Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

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

The question was not what science uses as ultimate authority but what the evolutionist uses as ultimate authority. Now since some of you don't like the term evolutionist, let's clarify it again as the person who believes the toe to be fact. What is their authority? It always helps communication when you answer the question asked.

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.

Again missing the point aren't you. The point is not what is the difference between science and religion I think most people can tell you that. The point is that religion sees this question come up all the time and the arguements are the same. The controversy is the same, the arguments are the same and it still comes down to what one believe to be truth. Your belief might be based on evidence, but when someone else presents evidence, you must come back to the issue, which evidence do I believe. That's the problem with making claims and accusations rather than discussing and making your clear and then let that evidence speak for itsself.

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.

I have not do as you claim. In fact, all I have said is that hard and soft evidence are different. The history part is another issue and in essence, what I believe is that though we can study history and we can run experiments on history, all our understandings of history are a revising of history. It is for this reason that I have a personally belief (note not a claim to fact, but a personnal belief) that the toe is not scientific because it deals with history. Now this is not to say that evolution is not scientific, but rather the toe, which includes but is not limited to common ancestry. Common ancestry not being able to be directly observed.

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.

Actually, I have talked to a historian in depth about it and he agrees, others I have only briefly talked with on the subject and they seem to agree, but this is opinion and not claims of truth.

 

[razzelflabben]

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

The point it, that our world so complexed enough that people can and do choose from a host of authorities. It would appear that you choose science, and that is fine and good, others might choose philosophy, religion, psycology, etc. If everything in this world could be reduced to science, then that would be a different discussion, but that is not the way our world works and so, an authority must be desided upon and that is the basis for your belief system. It's not hard, scary, it does not reduce you or your opinions, what is so scary? It is what life is, it is how our world works.

 

[razzelflabben]

But the individual does not validate science.



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.




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.

And that is the bases for the decision you have made to determine your authority. That's cool, and sound, but choosing an authority is an individual things, and can be based on a wide variety of factors, all equally important to our understanding of our world. That is the point.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

And some evolutionists do the same.

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.

I have given my understanding of the terms at least onces now, so when I use the words/terms, you know what I am talking about if you have been listening on this thread and not just talking to hear yourself talk.

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.

And yet in post #136 you admit that the toc makes testable predictions, you are contridicting your own words. Try some consistancy.

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.

I think what you want to say is that theories that are not supported by evidences to their predictions are discarded, not that a theory must be evidenced by it's predictions in order to be considered scientific theory. That would make sense with what you claim here, but that is why I keep asking you to clarify because it makes no sense to say that I have to evidence the predictions of the theory before it can be accepted as a scientific theory.

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.

I did not say that science cannot research history but rather that history by nature is not science.

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.

The problem is that you refuse to listen to the questions.

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?

So because we exist, then we have hard evidence for the toc? Okay, that is cool, we exist so we have hard evidence for the toe and the toc, or we have hard evidence that we exist?!? BTW, you claim was that vit c syn was hard evidence for common ancestry. I told you that it was not and gave you an example as to why it was not. Is it evidence that we exist and so do apes, sure why not, is it hard evidence that we man and apes are common ancestors, not anymore than knowing that my kissing cousin and I share a common ancester. Which we do, but it is not blood. That is the point and the answer to the claim you presented.

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?

Not sure what your question is, is your question do I have hard evidence for the relationship or are you asking about the point being made?

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?

In some of the relationships of my grandparents, there is hard evidence, in some there is only soft. So in order to paint a complete picture we first have to evaluate how hard or soft the evidence is.

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

We aren't talking about truth, we are talking about what authority you are accepting. And btw, this is the first time the lawyers are coming into the equation. Who do you equate the lawyers to?

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.[/quote[ You are experssing and idea that "evidence" is your authority, that's cool, seems to me that you could choose a worse authority.

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?

It depends on what their individual authority is.

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?

Personally, I think most of them have some merit. So I adapt a bit of this and a bit of that. I find science to be a good authority in some things, whereas God is a good authority in other issues. That kind of thing.

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?

I have talked to some

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.

