or denied in conversations of meaningful communications

 

[Randall McNally]

Sounds like a fair explaination, next question, when you talk to a creationist do you first establish which of these catagories they fit into?

It only makes sense. Creationists usually categorize themselves and their arguments accordingly.

 

[razzelflabben]

And I think you have a limited understanding of both.

I hear this comment a lot and then when I further explain my point, the comment is not supported. I must ask two questions. 1. what makes you think I have a limited understanding of both theories? 2. I have asked questions and reserved most of my "beliefs" for other threads, so what do you think I have said that tells you what I beleive? I have been very careful to not say to much about what I beleive because then the discussion about communicating becomes a discussion about what I believe and how it does or does not fit what you believe. I have been "repremanded" for keeping my personal opinions out of discussions too much, in fact, my husband gets upset about it everytime we argue because he is definately an emotional arguer. But, this is not a discussion about what I beleive so I have purposely left out most of my beleifs. So what makes you assume that you know what I do or do not know? beleive?

Pretty sure you misinterpretted those writings. We cannot know for certain what happenned, but we can make hypothesis for what happenned and search for evidence that remains that would support or falsify that hypothesis. That is the very definition of science.

Read it about 10 times to make sure, it said that we cannot scientifically evidence history because it is history. And this was one of many references made to me by evolutionists that all say the same thing.

 

[gluadys]

All I get out of theis post is circular argueing that makes no point, if you clarify it for me maybe I can address it for you.

You were taught an incorrect definition.

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

 

[gluadys]

Actually I did not make the claim that the toc does make testable prediction, only that we can see sites that claim they do.

In post 72 (where this issue first came up) you said:

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.

In the bolded sections you are not stating that these sites only claim to show that toc makes testable predictions. You say they do show testable predictions and that there are testable predictions made.

Are you now withdrawing those claims?

According to the definition given, a theory is scientific if it makes testable predictions.

That is one important characteristic of a scientific theory. It is not the only one.

I pointed you to a site that offers testable predictions made by the toc.

No you did not. Your statement above only says that a web search will turn up these testable predictions of the toc. You did not point to a specific site.

Shall we chalk this up to forgetfulness rather than call you a nasty name?

The question then is not whether or not the predictions are testable but whether or not the toc would move into the realm of science if it proves itself as making testable predictions.

To begin with, the predictions must turn out to be correct.

What still seperates it from science if it has met the criteria, (even once because I see nothing in the definition requiring a specific number of predictions) is it then a scientific thoery or are there other criteria that would keep it from this realm.

Every prediction the theory can make must be tested and proven correct. It is not enough to stop with just one prediction if more predictions can be made. Stopping with one prediction would only be sufficient if the theory only makes one prediction. If the theory makes two predictions, both must be tested. If it makes ten, all ten must be tested.

The burden of the discussion is on you to clarify your claims as to what is scientific, not on me to evidence somthing I have not claimed.

But you did claim it (see above). You even claimed to have pointed us to a web site showing these testable predictions although you never did.

The point is, what criteria determines what is scientific and what is not.

Well, you have several now.

1. It must make testable predictions.
2. It must make risky predictions which could show that it is false.
3. It must make true predictions.
4. It must be made public so that the scientific community can comment on it and try to replicate the test results.

We can add more criteria as needed.

Not a problem, but not all creationists rely solely on the God did it mentality, therefore, aspects of the theory can offer testable predictions.

That is a non-sequitor. Just because some people prefer to refer to a designer or to extra-terrestrial aliens, or to any other non-testable entity responsible for creation, it does not follow that their theories can offer testable predictions. They still have to actually make testable predictions.

Is the root for what is scientific or not somewhere in this paragraph?

Depends on what you mean by “root”. The point is that anything supernatural (whether related to God or not) is not testable and hence not scientific.

This discussion is about our understanding of the terms, it is not a discussion about whether or not science can evidence our origins in any theory. so when discussion the term toc, it is sufficient to say that the term is not able to be defined by science because you don't believe it to be scientific.

