Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

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.)

Sounds like a reasonable explaination of the differences between the two.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

Not the point, the point is, if one group makes grandios claims against the other and the other makes grandios claims against the first, where would one go to find out the truth, this is an age old question and often comes up in religious discussions, one teacher says this, another says this, how do you know what to believe? Now the question of our origins can be answered with, study what science is, but the discussion of our religious beliefs can be equally summarized and we are still left with what one believes vs. what another believes. So when then do we find truth when all that is being exchanged are insults and accusations and never discussion as to why the claims are being made and how we support those claims? That is the point.

 

[Ledifni]

Not the point, the point is, if one group makes grandios claims against the other and the other makes grandios claims against the first, where would one go to find out the truth, this is an age old question and often comes up in religious discussions, one teacher says this, another says this, how do you know what to believe? Now the question of our origins can be answered with, study what science is, but the discussion of our religious beliefs can be equally summarized and we are still left with what one believes vs. what another believes. So when then do we find truth when all that is being exchanged are insults and accusations and never discussion as to why the claims are being made and how we support those claims? That is the point.

It is very simple. Go to a university and enroll in classes that deal with these subjects. If you will listen and not immediately dismiss what the professor says as secular propaganda, then you will learn a lot -- and virtually all of your questions will be fully answered. The reason for these misunderstandings and false statements are the many creationists who either deliberately misrepresent the facts or are confused because others have deliberately misrepresented the facts to them.

The problem is not that science is incomprehensible; the problem is that those who disagree with science refuse to comprehend it.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

Wrong, the comment I made was based on what definition I was taught. Nothing else. In addition I referenced an article that discussed the definitions evolution (at least I thought I referenced it, I remember looking it up and cutting and pasting it into a post, maybe I didn't though, I don't want my memory to get in the way of actual communication)In addition, I explained that my comment did not intend to say that reproductive ability had nothing to do with species but that the importance of reproductive ability has changed over time. In addition to all of this, I further clarified that I understand the definition has changed over time, evolved if you will, and that the new definition is the one usually understood by evolutionists but it is important to communication to establish which interpretation of species is being refered to. Man, it helps if you listen.

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?

I have considered this a great length, however, I find it hard to believe that my understanding that 1. evidence is seperateding into 2 different groups, that of hard and soft evidence,Here's a scientific discussion that distiguishes between hard and soft evidence http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm 2. that niether the toe nor the toc is scientific, the toe not being scientific primarily because it deals with history and most people accept that history is not scientific and 3. that the term toc can be defined in that it is commonly used. And this site lays out at least one understanding for the toc, thus evidencing that a deifintion does exist, dispite whether or not you view the definition as accurate. http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp These differences in understanding some how qualify me as not understanding science or scientific method. If this is the type of conclusions that you are making to evidence the toe I hope I never become so scientific as you. This is horrible scientific method.

 

[Ledifni]

In addition to all of this, I further clarified that I understand the definition has changed over time, evolved if you will, and that the new definition is the one usually understood by evolutionists but it is important to communication to establish which interpretation of species is being refered to. Man, it helps if you listen.

Apparently I didn't speak loud enough.

THE DEFINITION OF 'SPECIES' HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE LONG BEFORE DARWIN. Clear now, or do I need to bold it, italic it, and blow it up to 50-point text?

 

[Ledifni]

I have considered this a great length, however, I find it hard to believe that my understanding that 1. evidence is seperateding into 2 different groups, that of hard and soft evidence,Here's a scientific discussion that distiguishes between hard and soft evidence http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm 2. that niether the toe nor the toc is scientific, the toe not being scientific primarily because it deals with history and most people accept that history is not scientific and 3. that the term toc can be defined in that it is commonly used. And this site lays out at least one understanding for the toc, thus evidencing that a deifintion does exist, dispite whether or not you view the definition as accurate. http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp These differences in understanding some how qualify me as not understanding science or scientific method. If this is the type of conclusions that you are making to evidence the toe I hope I never become so scientific as you. This is horrible scientific method.

