Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

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.

Most people when complimented, accept it gracefully rather than unleash ungrounded, inconsiderate boastful insults on the complimenter. But that is your burden to carry and not mine. I do not believe it necessary to appologize for speaking kindly of you and your abilities to discuss things.

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

so then when we debate evolutio vs. creation, are we really debating evolution vs. creationism? The title on the forum is creation and evolution. What do we debate in these discussions and debates?

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”?

Excuse me, I just defined it. Evolutionism is the belief that the toe is fact. It doesn't really matter what one bases their beliefs on, they are still beliefs what one believes.

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.

Evolution maybe, but the toe is what is generally discussed by creationists, so the above question is even more important now than it was when asked. What terms are we discussion when discussion or debate is as the title suggests creation and evolution?

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.

And yet you accused me of not trying to communicat and here you admit that I did try to clarify. Is this an apology for coming to quickly to a false assumption and judgement?

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

ALL? Please site. If so, why wouldn't they be the leadership of the creationism religion?

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

But why should creationism concern itself with the other teachings in the bible?

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.

I have stated that my wording was poor, it appologized for the poor communication, I have corrected the issue, I really don't think you could possible know what I was taught, and yet you ask for more, what do you want blood? I will save my blood for a more serious offence thank you, if you want to act like a shark seeking a meal, be warned, I will fight back, or you can calmly accept my appology and explaination, and move on to something of more substancial meaning and importance.

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.

WEll, I enjoy testing my memory, it keeps me on my toes.

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.

So now you claim to know what I was taught, do you also claim to know what I believe and why? Tell me oh great one, what I believe, why I believe it, and while your at it, tell me who my teachers were and what they believe as well.

I assure you that niether the creationist nor the evolutionist is pleased with what I believe and why I believe what I do is because I have learned to seperate religion, philos, and psyco. from science and reviewed the evidence solely from the scientific standpoint.

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

Evidence is what points to a theory as being truth/fact. But my understanding of evidence cannot be sepeated from my views of hard and soft evidence. BTW, I am not good at paraphrasing definitions so let me give you this one.
attest: provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one's behavior, attitude, or external attributes; "His high fever attested to his illness"; "The buildings in Rome manifest a high level of architectural sophistication"; "This decision demonstrates his sense of fairness"
your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling"
an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear"
testify: provide evidence for; "The blood test showed that he was the father"; "Her behavior testified to her incompetence"
tell: give evidence; "he was telling on all his former colleague"
<LI>(law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved

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

You have been pretty comprehensive so far.

 

[gluadys]

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.

OK. So you are not withdrawing your claim. Now the next step is to substantiate your claim. What testable predictions does toc make and where can a person find them on the web?

You might begin by posting the link which you claimed to have posted before and didn't.

I won't deny the evidence of a testable prediction if it is put in front of my face, but so far I haven't seen one. And I have looked.

So the ball is in your court. Show me a testable prediction made by the toc and where this prediction can be found on the web. As you say, show me hard evidence that such predictions exist.

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

It is part of the definition. I said so twice before in this thread:

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.

This is completely contrary to scientific method which requires revising a theory if it is contradicted by the evidence.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1532956-start-communicating.html&page=7 post 61

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.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1532956-start-communicating.html&page=10 post 91

Pete also mentioned that:

"...the theory of evolution is tested and revised with respect to the scientific method, ..."
http://www.christianforums.com/t1532956-start-communicating.html&page=5 post 47

And early on someone posted a link to this page
on scientific method which includes this definition of "theory"

"A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur." Emphasis added.

If the prediction turns out not to be true, it means the theory is falsified. As it stands, it is no longer a valid scientific theory. It must be revised, or if it cannot be revised to agree with the data, it must be abandoned. Only theories which make correct predictions continue to be recognized as scientific theories.

This doesn't make any sense, if it is a theory, why must it be proven correct?

It is not the theory which must be proven correct. It is the predictions made by the theory which must be proven correct. If they are not correct, then the theory is not correct.

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?

There is no specification of how many predictions there must be, other than there must be at least one. Different theories make different numbers of predictions. However, a theory that makes many correct predictions will be considered better supported than a theory that is based on only a few correct predictions.

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?

As I just showed you, it is part of the definition.

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?

Depends on what you mean by toc. You have spoken of it as a belief that something was "created" i.e. "made". If the existence of the
one who created or made (the universe, life, etc) cannot be physically verified, then the claim that the creator exists is not testable. So the claim is not scientific. And if the creator cannot be shown to exist, then the claim that anything was created by the creator is also not scientific. Unless you have a different way of testing whether something was made.

Now if by toc you mean "creationism" then there are additional reasons for saying it is unscientific. For example, creationist claims have been falsified.

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.

You seem to have difficulty remembering what you yourself said.