My point. it still comes down to your authority

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"

Explain how you read this please, does this mean that we had a common ancestor or that we share genes common to both species?

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

Yep which is why claims need to be supported.

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".

This thread is all about incouraging communication rather than simply argueing in circles.

 

[Ledifni]

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.

Oh, yeah? Notice I said "university." Now, can you point me to anyone in the entire world who graduated from a university without knowing how to read? Hmm?

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.

No, dear, I'm sorry. Both sides are not backed by similar evidence. You think so because you do not understand the subject -- if you would learn about the subject, you would learn this; but you refuse to learn about the subject because you are so supremely confident that you, who learned what you know from a preacher, know more about this than people who have spent their entire lives studying the field.

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.

However, the claims and evidences aren't the same. Thus, the bottom line is that you can do one of two things:

1) Stay ignorant and believe whatever strikes your fancy.
2) Get a little education, which will cause you to realize that, really, the "evilutionists" do know what they're talking about.

It's your choice. But don't pretend it's a choice between two equally rational options.

After all, razzelflabben, I used to be a diehard creationist. Quite a bit more diehard than you are. And yes, I was fully as mistaken and ignorant, probably more so, than you are. I changed my mind when I began to learn a little -- when I pulled my fingers out of my ears because I was curious about what "evilutionists" really do believe.

I found out, surprise, surprise, that my creationist teachers had been lying to me -- every bit of creationist "evidence" turned out to be either misleading or dishonest, and every bit of evidence for evolution was perfectly accurate. The creationist tactic of portraying evolution as ridiculous faith in the power of blind chance only works as long as you don't really know anything about the ToE. Once you do, the creationists begin to look quite ridiculous.

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.

Ah, but the claims are very different and the evidence is not at all similar. That you imagine differently only shows your misunderstanding of science and of the ToE.

 

[Ledifni]

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?

All I can tell you is that you don't see a difference between your understanding and ours because you simply don't understand science. There are massive differences between your understanding and ours. These have already been pointed out repeatedly in this thread. You simply refuse to believe that there's really any difference between science and blind speculation.

 

[Ledifni]

And by the way, Razzelflabben -- why did you pretend not to be a creationist when you started this thread? For a while there, you were denying that you are a creationist. Now you've seemed to drop the pretense entirely. Why is this?

I mean, I can imagine your reason -- my guess is that you concealed your beliefs because you wanted the opportunity to discuss the subject without being immediately judged badly due to your creationism. That's understandable, but there's a big problem with that. You see, the reason creationists get so little respect around here doesn't have anything to do with what they call themselves. It has to do with their extreme scientific misconceptions.

In other words, a diehard "evolutionist" who misunderstands science and evolution gets as little respect around here as you do. A creationist who understands science and evolution but makes the choice to have faith that God could have created in six days and left no evidence of it (in fact, evidence to the contrary) gets the respect he is owed as a scientist around here, since he does not misrepresent or twist science for his own ends.

That is, pretending to be an evolutionist isn't going to get you respect, dear. What will get you respect around here is knowledge of science. If for no other reason, you should already know this because even when you were denying your creationism, everybody here treated you exactly like a creationist. You can say you're not a creationist, but you can't hide ignorance of science when you're on a forum full of scientists.

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh, yeah? Notice I said "university." Now, can you point me to anyone in the entire world who graduated from a university without knowing how to read? Hmm?

And these are the same graduates that attend university, don't you understand that what is taught, or not taught as it were in our elementary schools, carries into our high schools, and then into our universities and colleges, come now, an educated person like yourself has to understand this.

No, dear, I'm sorry. Both sides are not backed by similar evidence. You think so because you do not understand the subject -- if you would learn about the subject, you would learn this; but you refuse to learn about the subject because you are so supremely confident that you, who learned what you know from a preacher, know more about this than people who have spent their entire lives studying the field.