Will you grant that one's common sense can lead one wrong, where expertise might illuminate the truth? You're essentially telling me, "Well, I don't see anything wrong with my common-sense considerations, so the only possibility is that you guys are just so closed-minded that you can't do any kind of objective research."

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

You are inferring too much in what I said, it would be more like this comparison. Do you have "faith" "belief" that the police who investigate the crime know more about the actual crime than the judge does. All I said is that everyone must deside what authority they hold to. If your authority is science, then it is science. If it is God then it is God. If it is Buddah, then it is Buddah, etc. etc. etc. It is not a big deal, we all deside what authority we hold to and that authority is the basis for our beliefs, whether evidenced by those authorities or not. So for futher example, the even the "creationist" must deside if their ultimate authority is AIG or ICR or the bible, or God or science, or somthing else. The evolutionist must do the same thing. If you have a different authrotiy than science, then scientific explainations will have little or no meaning. Bottom line is that if you believe the scientific observations a ultimate authority, you still have a belief system and there is no way around it because it defines who we are as people.

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.

Oooo kkkkaaaay, no animosity or sense of unfair play ther, shows totle ability and willingness to communicate. (NOT!)

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.

Try this web definition for credible Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the ability of the observer to believe the above.

Anyone can make a believable arguement, but if we are dead set on believing something to the contrary, then no arguement no matter how well made is credible. That seems to be your problem with creationists, they do not believe the arguements you present that you consider credible. So maybe a more defined definition of credible would be in order, not necessarily what it is not, but more like what it is.

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.

Okay, other have discussed their understanding for the words evolution and the toe maybe you could recap yours for us, is there any difference between the words?

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.

seems like you are talking to the extremists.

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.

Actually scientists have a strong belief in what authority they hold to and most hold to the authority of science.

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".

So are you saying then that there is not place for the idea of common ancestry within the terms evolution and theory of evolution? That is usually a distinction made by most on the issue.

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

I think that there are many things in this world that science cannot or does not explain. What those are is not within the realm of science to define. As to personal belief, I am a follower of Christ so I believe that some of these things (not all) are from God alone while others simply remain a mystery to science at the moment.

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.

The term is not the theory of creationism, it is the theory of creation. That seems to be the problem here.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.)

Now, let's set things straight. You asked for evidence that the toc makes testable predictions, I gave you that evidence. No claims were made as to the validity, accuracy, or application of those claims and this discussion goes way back to the definition of theory and how that definition given keeps the toc as non scientific. YOu are pulling apart the testable predictions and evaluating each of them which is outside the limits of the discussions. The discussion is about whether the toc makes testable predictions, are you ready to admit that they do, we can pull apart the predictions on another thread. I claimed that they did make testable predictions and you asked me to evidence my claim. Done, Checkmate! I had a teacher once who loved to bet packs of gum on things, he taught us that you should only bet on a sure thing. When I make a claim such as this, I assure you that I will be able to back it up otherwise it is not a claim but a theory I have. I claimed that the toc does make testable predictions. That was the beginning, middle and end of my claim. I evidenced that claim. I'm done with that claim now.

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

But how can it be a scientific theory only when it has been evideneced right predictions. It would seem to me that if we can only call it scientific theory when it has evidenced predictions, that theory is worthless to science. Theory being guesses, mean by definition that they are not evidenced. Therefore to require this evidence to qualify it as a scientific theory puts no meaning to the word theory. I can't imagine this is what you are trying to say which is why I keep asking you to explain yourself.

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).

accepted many posts ago, remember me thanking you for the criteria so that anyone wanting to prove the toc as scientific would know what burden of proof they must meet?

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.

My problem with the toe as being scientific is that it deals with history and I do not find history as being scientific and this is a sentiment shared by other scientists as well.

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.