We were discussing scientific method and theory and I had made the point that a scientific theory must be made public. As below (emphasis added).

Well, you have several [criteria] 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.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15212992#post15212992 post 111

You also asked:

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?
http://www.christianforums.com/t1532956-start-communicating.html&page=11 post 102

Hence, my reply. Of course I would, if creationists (or IDer's) did this. But they don't. And it is not for lack of opportunity. They have had plenty of time to work out their theories and test them and share their results with the scientific community. And they haven't done that. Hence toc (whatever that is) remains not science.

 

[gluadys]

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.

"doctrine" means "teaching" so it refers to what is taught, whether or not it is practiced.

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.

It is hard evidence for common ancestry. You probably don't fully understand the implications. That would require a better grasp of how evolution works.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Thank you.

 

[gluadys]

Most people when complimented, accept it gracefully rather than unleash ungrounded, inconsiderate boastful insults on the complimenter. But that is your burden to carry and not mine. I do not believe it necessary to appologize for speaking kindly of you and your abilities to discuss things.

I was responding to the part where you mentioned a sense of hostility. I was confirming that you were correct and giving you the basis of it. I assure you that if you show more fairness and openness in your communication style, the hostility will quickly vanish as I am not a person to hold grudges.

so then when we debate evolutio vs. creation, are we really debating evolution vs. creationism? The title on the forum is creation and evolution. What do we debate in these discussions and debates?

Mostly we discuss evolution and creationism. Most of the regulars, both Christian and non-Christian agree that:
1. Creation is not scientific concept.
2. Creation does not conflict with evolution.

Creationism OTOH does conflict with evolution, hence it is debatable. As for the forum title that was set by the owner/moderators. So if you find it misleading, you would have to take it up with them.

Excuse me, I just defined it. Evolutionism is the belief that the toe is fact. It doesn't really matter what one bases their beliefs on, they are still beliefs what one believes.

I suppose there might be some misguided individuals who believe that. You won't find many such here. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory. So to believe that the theory of evolution is fact is to hold an incorrect belief.

Evolution maybe, but the toe is what is generally discussed by creationists, so the above question is even more important now than it was when asked. What terms are we discussion when discussion or debate is as the title suggests creation and evolution?

See my answer above.

And yet you accused me of not trying to communicat and here you admit that I did try to clarify. Is this an apology for coming to quickly to a false assumption and judgement?

Not yet. See below.

ALL? Please site. If so, why wouldn't they be the leadership of the creationism religion?

All who have signed the statement of belief which is required by ICR and Answers in Genesis of any "scientist" who works for them. Of course, in signing these statements they abandon science since the statement requires them to abandon the scientific method and ignore any evidence which contradicts their pre-determined conclusions.
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

See also
http://www.creationresearch.org/belief_wndw.htm

And they are the leadership. They write the material on the website, they publish books, videos and other teaching material, they go and preach in churches. What they do not do is science.

But why should creationism concern itself with the other teachings in the bible?

Because creationists believe that how you interpret the early chapters of Genesis has implications for all the teachings of the bible. If you check some of the discussions in the Origins Theology forum, you will find many people who argue along the line that "If Genesis is not literal history, there was no fall and no need for redemption, so Jesus never died for our sins."

I really don't think you could possible know what I was taught,

Yes, that is right. I do not know what you were taught. I do, however, know what you said you were taught.

My husband and I were both taught that species are identified by appearance, and not by ability to reproduce.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1532956-start-communicating.html&page=6 post 55

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.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1532956-start-communicating.html&page=11 post 107

As I have noted previously, both of these teachings are incorrect and were incorrect at the time you learned them.

I have learned to seperate religion, philos, and psyco. from science and reviewed the evidence solely from the scientific standpoint.

There is no evidence in this thread that you have reviewed anything from the scientific standpoint or that you even understand the scientific standpoint relative to evolution.

BTW, I am not good at paraphrasing definitions so let me give you this one.

Here is an example of what raises those hackles of hostility. Early in this thread you said: (emphasis added)

BTW, the point of the thread is to get individuals to discuss their understanding of the words, not simply to look them up on the web and quote the definition.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1532956-start-communicating.html post 4

But here you go doing just that.

It is not fair-dealing to exempt yourself from the rules you want others to follow. You need to abide by the same standards you set for others.

You have been pretty comprehensive so far.

Yes, I have been, but you have not been. Double-standard again?

What is your understanding of scientific method (ideal version)?

Speaking of being a good two-way communicator, another improvement you could make is to stop using the acronym "toc". In the first place it is ambiguous as the "c" could stand for either "creation" or "creationism" and these are different concepts. In the second place, it has been explained to you that neither creation nor creationism are scientific theories and why they are not, so the "t" is an error as it suggests that one or both are theories when they are not.