I have been racking my brain to remember any pastor I have ever heard teaching on the issue of our origins and I don't recall any. I can remember the story being included in teaching about God's love, but not the theory of creation. When do you think I heard this teaching since you think you know more about me than I do? What pastor was it? where was I when I heard it? You and many others here, assume that I am a creationist because I ask questions of science. I am not (from a scientific standpoint) creationist nor evolutionist, I am asking questions of both but usually it is the evoutionists that go on the attack and so it is usually those on the forum I end up in a discussion with. See you people interpret my questions asking for more criteria as arguements for creation and never figure out that what I am asking you is what all the criteria are, not just the claims that the toc is not scientific, but what makes it not scientific. I deal with the whys in my understandings, not just the whats. This misconception is why I feel compelledc to ask people for communication rather than arguements. You can make the arguement all day long that the toc is not a scientific theory but if you can't give the criteria that would lead us to that conclusion, you are just blowing smoke and don't understand it yourself.

After all, razzelflabben, I used to be a diehard creationist. Quite a bit more diehard than you are. And yes, I was fully as mistaken and ignorant, probably more so, than you are. I changed my mind when I began to learn a little -- when I pulled my fingers out of my ears because I was curious about what "evilutionists" really do believe.

I found out, surprise, surprise, that my creationist teachers had been lying to me -- every bit of creationist "evidence" turned out to be either misleading or dishonest, and every bit of evidence for evolution was perfectly accurate. The creationist tactic of portraying evolution as ridiculous faith in the power of blind chance only works as long as you don't really know anything about the ToE. Once you do, the creationists begin to look quite ridiculous.

Another new claim I haven't heard before, that evolution is ridiculous faith, and that it is all about blind chance. I guess I talk to much with evolutionists and not enough with creationists. I have heard the claims that the toe is based on chance, but that is about as close as I can get. Interesting, very interesting.

 

[razzelflabben]

And by the way, Razzelflabben -- why did you pretend not to be a creationist when you started this thread? For a while there, you were denying that you are a creationist. Now you've seemed to drop the pretense entirely. Why is this?

I mean, I can imagine your reason -- my guess is that you concealed your beliefs because you wanted the opportunity to discuss the subject without being immediately judged badly due to your creationism. That's understandable, but there's a big problem with that. You see, the reason creationists get so little respect around here doesn't have anything to do with what they call themselves. It has to do with their extreme scientific misconceptions.

In other words, a diehard "evolutionist" who misunderstands science and evolution gets as little respect around here as you do. A creationist who understands science and evolution but makes the choice to have faith that God could have created in six days and left no evidence of it (in fact, evidence to the contrary) gets the respect he is owed as a scientist around here, since he does not misrepresent or twist science for his own ends.

That is, pretending to be an evolutionist isn't going to get you respect, dear. What will get you respect around here is knowledge of science. If for no other reason, you should already know this because even when you were denying your creationism, everybody here treated you exactly like a creationist. You can say you're not a creationist, but you can't hide ignorance of science when you're on a forum full of scientists.

I have absolutely no idea of what you are going on about.

 

[Ledifni]

I have absolutely no idea of what you are going on about.

Oh, I think you do. In any case, goodnight, folks, I'm going home to get my books and take a final.

 

[gluadys]

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.

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.

The claims are different. The evidence is different. The creationist side has no credible evidence for its claims, and ignores evidence that contradicts its claims.

If you think the claims and evidence for each side is similar it is because you are ignorant of both creationism and evolution. That may sound harsh, but it is the truth.

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

No you can’t, because your understanding is not the common understanding of science. You only refer to anonymous sources and claim they back you up. How about referring to a published work like a textbook.

so a claim that I don't understand science is like saying that the people here don't understand it any better

No, it is a valid assessment of the level of scientific knowledge you have displayed on this thread.

The point it, that our world so complexed enough that people can and do choose from a host of authorities. It would appear that you choose science, and that is fine and good, others might choose philosophy, religion, psycology, etc. If everything in this world could be reduced to science, then that would be a different discussion, but that is not the way our world works and so, an authority must be desided upon and that is the basis for your belief system. It's not hard, scary, it does not reduce you or your opinions, what is so scary? It is what life is, it is how our world works.

Accepting the conclusions of science is not about choosing the basis of a belief system. That is why people of many different belief systems can all do science together. It does not involve belief or appeal to any authority other than the evidence.