Thanks for correcting my wording for me, I have a long ancestry history of getting the wrong word in places.

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?

Oh I have no problem with this, but the question you were asked is if the predictions must be correct in order for it to be considered a scientific theory and you keep assurting that it does and that just doesn't make any sense. Theory by nature of definition means that it is not "proven" so why must it be evidenced through predictions in order to be considered scientific? How many predictions must be evidenced before it is considered scientific? Why isn't this listed among your criteria above?

Right. There is no such thing as private science in the way that there can be a private, personal religious belief.[/QUOTE]You didn't answer the question

Does the research have to be submitted or published?

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

you want to compare it to birth certificates, I have a couple of real life comparisons for you, but let's combine them for the sake of space, thus creating a hypothetical based on real life.

My grandmother needed a birth certificate, but the problem was that in the area in which she was born, at the time period she was born, a birth certificate was not issued. So for government purposes, she was required to find 3 people who witnessed her birth (not available) now we can do blood tests to determine that she is related to here siblings, but they don't have birth certificates either. So how can we then determine when, where and to whom she was born? The government requires direct observation, hard evidence (eye witness) but science doesn't, why? I have a "kissing cousin" he is very fond of telling people we are kissing cousins, anyway, we can take the common ancestry back to my greatgrandmother. Here's the problem, that the soft evidence does not tell you, the common ancestor is a step mother of my grandfather and thus is related by marriage alone. See, hard evidence is a direct observation (like knowing that my great grandmother is a step only) while the soft evidence is that we have a common ancestor. Vit C syn does not identify ancestry, it identifies similarities and differences among the species just as my kissing cousin has a common ancester to me but is not a blood relative. (btw, my greatgrandmother was for all practical purposes my grandfathers mother in every way but blood)

 

[razzelflabben]

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

The ultimate authority for science is evidence and logic, but that is not necessarily true for the individual. Many people use science as their authority.


[/quote]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.[/quote] Well first of all you are assuming that all who believe in science have evidence as an authority. That would be like the christian claiming that faith is their authority, faith being the evidence not seen. Secondly, no matter what the authority is, beleif in that authority is necessary. So if you authority is evidence, you still believe (key word believe) that evidence is the authority.

 

[gluadys]

Sounds like a reasonable explaination of the differences between the two.

Only if you define "creation" as "special creation". This is, apparently what Futuyma is doing. Many Christians do not define "creation" as "special creation" but allow for "creation" to be a process of evolution.

If this definition is accepted, then one really has three perspectives.

Special creation---excludes evolution
Evolution in a purely naturalistic sense---excludes creation
Theistic evoluton---creation includes evolution; evolution is a form of creation.

 

[gluadys]

(to Edx post 140) 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?

No, we will have some things about evolution wrong too.

Does the evolutionist believe that science is the ultimate authority or not? If not, what is the ultimate authority?

In science, the ultimate authority is always the evidence. If your theory does not account for the evidence, then it has no credibility.

(to ledifni post 142) Not the point, the point is, if one group makes grandios claims against the other and the other makes grandios claims against the first, where would one go to find out the truth,

To the evidence.

this is an age old question and often comes up in religious discussions, one teacher says this, another says this, how do you know what to believe?

Because religion is all about faith. It has no evidence to point to that can resolve the debate. This is the difference between science and religion.

(to Ledifni post 144) In addition, I explained that my comment did not intend to say that reproductive ability had nothing to do with species but that the importance of reproductive ability has changed over time.

And that is incorrect. The importance of reproductive ability to the definition of species has not changed over time.

In addition to all of this, I further clarified that I understand the definition has changed over time, evolved if you will, and that the new definition is the one usually understood by evolutionists but it is important to communication to establish which interpretation of species is being refered to. Man, it helps if you listen.

I think we all realize that it was your understanding that the definition has changed. What we are emphasizing is that your understanding is incorrect. The definition has not changed.