 

[mark kennedy]

It would help to leave our technical definitions in exchange for your ideas as often times interpretations are also subjective.

Creation
Evolution
The theory of creation
The theory of evolution
Speciation
Kind
Theory
Evidence
Scientific method

That's probably to much to start with so feel free to pick and choose. Thanks in advance for keeping this calm and non judgemental.

The first four are easy enough:

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or redwood tree in one step….."

(Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197.)

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

Here in lies the first misconception about the belief system of evolution. In order to believe the toe as fact, one must first believe that science is the ultimate authority. For many creationists, they view the bible as the unlimate authority. Some people believe it or not seperate God from the bible as the ultimate athority. In fact, every religion begins by identifying the authority or authorities that they hold as ultimate. Remember the part of this discussion about philo. being important to science? Well religion (religion being belief system) is also important to our understanding of science. In order to believe that the toe is fact, we must believe that science is the ultimate authority on the issue. Begins with belief.

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!

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of creationists that do not follow these quidelines. What do you do with all of them? label them as fitting this profile and argue accordingly or listen to them and discover what they believe and discuss their beliefs apart from the above claims?

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 guess that would beg the question what do you mean by credible creationist? I thought creationists were those who believed the toc (scientific or not iow, theory being broad understanding)

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

So then you seperate the toe from evolution then, is that correct?

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.

This is interesting. One comment one question. Comment, many creationists believe that the evolutionists try desperately and get the evidence to fit the toe. I think that someone who comes into a discussion of our origins without a firm belief as to what they believe, would become increasingly confused by similar claims made by both sides. I think that is why understanding what is meant by words like evidence is so vital to communication. Question? Does the toe encompass more theories than just evolution? If not, why should we expect the person who believes the toc to do so? What would compell them to encompass more than one creation myth? Isn't that in part what ID does?

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".

It is not a strawman if it encourages communication. It is important to understand this understanding if the goal is to communicate rather than to insight emotion.

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.

So then you believe that neither the toe nor the toc is scientific?

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.

So is your claim then that the toc is nonscientific because we cannot falsify the existance of God?

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.

Wouldn't you find out what most people believe, not by reading the propaganda but rather by talking and asking questions and listening to those who believe?

 

[razzelflabben]

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.


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.


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.



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)


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

Interesting challenge, I'll keep an eye out for someone willing to take this challenge to explain theory beliefs.

 

[razzelflabben]

OK. So you are not withdrawing your claim. Now the next step is to substantiate your claim. What testable predictions does toc make and where can a person find them on the web?
I won't deny the evidence of a testable prediction if it is put in front of my face, but so far I haven't seen one. And I have looked.

Start here,
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-203.htm and
http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx3c.htm

Pete also mentioned that:

"...the theory of evolution is tested and revised with respect to the scientific method, ..."
http://www.christianforums.com/t1532956-start-communicating.html&page=5 post 47

And early on someone posted a link to this page
on scientific method which includes this definition of "theory"

"A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur." Emphasis added.

If the prediction turns out not to be true, it means the theory is falsified. As it stands, it is no longer a valid scientific theory. It must be revised, or if it cannot be revised to agree with the data, it must be abandoned. Only theories which make correct predictions continue to be recognized as scientific theories.

Have you yet grasped the concept that this discussion is not about whether or not the toc is scientific but rather what criteria establishes scientific theory and thus, which of those critieria leave the toc non scientific? The same criteria can be held up to the toe. Whichever, if either stands up to the criteria is then considered scientific whereas either or both that do not are then considered non scientific. It's about the definitions and understandings of what consitutes scientific theory.

It is not the theory which must be proven correct. It is the predictions made by the theory which must be proven correct. If they are not correct, then the theory is not correct.

But does a theory have to be proven correct in order to be a scientific theory? This doesn't sound right, especially coming from you, can you explain it in better detail for us, what does the correctness of the predictions have to do with whether or not a thoery is scientific?

Depends on what you mean by toc. You have spoken of it as a belief that something was "created" i.e. "made". If the existence of the
one who created or made (the universe, life, etc) cannot be physically verified, then the claim that the creator exists is not testable. So the claim is not scientific. And if the creator cannot be shown to exist, then the claim that anything was created by the creator is also not scientific. Unless you have a different way of testing whether something was made.

So then the toc is not scientific because it cannot falsify whether or not a creator exists? Is that your stand? Brings up a whole host of other questions, when this thread is finished, maybe we can start another thread addressing this issue.

Now if by toc you mean "creationism" then there are additional reasons for saying it is unscientific. For example, creationist claims have been falsified.

Again, this doesn't make sense, where does the scientific method or definition of theory say that only the theories that are not falsified are considered scientific, this seems contrary to what science says, this can't be what you intend to be saying, please clarify it.