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"

Explain how you read this please, does this mean that we had a common ancestor or that we share genes common to both species?

Are you aware that we inherit genes from our ancestors?
Do you know that genes change over time?
This means that genes which you inherit from your ancestors will not be exactly like theirs.
Do you see the phrase “successive heritable changes” in that sentence?

This means that chimpanzees have inherited genes from their ancestors, and there have been several changes in the genes over the generations. The changes have been inherited. We can study the genes to find out where and when the changes were made, and find out what the genes were like in the chimpanzee ancestors.

Humans have also inherited genes from their ancestors, and those genes have also changed over the generations. Just as with chimps we can study these changes and work out what the genes used to look like in the ancestors of humans.

What we discover as we work our way backwards is that the older genes of humans and chimps looked more alike that human and chimp genes do now. In fact, you get to the point that you cannot tell them apart.

So, what this genetic exploration tells us is that chimpanzees and humans both inherited genes from the same ancestor.

See you people interpret my questions asking for more criteria as arguements for creation and never figure out that what I am asking you is what all the criteria are, not just the claims that the toc is not scientific, but what makes it not scientific. I deal with the whys in my understandings, not just the whats. This misconception is why I feel compelledc to ask people for communication rather than arguements. You can make the arguement all day long that the toc is not a scientific theory but if you can't give the criteria that would lead us to that conclusion, you are just blowing smoke and don't understand it yourself.

But the criteria have been presented to you. I have listed them at least twice and indicated where creation and creationism fail to meet the criteria. Now you can either deliberately ignore that information and keep arguing in circles, or you can show that the information is false by demonstrating that creation/ism does meet the criteria or accept that information as correct and move on.

 

[gluadys]

The question was not what science uses as ultimate authority but what the evolutionist uses as ultimate authority.

Any knowledgeable evolutionist knows that evidence is the basis of a scientific theory. I have occasionally run across people who say they “believe” in evolution, but they seldom have any accurate understanding of science, evolution or the theory of evolution.

Now since some of you don't like the term evolutionist, let's clarify it again as the person who believes the toe to be fact.

But evolutionists don’t believe evolution is a fact. They know from the evidence that it is a fact without having to believe it. Just as you know that 2 + 2 is 4 without needing an authority to validate your faith in that fact. Or do you only believe this because your kindergarten teacher told you?

Your belief might be based on evidence, but when someone else presents evidence, you must come back to the issue, which evidence do I believe.

The nature of evidence is that it must all be accepted. You cannot pick and choose which evidence you will believe and still do valid science. A scientific theory must account for all relevant evidence, not just the evidence that the researcher wants to believe.

This again is why creationism fails to meet the criteria of science. Creationists do pick and choose which evidence to believe. That is not allowed in science. You can’t pick and choose your evidence. You have to account for all the evidence.

I have not do as you claim. In fact, all I have said is that hard and soft evidence are different.

And as far as I can see, “hard” evidence is the evidence you choose to believe and “soft” evidence is the evidence you choose not to believe. But, as stated above, you cannot choose which evidence to believe. In science you must deal with all the evidence without picking and choosing.

It is for this reason that I have a personally belief (note not a claim to fact, but a personnal belief) that the toe is not scientific because it deals with history. Now this is not to say that evolution is not scientific, but rather the toe, which includes but is not limited to common ancestry. Common ancestry not being able to be directly observed.

If you are not going to believe in any kind of circumstantial evidence or any sort of logical inference, why don’t you agitate for a policy of liberating every criminal convicted by such evidence? The evidence for past events in evolutionary history are no different in kind than the evidence used by forensic scientists to reconstruct a crime and suggest who the principal suspect is. For that matter, the same sort of evidence is used to reconstruct the original text of scripture. And archeologists use the same sort of evidence to verify much of biblical history.

It is inconsistent to allow this “soft” evidence when you agree with it, but disallow it when used to validate that evolution from common ancestors has occurred.

Furthermore, common ancestry has been observed in real time in speciation events. If common ancestry can be seen in short-generation species today, and can be inferred from genetic and fossil evidence in longer-lived species, what is the basis for denying that it has happened in the past, just as it happens in the present.