I have considered this a great length, however, I find it hard to believe that my understanding that 1. evidence is seperateding into 2 different groups, that of hard and soft evidence,Here's a scientific discussion that distiguishes between hard and soft evidence http://www.av8n.com/physics/authority.htm

That article is pointing out (quite correctly) that appeals to authority are soft evidence at best. And hard evidence will always trump an appeal to authority. You, however, have been referring to evidence about history as soft evidence. That is quite a different matter.
Evidence about history is not appeal to authority and is often hard evidence in that it deals with datable artifacts such as an inscription on a monument.

2. that niether the toe nor the toc is scientific, the toe not being scientific primarily because it deals with history and most people accept that history is not scientific

I do not accept that the study of history is unscientific. I doubt you will find a historian, an archeologist, an anthropologist or a paleontologist who will agree that the study of history is unscientific and based only on soft evidence.

Furthermore, while the theory of evolution does include the study of the history of evolution, it also includes the study of evolution in the present, so it cannot be called unscientific on the basis that it deals with history, because it does not deal only with history.

Finally, the theory of evolution meets all the criteria of a scientific theory as discussed earlier.

and 3. that the term toc can be defined in that it is commonly used.

Yes, the term is commonly used, especially by creationists who believe that creation IS creationism and nothing else. That doesn’t mean that there really is a theory of creation. No one has yet presented a theory of creation, including trueorigins.

For example: no where in that article does Mr. Wallace even mention predictions. So, clearly, he does not even understand what a scientific theory is. Therefore, no matter what he chooses as a title for his article, it does not present a theory of creation.

Furthermore, he muddies the waters by misrepresenting the theory of evolution. This is easily seen in his two tables.

First table:
In the first he says that both the creation and the evolution hypothesis begin with accumulation and analysis of empirical data. This is actually true only of the theory of evolution. Creationism begins by assuming a literal interpretation of Genesis is a scientific account of creation.

Next he says that evolution is based on humanistic naturalism. This is not true.

Next he says that both creation and evolution rely primarily on citation of empirical data to demonstrate support for their theory. But this is true only of evolution. Creationism relies primarily on an appeal to the authority of scripture.

Finally he says that creationism appeals to empirical data to criticize evolution while evolution relies on rejection of religion/philosophy to criticize creation and creationism.

This is altogether false throughout.

Second table

He says the evolution hypothesis affirms man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and false. This is completely incorrect. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and the theory of evolution does not say anything at all about this philosophical question.

He says that neither creation nor evolution is falsifiable. He is wrong again. Evolution is falsifiable. He says that neither has been falsified. He would be correct in saying creation is not falsified, since it is not falsifiable. But he would be wrong in saying that creationism (which is what he is really describing) has not been falsified. It has been.

He says evolution has replaced the bible as an accurate record of history and replaced it with philosophical naturalism. Wrong on both counts. Evolution says nothing about either question. (He would be right on the question of rejecting much of biblical history if he had said “science” instead of “evolution” but even then he would still be wrong on philosophical naturalism.)

He says evolution teaches that time, space and matter are either eternal or self-created. This is incorrect. Evolution does not address this question at all. He would still be incorrect if he had said “science” instead of “evolution”, for science does not exclude creation as the origin of time, space and matter. Science does not deny that the big bang could have a supernatural power behind it, as many Christians believe.

He says that evolution as an explanation for the complexity, variety and adaptability of living species has been falsified. He is wrong. It has not been falsified. In fact, it has been empirically observed and even reproduced by experiment.

He says that evolution as an explanation for genetic and morphological similarities is not falsifiable. He is wrong. It is falsifiable though it has not been falsified.

He says that evolution as an explanation for genetic information has been falsified. That is incorrect. He also offers a creationist explanation of genetic information which he says has not been falsified, although it has been.

On the fossil record, he is wrong, in the first place, to consider this under evolution at all, as it more properly belongs under geology. (Paleontology, the study of fossils, is ordinarily studied as a branch of geology, though in some institutions it is seen a crossing both geology and biology.)