You seem to have difficulty remembering what you yourself said.

We were discussing scientific method and theory and I had made the point that a scientific theory must be made public. As below (emphasis added).

The question was asked to discuss what criteria must be met for a theory to be considered scientific. I don't know when you changed the discussion to a theory being made public, but it helps if you let me know when you intend to change the topic without addressing the questions directed at you first. Thanks, I'm confident with effort, that we can have meaningful communication.

Hence, my reply. Of course I would, if creationists (or IDer's) did this. But they don't. And it is not for lack of opportunity. They have had plenty of time to work out their theories and test them and share their results with the scientific community. And they haven't done that. Hence toc (whatever that is) remains not science.

So here you are saying that for it to be considered a scientific theory, it must be published ? or it must be offered for review?

 

[razzelflabben]

It is hard evidence for common ancestry. You probably don't fully understand the implications. That would require a better grasp of how evolution works.

It is not hard evidence for common ancestry, sorry, it is not a direct observation of common ancestry. Hard evidence being a direct observation. It is soft evidence for common ancestry, we don't even have a control group of known ancestry in order to use vit c syn as a semi hard evidence for common ancestry. Hard evidence is direct observation, and vit c syn is a direct observation of a common genetic mutation between man and apes. Maybe you need to define for us your understanding of hard and soft evidence, I have done so with my understanding and even clarified it with vit c syn, maybe you can explain to us how you see vit c syn as a direct observation of common ancestry?!?

 

[Ledifni]

Comment, many creationists believe that the evolutionists try desperately and get the evidence to fit the toe.

That's because they have no idea what actually goes on in the scientific community. Tell you what:

Go to a university, any university. Go into their Science Hall or whatever they call the science building and stop a random professor, somebody you don't know. Mention to that professor that you have it from a trustworthy source that "evolutionists" try desperately to get the evidence to fit the ToE. When he stops laughing, assuming he hasn't cracked a rib in the process, ask him what was so funny. The answer might be instructive.

 

[razzelflabben]

Mostly we discuss evolution and creationism. Most of the regulars, both Christian and non-Christian agree that:
1. Creation is not scientific concept.
2. Creation does not conflict with evolution.

So the discussion is between a direct observation, evolution and a group of people who have a belief that creation is their religion. Boy is that off what it seems like you people are discussing, no wonder I get confussed. It seems like you are discussing the toe with the theory of a creator God. Thanks for clearing that up, I wonder though why common ancestor comes up so often if the discussion is about evolution and not the toe? Can you help us our here?

Creationism OTOH does conflict with evolution, hence it is debatable. As for the forum title that was set by the owner/moderators. So if you find it misleading, you would have to take it up with them.

evolution is the study of how things change, even the book of Gen. talks about how man evolves, I don't see how creationism which has it's roots in Gen can possibly be in conflict with evolution.

I suppose there might be some misguided individuals who believe that. You won't find many such here. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is a theory. So to believe that the theory of evolution is fact is to hold an incorrect belief.

I've heard those who claim such, we even had somone on this thread who appeared to be claiming that evolution and the toe were one and the same.

All who have signed the statement of belief which is required by ICR and Answers in Genesis of any "scientist" who works for them. Of course, in signing these statements they abandon science since the statement requires them to abandon the scientific method and ignore any evidence which contradicts their pre-determined conclusions.
http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

See also
http://www.creationresearch.org/belief_wndw.htm

And they are the leadership. They write the material on the website, they publish books, videos and other teaching material, they go and preach in churches. What they do not do is science.

But that was not the question. The question was whether or not the claim that creationism was a religion or rather a teaching of some of the religious. I said that I had never heard of the religion of creationism to please clarify if that was what was meant, you boasted that I didn't ask before asking for the ecclesiasties of the creationist religion. Then you indicate that I did ask for clarity before continueing my questions and right after that, you say again that I didn't. Which is it, did I ask for clarity (communication or not, my posts said I did and your accusations were false).

As I have noted previously, both of these teachings are incorrect and were incorrect at the time you learned them.

And I appologized for the poor communication and explained the problem and you are still trying to beat the already dead horse, what do you hope to gain. An appology was offered and the corrections made, what more can I give to satisfy your need to feel superior (that is what it seems you are seeking here, if not I appologize ahead of time in that all I can go by is what it sounds like you are saying and apart from the need to feel superior, I can't fathom any benefit you would gain from continueing to beat this dead horse.)

There is no evidence in this thread that you have reviewed anything from the scientific standpoint or that you even understand the scientific standpoint relative to evolution.

Okay..........All the understandings that I have presented, that agree with the scientific definitions and the other understandings presented in this thread by scientific minded individuals like yourself, is not evidence that I have reviewed anything from the scientific standpoint. Doesn't make sense but okay I guess, I intended this thread to be a safe place to express understandings and view, so I will play it as a simple acceptance of your understanding and idea and move on in confusion.