And yet in post #136 you admit that the toc makes testable predictions, you are contridicting your own words. Try some consistancy.

I was not consistent in post #136. Humphries’ name rang a bell, but I didn’t follow through at the time. I corrected myself in the later post. His “theory” (and therefore his prediction) is not related to the “theory” of creation(ism). In fact, his “theory” is not scientific at all and is riddled by errors. It is pure fluke that he can claim to have got something right. (And I haven’t followed up on that either, so I am not sure he did get it right.)

I think what you want to say is that theories that are not supported by evidences to their predictions are discarded, not that a theory must be evidenced by it's predictions in order to be considered scientific theory.

No, I don’t accept this rewording. Go back to what I said. Go back to the set of criteria I have posted twice.

That would make sense with what you claim here, but that is why I keep asking you to clarify because it makes no sense to say that I have to evidence the predictions of the theory before it can be accepted as a scientific theory.

Do you know the term “hypothesis”? Before a scientific model has been tested and shown to be correct in at least one of its predictions, it is not a theory; it is an hypothesis. It does not become a theory until at least one of its predictions has been verified as true.

So the flow is this:

Hypothesis A (untested “theory”) is tested.

If prediction is shown to be false, the hypothesis is discarded or revised. If it is revised, the revised hypothesis (Hypothesis B) is tested. This is repeated as many times as necessary until the hypothesis is discarded altogether or until it gets a prediction right.

Let us say it is Hypothesis D which got the prediction right. If it was a major, risky prediction, it might now be upgraded to a theory. But if it was a fairly minor or safe prediction, it may not be recognized as a theory until it succeeds in making several more correct predictions.

Now, with one or more correct predictions under its belt, Hypothesis D will be recognized as a scientific theory. Not before.

So because we exist, then we have hard evidence for the toc?

No, you are going off the deep end again. How about you listening to and answering the questions.

Assuming you know (or knew, if she is now deceased) your grandmother and converse(d) with her in person, then you know she exists/ed. Is that evidence that she was born?

BTW, you claim was that vit c syn was hard evidence for common ancestry. I told you that it was not and gave you an example as to why it was not.

I know you told me it was not. You are wrong.

Not sure what your question is, is your question do I have hard evidence for the relationship or are you asking about the point being made?

My question is “do you have hard evidence for the relationship”. If so, what is it, and why do you consider it to be hard evidence? We can get to the point after these questions are answered.

In some of the relationships of my grandparents, there is hard evidence, in some there is only soft. So in order to paint a complete picture we first have to evaluate how hard or soft the evidence is.

No. First you have to say what the evidence is. Then you can evaluate it as hard or soft or whatever. What would you consider to be evidence that you are related by blood to your grandfather’s birth mother?

 

[razzelflabben]

The claims are different. The evidence is different. The creationist side has no credible evidence for its claims, and ignores evidence that contradicts its claims.

credible is a relative term. The term refers to what is believable. If your perspective is that science is not believable, then your arguements are not credible. If you believe that science is believable, then you will not believe the arguements of the creationist. Why is it so hard to understand this concept? I an not even suggesting that evolution is a religion, or a religious belief, or whatever else you might be imagining me as saying. What I am saying is that in order for an individual to accept somtheing as being fact, that individual must first establish what authority they believe to be trustworthy. Yes it requires a belief that that authority is acceptable, but that is the way it works. You people accept this with the creationists but act like that isn't the way it works for anyone else, that is pitiful nonsense. We cannot believe anything to be fact without first establishing what we believe to be the authority. An authority can change, somtimes it doesn't. It does not deminish who you are or declare you to be somthing you aren't, what it does is identifies what base or criteria or authority you use to determine what you believe in. What is so scary about this? I cannot beleive that there will be a mother and daughter tea at my mothers church this week unless I first establish that I accept her word as authority on the issue. If I don't, then I have to go to an authority that I do trust, such as the pastors wife. It's all about establishing the authority you believe in. I really don't understand why this is so scary or fearful? What's the problem? Be specific!

If you think the claims and evidence for each side is similar it is because you are ignorant of both creationism and evolution. That may sound harsh, but it is the truth.