In any case he claims neither the scientific explanation of the fossil record nor the biblical flood model is falsifiable nor falsified. BS. The global flood model is both falsifiable and long since falsified (since about 1830!) The scientific model is also falsifiable, but has not been falsified. Similarly his flood-related explanation of the ice age is (contrary to his assertion) both falsifiable and falsified.

On the sequential order of fossils, he is incorrect in saying that the flood explanation has not been falsified (it has been) and in saying the scientific explanation has been falsified (it has not been).

Finally, he errs in saying that evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics (this is a PRATT). He slanders scientists in saying they use radiometric dating techniques irresponsibly.

Finally, his claim that this table presents a “theory of creation” is also wrong. All it shows is a highly inaccurate comparison of creationism and the theory of evolution. He never actually says what data creationism is based on, how it explains the data, what predictions have been drawn from the theory, how they have been tested or what the results of the tests have been. In short, the “theory of creation” is not presented in this article at all.

These differences in understanding some how qualify me as not understanding science or scientific method.

Quite right. Your understanding of these issues is conclusive evidence that you do not understand science or scientific method.

 

[Edx]

Does the evolutionist believe that science is the ultimate authority or not? If not, what is the ultimate authority?

Why do you think there has to be an "ultimate authority", or absolute truth? Science is the best method we have to really know things about our universe, that is all. We may never know everything, or anything for certian but I'd rather say I dont know than pretend I know.

Ed

 

[gluadys]

The ultimate authority for science is evidence and logic, but that is not necessarily true for the individual.

But the individual does not validate science.

Well first of all you are assuming that all who believe in science have evidence as an authority.

You asked about the ultimate authority. The ultimate authority is evidence. I may not have the time to review the evidence personally, or the expertise to evaluate it. So I receive scientific conclusions second-hand. But I still know that the conclusions are based on evidence.

That would be like the christian claiming that faith is their authority, faith being the evidence not seen. Secondly, no matter what the authority is, beleif in that authority is necessary. So if you authority is evidence, you still believe (key word believe) that evidence is the authority.

The difference is that I cannot present my evidence not seen to anyone but myself, but I can, in principle, present the observed evidence science is based on to everyone else.

 

[gluadys]

(to Edx post 147) If you have a different authrotiy than science, then scientific explainations will have little or no meaning.

True. The problem arises when those who look to a different authority try to override science on scientific matters.

Try this web definition for credible Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the ability of the observer to believe the above.

Not complete. It should say something about the believability being based on the reputation of the witness or the soundness of the argument.

Anyone can make a believable arguement, but if we are dead set on believing something to the contrary, then no arguement no matter how well made is credible.

Exactly. Since creationists have chosen not to allow their beliefs to be challenged, they reject the science that challenges their beliefs. Science, on the other hand, expects and welcomes challenges as long as they are grounded in real evidence and observations.

So are you saying then that there is not place for the idea of common ancestry within the terms evolution and theory of evolution? That is usually a distinction made by most on the issue.

Actually, Ed’s reference to 'change in alle frequencies over time' includes the idea of common ancestry.

The term is not the theory of creationism, it is the theory of creation. That seems to be the problem here.

And that comes back to definition. People define “creation” differently. Many define “creation” as “creationism”. In that case, one must deal with “creation” as “creationism”. Others define “creation” more broadly, in such as way that it does not conflict with evolution.

Most of the people who come to this board with the intention of defending “creation” define “creation” as “creationism”.

Now, let's set things straight. You asked for evidence that the toc makes testable predictions, I gave you that evidence.

Ah, my bad. I am sorry. I should also have pointed out that Dr. Russell’s “White Hole Cosmology” is not a theory of creation. It is compatible with young-earth creationism, but it is presented as a scientific theory of the origin of the universe. So it is a cosmological theory, not a theory of creation. It is also not a scientific theory since it depends on an unverified assumption about the boundary of the universe and other assumptions about the nature of time. At best one could call it an interesting speculation, but it probably doesn’t even qualify as that since it is falsified by so many different lines of evidence.