It is not that I don’t believe it to be scientific. By all the criteria of science, it is objectively not scientific, no matter what I believe.

Some of the claims made on this thread that is has no meaning is a show of total ignorance for lang. and how it works, either that or a total lack of listening skills as to what is being discussed and why.

Most of the claims that creation or creationism are scientific show a total lack for how language works. (Note: Earlier in my life, I was a teacher of English and French. I have also studied Latin, German and linguistics. I have a good idea of how language works.)

What then is a theory? Have you defined that one yet? Not necessarily a scientific theory, but just the term theory?

Like most words, “theory” has multiple meanings and the context tells which meaning is meant. Science has a particularly rigourous definition of “theory” as it is used in scientific discussion. Outside of science, “theory” is often used more along the line of what science calls a “hypothesis” or even more loosely as simply an opinion, guess or speculative and ad hoc explanation.

So to say that scientific theory are the only theories that are scientific in actuality is missing the point

It is not missing the point at all. It is the point. And it was directed to you, not anyone else. I am sorry if you feel it was talking down to you. That was not intentional. I was simply trying to be very clear.

Cool, so then if someone could prove to you that this process can and does exist within the framework of the toc, then you would change your mind about whether or not it is a scientific theory?

Of course. But creationists just don’t do this in spite of many decades of opportunity. Neither do ID theorists. Only one ID paper has ever been published in a scientific journal, and that was under questionable circumstances. It has also been ripped to shreds by other scientists who have demonstrated its many weaknesses.

I wonder where people on this thread think one would go to learn about the toc/c/creationism? What it says and what it predicts?

What do you mean by toc/c/creationism?

As for creationism, I gave you three links.

 

[gluadys]

Now I did a quick web search to define doctrine because it appeared that our understandings of the words didn't match and my understanding fit the web def.

Nice claim to make when you have not told us either your understanding or the web.def.

“Doctrine” means “teaching”. It comes from the Latin word “doceo, docere” which means “to teach”. In religion, it generally refers to the core teachings of the religious community. Virtually all Christians explicitly or implicitly recognize the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed as the core teaching of Christianity. That is why they are often referred to as ecumenical creeds—because they transcend denominations and geography and are accepted by the whole Church world-wide. (“ecumenical” means “pertaining to the whole inhabited earth”)

Some Christian groups have additional teachings. For example, as a Presbyterian, I subscribe to the documents listed by my church as “sub-ordinate standards” such as the Westminster Confession of Faith. Many churches draw up “Statements of Faith” which outline their doctrines.

Since doctrinal teaching is religious in nature, the doctrines are to be accepted by faith.

If creation is doctrine then we must be able to understand what doctrine teaches.

Creation is named as a doctrine in both of the ecumenical creeds and in many Christian confessions, catechisms and statements of faith. Catechisms and other educational material explain the doctrines in more detail. For example, on page two of this document there is a new catechism our church has just approved.

So now I am getting the picture that you see a difference between evidence that supports the toe and evidence that supports e.

Not really. Any evidence which supports the fact of evolution will also support the theory of evolution, and any evidence which supports the theory of evolution also supports the fact of evolution. You might distinguish them as saying some evidence is more directed to establishing that evolution happens and has happened, and some evidence is more directed to establishing that the mechanisms of evolution exist and are effective. But it’s a fine distinction.

It sounds like you are seeing observations such as vit c syn not as evidence of the toe but rather evidence of a similar gene between man and apes. Is that correct?

No, that is not correct. You may be unaware that what is really being talked about here is a protein that regulates the synthesis of Vitamin C. Of course, the structure for the protein is rooted in the structure of the gene that codes for it. In any case, the protein and the gene exist (I think) in all animal species and maybe more. But in a very few primate species (chimpanzee and human) the protein is non-functional. It does not synthesize Vitamin C. This failure of protein function has been traced to a mutation in the gene which alters the structure of the protein. The mutation exists in all the species in which the protein does not function.

This cannot be evidence of common design. Only common ancestry explains this. If you want to continue this, best to pm me rather than derail the thread.