It is not fair-dealing to exempt yourself from the rules you want others to follow. You need to abide by the same standards you set for others
Yes, I have been, but you have not been. Double-standard again?

What is your understanding of scientific method (ideal version) .

What are gyou going on about. I have put forth each of the understandings I have for the words I presented and some others that have come up in the discussions, I have asked for clarity of things I did not understand without being judgemental, when I agree with someone elses understanding, I have simply said I agree rather than to cut and paste, or paraphrase what was said, in addition, the issue this is directed at, I offered my understanding in my own words then further explained it by offering the cut and paste definition, simply because I am not good at writting definitions, so I offered both for clarity and you come and accuse me of not following the rules set forth in the OP. What rules do you think the original post is intending? Where exactly do you think I am not following the rules?

Speaking of being a good two-way communicator, another improvement you could make is to stop using the acronym "toc". In the first place it is ambiguous as the "c" could stand for either "creation" or "creationism" and these are different concepts. In the second place, it has been explained to you that neither creation nor creationism are scientific theories and why they are not, so the "t" is an error as it suggests that one or both are theories when they are not.

I have offered my understanding of the toc and as such, it should be understood what I mean when I use the term. That is part of what communication is all about, not assuming or reading into what is being said, but rather to listen and understand what is being said. If you have been listening you should have no problem understanding what I mean when I say the toc. In fact, when one communicates, there is a give and take, not a one gives all, in other words, I don't have to accept your understanding of every word in order for communication to happen, I just have to make sure you understand what I mean when I use the word or term as I need to also understand what you mean when you use the word. It is a give and take not a one person makes all the rules up and makes them up as they go.

 

[Ledifni]

And I appologized for the poor communication and explained the problem and you are still trying to beat the already dead horse, what do you hope to gain. An appology was offered and the corrections made, what more can I give to satisfy your need to feel superior (that is what it seems you are seeking here, if not I appologize ahead of time in that all I can go by is what it sounds like you are saying and apart from the need to feel superior, I can't fathom any benefit you would gain from continueing to beat this dead horse.)

I don't think you quite understood what Gluadys was saying. Your "corrections" were also incorrect. You corrected your original by saying you were just trying to say that you were taught that in Darwin's day, species were differentiated by appearance and not by ability to reproduce. The problem is, in Darwin's day species were differentiated by their ability to reproduce.

In fact, species have been differentiated by the ability to reproduce since long before there was any Theory of Evolution. So, I think, this dead horse will be flogged until you get around to admitting that the definition of "species" hasn't changed.

Okay..........All the understandings that I have presented, that agree with the scientific definitions and the other understandings presented in this thread by scientific minded individuals like yourself, is not evidence that I have reviewed anything from the scientific standpoint. Doesn't make sense but okay I guess, I intended this thread to be a safe place to express understandings and view, so I will play it as a simple acceptance of your understanding and idea and move on in confusion.

It does make sense, but not to you. Every "understanding" that you have presented was full of misunderstandings. The misunderstandings themselves are not a reflection on you -- we all misunderstand things and must be corrected. It happens. What reflects on you is the fact that you are trying to work out an understanding that accomodates your misunderstandings, rather than listening and learning.

Think about it this way: you admittedly have a limited scientific education. There are many people here whom, you admit, are well-versed in science. Now, every single one of these educated people are telling you that your understanding of these things is completely wrong. Has it occurred to you that, since you are not an expert and they are, and since you, the non-expert, are the only one who thinks you're right, that there just might possibly be something to what they're saying?

 

[Edx]

Here in lies the first misconception about the belief system of evolution. In order to believe the toe as fact, one must first believe that science is the ultimate authority. For many creationists, they view the bible as the unlimate authority. Some people believe it or not seperate God from the bible as the ultimate athority. In fact, every religion begins by identifying the authority or authorities that they hold as ultimate. Remember the part of this discussion about philo. being important to science? Well religion (religion being belief system) is also important to our understanding of science. In order to believe that the toe is fact, we must believe that science is the ultimate authority on the issue. Begins with belief.

No we dont have to. And again you seem to misunderstand what science really is. Would you advocate faith in detectives at a crime scene that already think they "know" the truth, that wont ever let anything change their minds? What use is there in that? The point of detectives is to find out what really happened. In fact its even better than that because there is peer review in real science, so that any bias or error can be found and corrected. Science isnt an institution, well it can be, but science is really just a method and the best method we have of learning. Thats all there really is to it, and faith wont ever help us really know anything, thats why we call it faith in the first place.

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of creationists that do not follow these quidelines. What do you do with all of them? label them as fitting this profile and argue accordingly or listen to them and discover what they believe and discuss their beliefs apart from the above claims?