But how can it be a scientific theory only when it has been evideneced right predictions. It would seem to me that if we can only call it scientific theory when it has evidenced predictions, that theory is worthless to science.

On the contrary, this is most useful to science, because you can now move forward to different predictions and different tests and every one both answers a question and raises more questions, which then become the subject of new research. As long as we do not know whether a prediction is right or wrong, scientists cannot use the theory as a base for developing new knowledge. It is like standing at fork in a pathway and not knowing what direction to take. Once you have confirmed that a prediction is false, you can steer away from a fork that leads to a dead end. Once you have confirmed that a prediction is true, you can follow that path until you hit a new fork in the road.

Theory being guesses

Scientific theories are NOT guesses.

My problem with the toe as being scientific is that it deals with history and I do not find history as being scientific and this is a sentiment shared by other scientists as well.

No, it is not shared by scientists. History offers some challenges to scientific research, but it is quite possible to use scientific method to research history. You might like to ask paleontologist Niles Eldredge if he considers his work is not science.

It looks like you need to explore how historians, geneticists, archeologists, geologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, forensic scientists, detectives, and genealogists do their work and assure that it is as correct as possible.

Oh I have no problem with this, but the question you were asked is if the predictions must be correct in order for it to be considered a scientific theory and you keep assurting that it does and that just doesn't make any sense. Theory by nature of definition means that it is not "proven" so why must it be evidenced through predictions in order to be considered scientific?

The problem is that you keep confusing proving the predictions with proving the theory. Proving the predictions does not prove the theory. It only shows that the theory is not false. The more often the theory is shown not to be false, the more confidence scientists have that it is true.

How many predictions must be evidenced before it is considered scientific?

Initially, one. But eventually all the predictions derived from the theory must be shown to be correct. If a theory makes ten predictions and nine have been proved correct, it may look like a pretty good theory. But if the tenth prediction is shown to be incorrect, then the theory is incorrect as well and it must be revised.

Does the research have to be submitted or published?

Published. Otherwise it is not public. Furthermore, it cannot be published privately. It must be published in a recognized scientific journal. This means it has already been screened by several people, in addition to the author, who agree that it makes a valid contribution to science. (This does not mean they necessarily agree with the author, but they agree that it is worth putting forward for scientific discussion.)

you want to compare it to birth certificates, I have a couple of real life comparisons for you, but let's combine them for the sake of space, thus creating a hypothetical based on real life.

My grandmother needed a birth certificate, but the problem was that in the area in which she was born, at the time period she was born, a birth certificate was not issued. So for government purposes, she was required to find 3 people who witnessed her birth (not available) now we can do blood tests to determine that she is related to here siblings, but they don't have birth certificates either. So how can we then determine when, where and to whom she was born?

But I didn’t ask for evidence about when, where and to whom she was born. Only evidence that she was born. How about your own experience of speaking to your grandmother? Would that be sufficient to prove she was born? If not, how would you explain the fact that the two of you can (could?) carry on a conversation?

The government requires direct observation, hard evidence (eye witness) but science doesn't, why? I have a "kissing cousin" he is very fond of telling people we are kissing cousins, anyway, we can take the common ancestry back to my greatgrandmother. Here's the problem, that the soft evidence does not tell you, the common ancestor is a step mother of my grandfather and thus is related by marriage alone. See, hard evidence is a direct observation (like knowing that my great grandmother is a step only) while the soft evidence is that we have a common ancestor

If you know that your common great-grandmother is your grandfather’s step-mother, there must be evidence to that effect. How do you know she was his step-mother and not his birth-mother? On what grounds do you call that evidence hard or soft?

And, btw, if you are blood related to your grandfather, you are related to his birth mother, correct? Do you have evidence of that relationship? Is it hard or soft evidence?