Never said anything like that, what I said is that they didn't even question whether their theory was falsified, they only assumed they hadn't yet found the evidence this is a totally opposite behavior from what you are presenting as the scientific model. So is the average person to believe the "ideal" of the scientific model or the examples present to them from scientists? The controdiction can create misunderstandings.

If a hypothesis is based on sound science, it takes a lot of discouragement to convince scientists that it is incorrect. This is not a bad thing. It means that every effort will be made to find evidence believed to exist before admitting defeat.

 

[gluadys]

At the moment I don't have time for all of that, however, I wonder why this would be helpful. The post is about being able to communicate by learning to listen not about debating what I personally may or may not think so how would my collective understandings help with the basic concept of the post. When you provide me with a valid reason I will take the time to collect them.

You don't really need to collect them, unless you want to. Just respond to your opening post in the same way you asked us to. It is both a matter of courtesy and of convenience for everyone -- you included.

Why should we tell you our understandings and have you question them, if you are not willing to tell us yours? Two-way communication, remember. And it is much easier to refer back to a single post than to require people to look through more than a hundred, especially when you seldom reference anything you talk about. That is so time-consuming that it comes across as an evasion. You speak of not having much time. But you need to realize the rest of us don't have a lot of time either. It would take you much less time to consolidate your thoughts than it would take for someone else to review the thread. It is discourteous to ask people to do that, and because it is time-consuming it is seen as a tactic for evading the question.

For example, if anyone wants to see my definitions, they are all on page 3 post 27 of this thread. I can provide that link, and it is all there.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys, I have always enjoyed the first few posts of my discussion with you and even commented to my husband that you were one of the least "emotional" arguers for the toe, however, I have also sinced and increasing animosity from you as our discussions continue, an assumption of what is being said rather than an actual evaluation of what is being said.

I don’t think I am making assumptions, but rather evaluating what is said quite well. I don’t find you to be sincere about wanting better communications, because you ask and ask and ask from others, but never open yourself up, unless pressed. I find you too coy by a long shot, evasive, insincere and to understate the case, less than truthful. You may feel my documentation of such characteristics as hostile, but since I do document what I say, it is up to you to make the necessary corrections and apologies if you wish to be respected as a capable and honest communicator.

. sorry if I have said anything to make you feel theatened.

Oh, I don’t feel in the least bit threatened.

Actually, I am dealing with the "statement" (not sure that is the correct term) as to the whos whats where and hows of creation. Creation being to make. So the toc tells us what we are observing as being made, by whom, when, and where.

No. It makes claims to do so, but all its claims have been shown to be incorrect. So it actually tells us nothing. Trouble is, creationists keep claiming that it does.

Creationism, I would guess then would mean the belief of creation as fact.

No, that is the doctrine of creation. Creationism claims much more than that.

Just as evolutionisms would be the belief that evolution is fact.

No, definitely not. First, you are introducing a new term without defining it. (You may have used it with other posters, but this is the first time it has cropped up in one of your posts to me.) What do you mean by “evolutionism”?

Secondly, there is no need to believe that evolution is a fact. That is an observation. No faith or belief is required to acknowledge the truth of what is observed. Consider your analogy of the fingerprint on the banana. In reference to evolution, we don’t have just a fingerprint, or even circumstantial evidence that you were at the scene of the crime at the right time. We have eye-witness testimony and a tape and a signed confession that you stole the banana. That is how well-grounded evolution is in observation.

The bible says that faith is the essence of things hoped for and the EVIDENCE of things not seen. So I would have to say that God has evidenced himself as well as revealed himself to man. Both, however, this is ourside the eyes of science alone and must include religion and phil. and psycol.

Right. Evidence that can only be received by faith is not scientific evidence. Only objective evidence and such inferences and deductions as can be grounded in objective evidence can be used in science.

It doesn't matter what I believe as to the question asked. In other words, the question is not about if there is or isn't evidence that the toc is scientific, the question is what would be needed to make the toc fit the definitions for scientific methods.