Well they are either ignorent, or they are willfully ignorent, or they have willfully ignored anything that might show their position is wrong, or they really do know the science and choose to dishonestly misrepresent it in order to convince themselves and other people. I really dont think its any more complicated that that.

I guess that would beg the question what do you mean by credible creationist? I thought creationists were those who believed the toc (scientific or not iow, theory being broad understanding)

I stated what I meant by credible. But see this thread also:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1559052-credible-creationists.html

A Creationist is someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis, but to varying degrees. I already said this in the other post.

So then you seperate the toe from evolution then, is that correct?

In context I am talking about biological evolution, which is the Theory of Evolution. Evolution is just a word meaning change, so your above comment becomes rather meaningless. Cosmological evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Evolution. Neither does the evolution of my organizational skills, or even the evolution of technology. Though the way some Creationists argue against the TOE it would mean technological advancement would be impossible.

This is interesting. One comment one question. Comment, many creationists believe that the evolutionists try desperately and get the evidence to fit the toe.

And they would be wrong for many reasons.
1. There is no starting bias, but they claim its atheism - which a lie.
2. There is nothing to be gained from obstinate faith to a scientific theory. This is why Newtons theory of Gravity was revised by Einstein. And is why Punctuated Equilibrium was a revising of Darwins work, which was self admittedly incomplete. But Creationists attack Darwin for not believing in his theory 100% or not knowing everything.
3. Like point 2, they attack the TOE for "changing" because they believe in a absolute truth and use that against science. Which just shows how unscientific they are.
4. You gain prestige and respect in science by showing how some other scientist got it wrong, and even more respect if you overthrow a popular theory or idea.
5. There is no reason at all to think "evolutionists try desperately and get the evidence to fit the toe". The idea is laughable.

I think that someone who comes into a discussion of our origins without a firm belief as to what they believe, would become increasingly confused by similar claims made by both sides.

Its not that scientists have a "firm belief" in evolution, its that they dont need to believe at all. If I said I had a firm belief in the theory of aerodynamics, would my belief matter whosoever when I went up in a plane? Science doesnt stick to theories with faith, scientists argue all the time. The way you win the Nobel prise by the way is to overthrow a popular theory and/or replace it with one of your own that explains the evidence better.

I think that is why understanding what is meant by words like evidence is so vital to communication. Question? Does the toe encompass more theories than just evolution?

No you are getting mixed up again. Evolution means change. The definition of the "Theory of Evolution" (biological like I said) is the 'change in alle frequencies over time', but that is a big subject. I agree on communication btw, but you need to learn how science uses these terms if you are going to debate or argue in a scientific way which is why when Creationists say things like "Evolution is only a theory" all they are really saying is "I have no idea what I am talking about".

If not, why should we expect the person who believes the toc to do so? What would compell them to encompass more than one creation myth? Isn't that in part what ID does?

Nothing "compels" them. That is why "theory of Creation" really is meaningless on every level. ID argues for some kind of intelligence being somehow evident in nature, but also attack evolution. However most of these are just Creationists in disguise, and those like Denton and Behe are so weak as IDists they dont qualfiy as Creationists at all.

It is not a strawman if it encourages communication. It is important to understand this understanding if the goal is to communicate rather than to insight emotion.

Does that mean you agree with "supernatural" or "to go against the laws of the universe". ?

So then you believe that neither the toe nor the toc is scientific?

How could you miss my point so badly? You said that you could still call the Theory of Creation as such even if it wasnt scientific, well what I was showing you is that even using popular definition of the word "theory" Creationism isnt a theory - so on every level there is no Theory of Creation.

So is your claim then that the toc is nonscientific because we cannot falsify the existance of God?

Thats one reason, yes. Replace "god" with faries. Replace "god" with spirits or any other god from any other religion or anything at all, it doesnt matter what it is, but it has to be scientific and the god, faries or a spirits explanation is not scientific. There are no facts to discover, no observations to be made, nothing we can learn by saying goddit. There is nothing to show, and so nothing we can know either. And if god was scientific, you wouldnt need faith anymore.

Wouldn't you find out what most people believe, not by reading the propaganda but rather by talking and asking questions and listening to those who believe?

See, generally most Creationists do think that in order to be a real Christian you need to believe in a literal Genesis. If they use the same arguments and read material like from Kent Hovind, ICR or AIG then they will undoubtedly have come across their views. If they respect them enough and think they are credible enough to take their arguments then that is why they take their views on whos a real Christian. Just stick around here long enough to see what Creationists think about those Christians that accept Evolution, it isnt pretty. But notice how I said "most" Creationists, Im sure there are some albeit weak Creationists that dont think so.

Ed

 

[Edx]

Interesting challenge, I'll keep an eye out for someone willing to take this challenge to explain theory beliefs.