Vit C syn does not identify ancestry, it identifies similarities and differences among the species

There are many issues here that you seem to be unaware of. Do you want to deal with them in this thread or another?

 

[Physics_guy]

Ah, my bad. I am sorry. I should also have pointed out that Dr. Russell’s “White Hole Cosmology” is not a theory of creation. It is compatible with young-earth creationism, but it is presented as a scientific theory of the origin of the universe. So it is a cosmological theory, not a theory of creation. It is also not a scientific theory since it depends on an unverified assumption about the boundary of the universe and other assumptions about the nature of time. At best one could call it an interesting speculation, but it probably doesn’t even qualify as that since it is falsified by so many different lines of evidence.

Actually at best you could call it extremely poor scholarship because it attempts to use a purely false time-coordinate in its General Relativity calculations. More likely, however, it is simply dishonest, because even someone with a rudimentiary understanding of GR would see its problems, so Humphries must have known it was wrong when he made it.

 

[Edx]

You are inferring too much in what I said, it would be more like this comparison. Do you have "faith" "belief" that the police who investigate the crime know more about the actual crime than the judge does

Bad comparison. Truth isnt decided in a court of law. That is why science doesn't work that way. A lawyers job isnt to determine truth, but to twist the truth to whichever way they are arguing in order to win. The process of the investigation is the science, but in science it is always open to question. That is why peer review cannot be compared to a court room.

. All I said is that everyone must deside what authority they hold to. If your authority is science, then it is science. If it is God then it is God. If it is Buddah, then it is Buddah, etc. etc. etc. It is not a big deal, we all deside what authority we hold to and that authority is the basis for our beliefs, whether evidenced by those authorities or not.So for futher example, the even the "creationist" must deside if their ultimate authority is AIG or ICR or the bible, or God or science, or somthing else

You didnt say that. You said: "In order to believe the toe as fact, one must first believe that science is the ultimate authority" and said evolution was a "belief system". Evolution isnt a belief system. Science isnt a belief system. Its not that I find science an authority over "god" or whatever else, I find the scientific "system" and method to be the best thing we have to find out what is really true. If any religion is true, then it should encompass science not fight against it. There is no use in any "truth" if it cannot stand up to scrutiny. In science all beliefs are open for question. Faith it is agaisnt any question but rather to insist you are right no matter what.

The evolutionist must do the same thing. If you have a different authrotiy than science, then scientific explainations will have little or no meaning.

No meaning? So the next time they take medication, have an operation, go up in an aeroplane or whatever other scientific advancement they just take for granted, they can pretend that it wasnt science but actually because of God or Buddah?

Bottom line is that if you believe the scientific observations a ultimate authority, you still have a belief system and there is no way around it because it defines who we are as people.

This sounds so weird. You are using words very inappropriately. What belief system do I have, because I think science is the best way to really know things?

Oooo kkkkaaaay, no animosity or sense of unfair play ther, shows totle ability and willingness to communicate. (NOT!)

Sorry, did it sound harsh? Well I hate to be blunt but can you offer me any other way to be a Creationist, and not fit one of those?

Try this web definition for credible Credibility is the believability of a statement, action, or source, and the ability of the observer to believe the above.

You know Im not asking for much, view my list and tell me where I can find a credible Creationist source anywhere.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1559052-credible-creationists.html

Anyone can make a believable arguement, but if we are dead set on believing something to the contrary, then no arguement no matter how well made is credible. That seems to be your problem with creationists, they do not believe the arguements you present that you consider credible. So maybe a more defined definition of credible would be in order, not necessarily what it is not, but more like what it is.

Basically, yes. Ive already said above (see link) for what I mean by credible, if you have a problem with it lets talk about it dont just pretend its not there.

Okay, other have discussed their understanding for the words evolution and the toe maybe you could recap yours for us, is there any difference between the words?