Already answered in post #111 http://www.christianforums.com/t1532956-start-communicating.html&page=12

I did ask for clarification and the assertion was made that it was a religion.

That would be correct. Perhaps, to be more specific, it is a theology or religious doctrine espoused by some churches, also by some orthodox Jews and by some Muslims.

Interesting, I will have to look into this further, the sights seem to be calling the religion as christianity and not creationism, I'll have to look into it with greater detail.

That is because by far the largest number of creationists consider themselves to be Christian and consider creationism (not just creation) to be an important aspect of being Christian. Most Christians disagree with creationists on this matter. They agree with the doctrine of creation, but not with creationism.

So the Baptist church was creationist or the Baptist denomination?

Officially, Baptists don’t believe in denominations, so it is the local church which endorses teachings like creationism. But there are associations of Baptist churches which do subscribe to creationism. There are also many, many Baptist churches (probably the majority) which do not subscribe to creationism. (Remember that they all believe in creation.)

There are also other churches besides Baptist which subscribe to creationism. Usually, as in Baptist churches, it is a decision of the local congregation.

Virtually no connectional or episcopal churches, which establish their doctrines at a higher level than the local congregation, officially subscribe to creationism, though individuals members may believe in it. Again, all these churches believe in creation.

What of the creation scientists. Why aren't they the leadership of the religion of creationism?

Because they don’t do science. Because they have sworn to uphold creationism even if all the evidence is against it.

What would the bible have to do with the religion of creationism?

Everything for Christian and Jewish creationists. The bible ---as they choose to interpret it---is the sole source of support for creationism.

Read the referenced site I presented,

You didn’t present it, remember. That is one of the reasons for the harsh words at the beginning of this post.

the intent of my discussion though I have admitted was poorly communicated, was that the definition for species as understood in the times of Darwin was the definition we were taught.

Well it wasn’t. So that is something else you were taught incorrectly. The definition of species taught in Darwin’s day certainly included the fact that if species appeared to be much the same, but were not inter-fertile, they were not the same species. This even included species which could produce offspring but in which the offspring were sterile. IOW, despite the similarity of a horse and a donkey, the fact that they do not interbreed on their own—only under human supervision—and the fact that most of the time the offspring of a horse-donkey cross is not fertile, means that the horse and the donkey are different species. The same goes for fruit-flies, mice, beetles, frogs or any other group. No matter how similar they are in appearance, if they do not inter-breed and/or are not inter-fertile, they are not the same species.

If you were taught differently, I can only conclude that you were taught by a scientific ignoramus. Because basing the recognition of a species solely on appearance has not been part of scientific lore since (as I said earlier) the role of males in reproduction was recognized. And that knowledge was clearly known to the writers of the bible.

Okay, I took a moment to streatch my memory and see how many I could remember off the top of my head, is that so wrong.

It’s not wrong. It’s just silly when it is so easy to go back to the OP. If I know where to find something, I don’t waste time searching my less than perfect memory.

Are we going to define chance now or going to try to start a discussion on chance?

Since neither creationism nor evolution are based on chance, I don’t see any need to do that. All that would be necessary is to revise your understanding of toc to remove the reference to chance.

If there is no contradiction why do you suppose there are so many debates and arguements?

Because many people have been taught there is. Like yourself, in reference to the definition of species, they have been taught an incorrect definition of evolution which appears to be contradictory to their Christian beliefs about creation. They have also been taught the falsehood that only creationism is a correct explanation of creation.

Can you clarify, it sounds like you are saying that because a theory is not scientific doesn't mean it is against science?!?

I put “theory” in quotes to indicate it is not the correct word. The mot juste is doctrine or theological teaching. But it is true that such teaching need not be anti-scientific. For example, belief in God is not anti-scientific. Nor is belief that God created all things. Nor is a belief that miracles happen and have happened. Nor is a belief in God’s love and care for us, and in God’s provision for forgiveness of sins and life everlasting. All of these beliefs and doctrines fall outside the realm of science. They are not objectively observable or testable, so science cannot say whether they are true or not. And nothing that science does teach (including evolution) is contradictory to any of these beliefs or doctrines.