Im sorry but I dont know what part of my post you were replying to

 

[gluadys]

Start here,
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-203.htm and
http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx3c.htm

Ok. The second one, so far as I can see, does not contain any testable prediction.
The first one appears to contain a testable prediction which has been confirmed. Chalk one up for Dr. Humphries. However, Dr. Humphries’ theory encompasses multiple predictions and has been falsified in many other respects. (I’m not a physics buff, so I will let those more knowledgeable in this field explain the details.) So this is an accidentally correct prediction. (Just as a very poor math student sometimes gets a correct answer, but still fails the test because of all the other errors.)

A genuinely scientific theory must get all its predictions right. When a prediction is shown to be incorrect, the theory must be revised.

Have you yet grasped the concept that this discussion is not about whether or not the toc is scientific but rather what criteria establishes scientific theory and thus, which of those critieria leave the toc non scientific?

Sure, that is exactly what I have been giving you: criteria
Remember that we began by showing the difference between a common understanding of theory as “a guess, an opinion, a speculation, etc.” and the scientific understanding of a theory as a model explanation of evidence based on well-tested and verified hypotheses. Then we dealt with one of the criteria of a good theory: it must make predictions and the predictions must be testable. There is no way to determine if a theory is correct without testing it. Next, the prediction must be risky. There must be a real chance that the prediction will be wrong. The next criterion is that the prediction is not wrong.

So the full list of criteria for scientific predictions is that they be:
Testable
Risky (=could be wrong) and
Verified (=are not wrong).

The doctrine of creation does not meet any of those criteria. That is why it is a religious doctrine, not science.
Creationism usually does not meet any of those criteria because it relies on supernatural happenings, and even when it does not, it still falls down on the 3rd criterion.

So, however, you understand “toc” it is not scientific.

The same criteria can be held up to the toe.

True. And based on the same three criteria, the theory of evolution is scientific in every respect. It makes testable predictions which are risky and which have been verified as correct.

But does a theory have to be proven correct in order to be a scientific theory?

Theories are not proven correct. Their predictions are proven correct. Theories are supported by the correctness of their predictions. But no amount of correct prediction “proves” a theory, since new evidence can turn up at any time which calls the theory into question.

This doesn't sound right, especially coming from you, can you explain it in better detail for us, what does the correctness of the predictions have to do with whether or not a thoery is scientific?

I don’t know why you have a problem with this. The point of a prediction is to find out if the theory matches the evidence. If the prediction turns out to be wrong, then the theory does not match the evidence. So then the theory is incorrect and is no longer a scientific theory. Example: the phlogisten theory of fire. Ever hear of it?

So then the toc is not scientific because it cannot falsify whether or not a creator exists?

Right.

Again, this doesn't make sense, where does the scientific method or definition of theory say that only the theories that are not falsified are considered scientific, this seems contrary to what science says, this can't be what you intend to be saying, please clarify it.

See above. A falsified theory is turfed out of science and no longer has a place in scientific teaching. That is why we no longer teach children that the sun orbits the earth. Because Copernicus, Galileo and others showed that geo-centric theory was false, and the earth actually orbits the sun along with the other planets.

So it is not at all contrary to what science says, and it is exactly what I intended to say.

The question was asked to discuss what criteria must be met for a theory to be considered scientific. I don't know when you changed the discussion to a theory being made public, but it helps if you let me know when you intend to change the topic without addressing the questions directed at you first. Thanks, I'm confident with effort, that we can have meaningful communication.

From post #90

If I form a hypotheses, and test that huypotheses, and observe within and without that hypotheses, when what makes it not scientific?

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.

Only when all this is done—especially getting the same results--will your hypothesis become part of the body of scientific knowledge.

So here you are saying that for it to be considered a scientific theory, it must be published ? or it must be offered for review?

Right. There is no such thing as private science in the way that there can be a private, personal religious belief.

 

[gluadys]

It is not hard evidence for common ancestry, sorry, it is not a direct observation of common ancestry.

So you want to be in the delivery room when the common ancestor gives birth to siblings which evolve into different species?

Or will birth certificates be sufficient?

Would you consider a birth certificate to be hard evidence that your great-aunt Milly was born, even though you did not personally witness the birth?

The non-functioning vit c syn gene common to chimpanzees and humans is like a birth certificate of a common ancestor.

But you would have to learn more about the way evolution works to appreciate why.

 

[gluadys]

In order to believe the toe as fact, one must first believe that science is the ultimate authority.

No. The ultimate authority in science is evidence and logic, not science as an institution nor science as a philosophy.

For many creationists, they view the bible as the unlimate authority.

True. This is why creationism is not only unscientific, but also bad theology from a Christian point of view.

Some people believe it or not seperate God from the bible as the ultimate athority.