Right well evolution, the word, means change. So that is why you can hear people talking about the evolution of cosmology, or the evolution of the role of women in society, or an evolution of technology. Whatever. However, the Theory of Evolution is biological - biological, and nothing but biological. It is a theory that unifies every part of the biological sciences. Do I really need to go further?

seems like you are talking to the extremists.

Sorry but Im not. You said, "many creationists believe that the evolutionists try desperately and get the evidence to fit the toe" and those were the reasons why they're wrong.

Actually scientists have a strong belief in what authority they hold to and most hold to the authority of science.

There you go again with this authority thing. Real scientists realise that if their religious beliefs are truthfull science wont contradict it. Those that believe religious notions like god do so on faith and they admit they do so. Thats why real scientists that are Christians realise that Genesis isnt supposed to be read literally. That either it was just a story that was supposed to be literal, but wrong. Or if it is truth of anything it is meant to be a metaphor for the human condition.

So are you saying then that there is not place for the idea of common ancestry within the terms evolution and theory of evolution? That is usually a distinction made by most on the issue.

No thats not what Im saying at all. You should read this "What is Evolution?" before we continue. In further replies I will assume you have read it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

From that page, "When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated"

I think that there are many things in this world that science cannot or does not explain.

There will always be things we dont know. Pretending we do is useless.

What those are is not within the realm of science to define. As to personal belief, I am a follower of Christ so I believe that some of these things (not all) are from God alone while others simply remain a mystery to science at the moment.[/i]

So what has that got to do with Creationism? We were talking about how Creationists claim god made the universe with magic, or if you prefer with "supernatural power that go against the laws of nature".

The term is not the theory of creationism, it is the theory of creation. That seems to be the problem here.

Dont you get it yet? The "Theory of Creation" IS Creationism. Creation doesnt have to mean magic, have you forgotten?
"For the non-Creationist Christian god created the universe like you would go about creating that book. Your actions to make the book are like the natural laws god uses, IE. Evolution for example. For the the Creationist, they believe you just poofed the book into existence out of nothing." - me

Ed

 

[Jet Black]

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

not just that commonality, but also the patterning of the paeudogenes, making the "birth certificate" far more detailed than a simple common gene.

 

[razzelflabben]

It is very simple. Go to a university and enroll in classes that deal with these subjects. If you will listen and not immediately dismiss what the professor says as secular propaganda, then you will learn a lot -- and virtually all of your questions will be fully answered. The reason for these misunderstandings and false statements are the many creationists who either deliberately misrepresent the facts or are confused because others have deliberately misrepresented the facts to them.

The problem is not that science is incomprehensible; the problem is that those who disagree with science refuse to comprehend it.

And we all know that our schools are unbiased and always teach truth right? That's why our kids are graduating without even knowing how to read. The point is not what or where we learn, but what truth is. I am not disagreeing with your concept, do you get that, what I am saying is that when both sides make the same claims and those claims are backed by similar evidences, it comes down to a question of which side you choose to believe. Now, you might base your choice on the educators (which don't all agree), you might base it on your religious teaching, your convictions, evidences you are presented, logic, etc. but the bottom line is you must deside which side you will believe because both are equally credible if the claims and evidences are the same. It's a personally, individual choice, and not a one size fits all. If the claims were different from each other and the evidences were not similar in nature then this would not be the case, however, that is not the case. That is the point.

 

[razzelflabben]

Will you grant that one's common sense can lead one wrong, where expertise might illuminate the truth? You're essentially telling me, "Well, I don't see anything wrong with my common-sense considerations, so the only possibility is that you guys are just so closed-minded that you can't do any kind of objective research."

What I am saying is that the only suggnificate differences in my understanding of the definitions from the majority of people here is those posted and I can evidence most of that as being common understandings in science so a claim that I don't understand science is like saying that the people here don't understand it any better and if that is the case, then what is anyone doing here claiming to understand science and scientific method? Seems like a strange claim don't you agree?