Creationism, however, holds to beliefs which are contradicted by science. That is what makes it anti-scientific.

I have explained my understanding of hard and soft evidence, but to recap,

I specifically asked you not to recap. Forget about hard evidence and soft evidence. Focus on “evidence” period. What, in your understanding, is evidence?

go for it

The most used definition of species in sexually reproducing populations is:
A population of organisms in which all members are inter-fertile with other members of the population, but do not inter-breed and/or are not inter-fertile with members of different populations. This (or some variant of this) is known as the biological species definition.

I was taught the definition that was accepted when Darwin was using the word species to formulate his theory..

No, you weren’t. Not by a long shot. You may have been told it was the 19th century definition of species, but whoever told you that was either hopelessly ignorant or incompetent or an outright liar. It is not so.

We can work of making it one so that communication can continue.

Creationists have had more than a century to work on this. Their failure to do so suggests they are not interested in clear communication.

Right, but it still exists and must be dealt with and not excused away or denied in conversations of meaningful communications

No one will deny that scientists are human and fail to live up to their ideals in all situations. That doesn’t mean they are not measured (and measure themselves) by these ideals. In fact, we would not be aware of their shortcomings if they had not defined their ideals and made them public in the first place.

So what is your understanding of scientific method (ideal version)?

 

[Edx]

Actually I have found this true on both sides of the issue and why I am trying to encourage discussion rather than arguements.

Its not faith! Real scientists dont hold dogmatically to their ideas, because they are invariably wrong at least in part. And anyone who has faith in anything scientific is a fool. It doesnt matter what it is. Faith does nothing to increase knowledge as it already thinks it knows it. Faith is the antithesis of science! Now reread the above until you understand it.

So are you saying that the only creationists are those who follow the ICR and/or AIG? I know of many in fact, most that I know do not hold to either of these groups. That would be like saying that the only way to find out how to drive a car is to talk to triple A.

They undoubtedly use exactly the same arguments, so what exactly would be the difference?. And if they are willing to change their minds if the evidence shows their beliefs are not correct, they do not have faith. If I were to put it on a scale Kent Hovind is on top, then AIG and ICR and then everyone else are simply those that are ignorant and dont care about it as much, and/or have less "faith" . I mean if you dont agree with these guys fight them and speak out against them. They damage everything; science, childrens education and Christianity itself!

A quick web search shows us reputable, well educated scientists that hold to the toc or id, I wonder why you only see the toc through the eyes of AIG or ICR? Are there only one or two organizations that all evolutionists belong too so we can compare their claims to all evolutionists?

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

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

I understand what you are saying, and I respect that opinion, but where I am differing in my opinion you don't seem to understand. What I understand about the term creation is that it means in essence to make. It does not specify who what when or where it was made.

That I think is what I said. For most Christians the theory of Creation IS evolution. That nature is Gods hand, if you will.

The who what when and wheres are reserved for the toc

Hardly, they believe one interpretation of the Bible and then try desperately and get the evidence to fit. Thats all Creationism is. For a real "theory of Creation" to be worthy of the name it should encompass rather a lot more Creation myths than just one, and even then it still wouldnt be science.

The toc deals with the mechanics and hypothesis, predictions, etc. .

Creationism does none of those things. You cannot learn anything from it, really.

This is a totally false impression of the majority of creationists that I kmow. Could be the circles of people we talk to, the understandings of the words and ideas being spoken, the difference between communication and assumptions, or something else altogether. Interesting.

Every Creationist organisation,and every Creationist I have been in contact with fits my "impression". Those that understand science twist it dishonestly, and most of these guys in these organisations have been doing it long enough to know their error by now. Those that dont understand the science, are simply ignorent im afriad to say and those people are most usually willfully ignorent as they read AIG and ICR as credible scientific source and refuse to change thier minds, or are at least very stubborn. Because thats what faith is: Believing your beliefs are correct no matter what.