As they should if they profess to be Christian. For a Christian, God is the ultimate authority, not the bible.

In order to believe that the toe is fact, we must believe that science is the ultimate authority on the issue. Begins with belief.

But since it is evidence, not science, that is the ultimate authority when using the scientific method, and evidence does not require belief, the theory of evolution does not begin with belief, but with evidence---the evidence that evolution happens.

This is interesting. One comment one question. Comment, many creationists believe that the evolutionists try desperately and get the evidence to fit the toe.

You have suggested that you studied some psychology. You will understand what I mean then by saying that this is projection. This is the method of creationists. They start with a pre-determined conclusion and try to fit the evidence to their conclusion. Then they assume that evolutionists work the same way. But scientists use the scientific method which always starts with the evidence and does not pre-determine the conclusion.

So creationists who think scientists use the same method creationists use are engaging in psychological projection.

Question? Does the toe encompass more theories than just evolution?

No. But it does contain several sub-theories that deal with specific aspects of evolution. Universal common ancestry would be such a sub-theory.

So then you believe that neither the toe nor the toc is scientific?

I can just imagine Ed head-banging his computer at that one!! Of course the theory of evolution is scientific. And there is no such thing as a theory of creation(ism).

 

[gluadys]

So the discussion is between a direct observation, evolution and a group of people who have a belief that creation is their religion.

No, not at all. Evolution is an observed fact. Creationists, however, do not recognize it as an observed fact because they have a religious commitment to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. A literal interpretation of this part of Genesis leads to making statements about the origin of life and of humanity that contradicts the evidence of evolution.

So the discussion is between those who recognize that evolution is a fact and those who don’t.

This has nothing to do with the doctrine of creation, because most creationists and many of those who recognize the reality of evolution both agree with the doctrine of creation. So creation is not the issue at all. Only creationism.

I wonder though why common ancestor comes up so often if the discussion is about evolution and not the toe? Can you help us our here?

The theory of evolution is mostly about how evolution happens i.e. the mechanisms of evolution: mutation, selection, gene flow, genetic drift. But it also includes the idea that in some circumstances these mechanisms lead to speciation. Speciation means that one species has been divided into two or more species. The original species is the common ancestor of the different species derived from it.

So the theory of evolution predicts that if we investigate the history of horses and donkeys, we will find that they had a common ancestor.

It also predicts that if we investigate the history of humans and chimpanzees, we will find that they also had a common ancestor.

Most creationists don’t object to the first prediction. But they are vehemently opposed to the second.

evolution is the study of how things change, even the book of Gen. talks about how man evolves, I don't see how creationism which has it's roots in Gen can possibly be in conflict with evolution.

See above. You will quickly find the points of conflict if you learn more about evolution and more about creationism. Since you claim that Genesis talks about how man evolves, you might like to show this to creationists.

And I appologized for the poor communication and explained the problem and you are still trying to beat the already dead horse, what do you hope to gain.

I didn’t raise it to beat again the dead horse of the statements being incorrect, but because you had expressed astonishment that I could have any idea about what you were taught. I think I clarified that I knew what you had been taught because you, yourself, had told us this in a previous post.

Okay..........All the understandings that I have presented, that agree with the scientific definitions and the other understandings presented in this thread by scientific minded individuals like yourself, is not evidence that I have reviewed anything from the scientific standpoint.

Since nothing you have said agrees with the scientific definitions, all you have presented is evidence that you have not reviewed anything from the scientific standpoint.

What are gyou going on about. I have put forth each of the understandings I have for the words I presented and some others that have come up in the discussions,

You have not presented your understanding of the scientific method. Your last word on the subject was in post #77 where you said:

“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.”

Since then I have made it clear that what I am asking for is your understanding of what the scientific method is supposed to be. Can you, in your reply to this post, present your understanding of the scientific method as it is supposed to be? This makes the 4th time of asking. (You will remember that having to press you for answers like this was one of the things that frustrates me when trying to communicate with you.)

Where exactly do you think I am not following the rules?

I think I was pretty clear. You set out an expectation in post 4 that people would contribute their own understanding rather than cut and paste from a dictionary. Then you cut and paste from a dictionary instead of giving your own understanding. You don’t abide by your own rules.

 

[razzelflabben]

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 your claim then is that sooner or later the observations science makes will be at least in part wrong, but not in the issue of our origins, only in other areas? This also is a new idea to me, one I have not heard expressed yet, please expound on it a bit. Does the evolutionist believe that science is the ultimate authority or not? If not, what is the ultimate authority?

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!

This is assuming that all creationists fit the catagory of aig and ICR But many here have expressed the understanding that not all creationists fit this category. Are you then saying that you do not accept the idea that there are other creationist views other than those presented by the AIG and the ICR?

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.

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

Humm, what do you then mean by the word credible?