I know a lot of creationists that do not assert the idea that every answer is Goddidit. It seems to me that this is a common misunderstanding and miscommunication. We can wait and see what the creationists say on the issue.

I meant everything relevant. And thats a whole lot.

Actually not through magic, in fact, magic is viewed by many in the church as evil and Satanic (though not all see it that way) It is more accurate to say that it was spoken into existance, or that is was a divine act of creation, not magic and poof. The use of such words insight emotion and show little to no understanding for the ideas and thoughts being presented by the creationist.

Yes, but unfortunately for you it isnt a strawman. If I had a "magic hat" and said "poof" and pulled out a rabbit. That would be magic. If I "spoke" some words and a man fully formed appeared out of nowhere on my desk that would be magic. In fact every definition of magic fits the literal "speaking into existence" of a literal interpretation. Perhaps you prefer a similar term maybe "supernatural" or "to go against the laws of the universe".

Hummmmmm.....not my any definition I have seen for thoery other than scientific theory of which I have a couple of so far unanswered questions still waiting for explaination on.

The word "theory" as used in popular vernacular, means a good guess, educated guess, best guess, imperfect fact. Etc. Creationism nor evolution fits this as evolution isnt a guess, and Creationists swear by their "truth" and state no amount of evidence will sway them. So Creationism isnt a theory by anyone standards.

I do not see anything in the actual defintion that leaves the toc not as a scientific theory though I do not think it scientific, I find it unscientific for other reasons that how it fits the definition for scientific theory.

Why wont you just read that website? And you can find any number of descriptions of the scientific method from any number of educational sites. Just type in "Scientific Method" in google and see what comes up. Just dont learn it from a Creationist, thats all I advise.

To summerise though. A theory is a model which holds and explains facts and data, and can make predictions based on the "theory" - it is also inherently falsifiable. You have to realise that real science starts with data and evidence, it then uses that to explain them. Just like at a crime scene. Creationism doesnt fit that whatsoever. Creationism is inherently unfalsifiable and it works backwards claiming they know the truth first and state they wont ever change their minds. Nothing about it is scientific, and nothing about it is a theory.

Interesting, I have never seen this being said by the creationists. Very interesting.

Read Kent Hovind, then AIG. You see if you read enough Creationist "literature" you'll soon see that is what most believe. This is why they lie about evolution being anti-god, and that it is atheism etc, and are so rabid about "saving" their fellow Christians as well. They think Jesus is useless without a literal genesis, so from their view reject Genesis you reject Jesus. Most of the time they will preach to the choir as it were, for this reason.

Ed

 

[Edx]

Unless you examine the evidence provided, you can not know how much weight to put on the opinion.

Correct, and you also cannot make positive staments on things you are ignorent about. Very few times, if ever, have I ever seen a Creationist honestly just ask questions to learn with an open-mind (sounds silly even writing it), and not speak as if they know, like "there are no transitionals!!!" "evolution is atheism!!!" "Darwin recanted on his deathbed!!!" etc.

That is why communication on the issue is vital. Many creationist are walking around debating evolutionists without ever knowing what the evolutionist believes.

Well first of all that doesnt make sence. If they are debating an "evolutionist" that is also ignorent of evolution such as he might think evolution really is huge macro leaps then he doenst know what he is talking about either. They may say they agree with the theory but if they dont really know what they are agreeing to whats the point? If Creationists want to understand "evolution" they need to not read what Creationists say evolution is, for that would be a sure fine way to not understand it at all.

At the same time, many evolutionists go around argueing creationist without ever understanding what the creationist believes.

Either ID, Old Earth Creatonism (which varies) or Young Earth Creationism. Creationism is a literal interpretation of Genesis, and the only thing that differs is how literal they decide to take it. If they accept the age of the earth, they wont use that argument but they'll gladely trot out commen YEC arguments for everything else they dont agree with.

You really cannot compare it on any level.

This is a total lack of communication and doesn't get us anywhere. Let me ask you this, what does creation, toc, the creationist believe about our origins. (Choose whatever word you accept as having a definition)

That God did it.

But like I said, it only varies on how literally they interprete Genesis. (having said that I do know of literalist Muslims)

not what the organizations tell you, or what the evolutionist tells you to believe, but what the creationist actually believes and make it a bit more challenging, why do they say they believe what they do (the number one arguement against the toe).

Usually though no situation comes up where you need to ask. If I met one and I happened to get on that topic, I would ask if they didnt tell me but here they just post the usual Creation arguments as if they understand any of it and with foolish arrogant glee as if they know something all those silly educated scientists dont.

Ed

 

[Edx]

bump

 

[razzelflabben]

In post 72 (where this issue first came up) you said:



In the bolded sections you are not stating that these sites only claim to show that toc makes testable predictions. You say they do show testable predictions and that there are testable predictions made.

Are you now withdrawing those claims?

Do you remember the post in which I said that I believe there are two kinds of evidence? Hard evidence and soft evidence? If something has and shows it has hard evidence (direct observation) then there is no question as to it existing. One might questions it's validity, it's accuracy, it's application, but the observation cannot be disputed. The web gives us direct, hard evidence that the toc can and does make testable predictions. It is useless to deny it when the direct hard evidence is right there in front of our faces. That would be equivilent to denying that we share a common gene with apes when we look at the vit c syn observations. So, yes, I believe that the toc does make testable predictions, but that is not equal to be believing that the predictions are valid, accurate, or applictable. Those would require soft evidence, something that I rarely accept as evidence at all.

To begin with, the predictions must turn out to be correct.

That is not part of the defintion for scientific theory, is this part of the definition or just what you believe the definition means?

Every prediction the theory can make must be tested and proven correct.

This doesn't make any sense, if it is a theory, why must it be proven correct? Does it only become a scientific theory when it is proven correct? or does it become scientific law when it is proven correct? What is the suggnificance of it being proven correct in order to be a scientific theory?

It is not enough to stop with just one prediction if more predictions can be made. Stopping with one prediction would only be sufficient if the theory only makes one prediction. If the theory makes two predictions, both must be tested. If it makes ten, all ten must be tested.

Right, but where in the definition does it say anything about how many predictions a theory must be able to make in order to qualify as a scientific thoery?

Well, you have several now.

1. It must make testable predictions.
2. It must make risky predictions which could show that it is false.
3. It must make true predictions.
4. It must be made public so that the scientific community can comment on it and try to replicate the test results.

We can add more criteria as needed.

Thanks, I wonder why it isn't part of the definition for scientific theory. Why do you think it isn't part of the definition?

Depends on what you mean by “root”. The point is that anything supernatural (whether related to God or not) is not testable and hence not scientific.

So is it then fair to say that your dispute with the toc being considered scientific is that it deals with a "creator" that cannot be scientifically evidenced or falsified and all the other talk is meaningless banter?

Most of the claims that creation or creationism are scientific show a total lack for how language works. (Note: Earlier in my life, I was a teacher of English and French. I have also studied Latin, German and linguistics. I have a good idea of how language works.)

Please, the following is what I said just before this claim "

Quote:

Some of the claims made on this thread that is has no meaning is a show of total ignorance for lang. and how it works, either that or a total lack of listening skills as to what is being discussed and why.

It says nothing at all about the claims of creation or creationism, but rather that a claim that there is no need to clarify our understandings of words is ignorance for lang. Please, with your background in lang, I would expect you to be able to understand the improtance of such a discussion allowing people to express themselves and their ideas and understandings of words while allowing people to ask for clarity of understanding.

Like most words, “theory” has multiple meanings and the context tells which meaning is meant. Science has a particularly rigourous definition of “theory” as it is used in scientific discussion. Outside of science, “theory” is often used more along the line of what science calls a “hypothesis” or even more loosely as simply an opinion, guess or speculative and ad hoc explanation.

Which is a perfect example of what I am talking about above. Thanks for saying it so eloquently.

Of course. But creationists just don’t do this in spite of many decades of opportunity. Neither do ID theorists. Only one ID paper has ever been published in a scientific journal, and that was under questionable circumstances. It has also been ripped to shreds by other scientists who have demonstrated its many weaknesses.

No where did I ask for evidence of anyone doing this, instead I ask you to further define our understanding of scienctific theory so as to be able to put to rest the question of whether or not the toc is scientific. If one believes it to be scientific, then they must know what is required to evidence the claims. If we can't even discuss what must be evidenced, I wonder what we are trying to hide.

 

[razzelflabben]

Nice claim to make when you have not told us either your understanding or the web.def.

“Doctrine” means “teaching”. It comes from the Latin word “doceo, docere” which means “to teach”. In religion, it generally refers to the core teachings of the religious community. Virtually all Christians explicitly or implicitly recognize the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed as the core teaching of Christianity. That is why they are often referred to as ecumenical creeds—because they transcend denominations and geography and are accepted by the whole Church world-wide. (“ecumenical” means “pertaining to the whole inhabited earth”)

Some Christian groups have additional teachings. For example, as a Presbyterian, I subscribe to the documents listed by my church as “sub-ordinate standards” such as the Westminster Confession of Faith. Many churches draw up “Statements of Faith” which outline their doctrines.

Since doctrinal teaching is religious in nature, the doctrines are to be accepted by faith.

Good formal definition, though in practice it doesn't always work that way. For example, most religions, including christianity teach love of others, however, in practice this is often abandoned for very unloving behavior. In other words, just because it is taught doesn't mean it is practiced.

Not really. Any evidence which supports the fact of evolution will also support the theory of evolution, and any evidence which supports the theory of evolution also supports the fact of evolution. You might distinguish them as saying some evidence is more directed to establishing that evolution happens and has happened, and some evidence is more directed to establishing that the mechanisms of evolution exist and are effective. But it’s a fine distinction.

Remember, that evolution and the toe are not the same thing, therefore, they cannot be interchanged.

No, that is not correct. You may be unaware that what is really being talked about here is a protein that regulates the synthesis of Vitamin C. Of course, the structure for the protein is rooted in the structure of the gene that codes for it. In any case, the protein and the gene exist (I think) in all animal species and maybe more. But in a very few primate species (chimpanzee and human) the protein is non-functional. It does not synthesize Vitamin C. This failure of protein function has been traced to a mutation in the gene which alters the structure of the protein. The mutation exists in all the species in which the protein does not function.

This cannot be evidence of common design. Only common ancestry explains this. If you want to continue this, best to pm me rather than derail the thread.

Already discussed it in length and have no interest in doing so again at this time, but, the point it not about what vit c syn does, but rather whether or not it is evidence. To me it is hard evidence of a shared gene with chimps, it is coincidental, circumstancial, soft evidence for common ancestry. Soft evidence is often viewed by me personally as being so weak that it's almost nonexistance, but that is my personal opinion and my question was issued in order to clarify if you make similar distinctions.

 

[razzelflabben]

You don't really need to collect them, unless you want to. Just respond to your opening post in the same way you asked us to. It is both a matter of courtesy and of convenience for everyone -- you included.

Why should we tell you our understandings and have you question them, if you are not willing to tell us yours? Two-way communication, remember. And it is much easier to refer back to a single post than to require people to look through more than a hundred, especially when you seldom reference anything you talk about. That is so time-consuming that it comes across as an evasion. You speak of not having much time. But you need to realize the rest of us don't have a lot of time either. It would take you much less time to consolidate your thoughts than it would take for someone else to review the thread. It is discourteous to ask people to do that, and because it is time-consuming it is seen as a tactic for evading the question.

For example, if anyone wants to see my definitions, they are all on page 3 post 27 of this thread. I can provide that link, and it is all there.

Actually, only two people have defined all the definitions on one post, that is the way discussions evolve. But if you find it necessary to insist, my understanding of evolution and toe is in post #29, creation and toc #44 and everything else in the op in #77. That should put that issue to rest.