That would be fine if the arguements didn't sound so much the same. For example, the evolutionist claims that creation is a religion. The creationist claims that evolution is a belief system. The truth is somwhere in the middle where both are based on a belief in what authority you accept, but neither is a religion in and of itself except where the extremists make it so.

No you can’t, because your understanding is not the common understanding of science. You only refer to anonymous sources and claim they back you up. How about referring to a published work like a textbook.

Whatever, thanks for attempting to communicate and understand what I am saying rather than assume to know.

No, it is a valid assessment of the level of scientific knowledge you have displayed on this thread.

Last time I checked, asking people to clarify their views was not an accurate assessment of what one believes, but I guess that requires communication and that is in very low supply on this issue.

Accepting the conclusions of science is not about choosing the basis of a belief system. That is why people of many different belief systems can all do science together. It does not involve belief or appeal to any authority other than the evidence.

But in order to "do science" one must accept the authority of evidence. Not hard, not scary, come on.

Are you aware that we inherit genes from our ancestors?
Do you know that genes change over time?
This means that genes which you inherit from your ancestors will not be exactly like theirs.
Do you see the phrase “successive heritable changes” in that sentence?

This means that chimpanzees have inherited genes from their ancestors, and there have been several changes in the genes over the generations. The changes have been inherited. We can study the genes to find out where and when the changes were made, and find out what the genes were like in the chimpanzee ancestors.

Humans have also inherited genes from their ancestors, and those genes have also changed over the generations. Just as with chimps we can study these changes and work out what the genes used to look like in the ancestors of humans.

What we discover as we work our way backwards is that the older genes of humans and chimps looked more alike that human and chimp genes do now. In fact, you get to the point that you cannot tell them apart.

So, what this genetic exploration tells us is that chimpanzees and humans both inherited genes from the same ancestor.

This is for another thread, but let's go ahead and get you really riled up, you are commecting a lot of dots that don't necessarily fit. For example, of course we inherit genes from our ancestors, but there are completely different individuals that share genes that are not related. For example, I have a cousin who is 5'6" tall, so is a friend of mine. But so is my husbands brother. So we have 3 unrelated people who share a common characteristic. Now before you claim I don't understand, let me say, that I understand that the vit c syn is broken in identically the same way and same place, but the problem is that that doesn't automatically mean that they are the same ancestor, they might just share the same mutation the same way that my cousin, friend and brother in law share common characteristics of height. It requires assumptions, belief if you will that for a gene to be mutated the same way, it is hard evidence for common ancestry.

But the criteria have been presented to you. I have listed them at least twice and indicated where creation and creationism fail to meet the criteria. Now you can either deliberately ignore that information and keep arguing in circles, or you can show that the information is false by demonstrating that creation/ism does meet the criteria or accept that information as correct and move on.

So, when I thank you for the criteria, thank you for answering the question and you continue to make assurtions and continue the discussion like I am an idiot, it is me who doesn't understand science or communication HOW? I thanked you many moons ago for answering the question and you keep coming back as if you still don't get that you answered the question so I explain it again and again, why? so you can attack my character and assume what I believe. This type of nonsense reminds me of the crusades where unless you said the exact same thing in the exact same way you were subject to "war". The more I am here on this forum debate, the more I see evidence of evolution being a belief system rather than an understanding stemming from a choosen authority. This is totally contrary to what I have always believed, but then I have been wrong before, which is why communciation is important. I have never before seen so many people gathered in one place, that behaved so scared of ideas and thoughts and questions as the people here on this forum category. Challenge is good, hasn't anyone ever told you that before? Ideas and thoughts are good, hasn't anyone ever told you that before? Assumptions are part of life, hasn't anyone ever told you that before? Authorities are choosen and believed in, hasn't anyone ever told you that before? Questions are good, hasn't anyone ever told you that before? This is not the crusades people, stop acting like it is and if the creationists were here acting the same way, I would say it to them as well. It's not a war to be won or lost, it is a communication in which we hope to learn truth. I can't take any of your arguements (not scientific evidence) seriously when all you do is go to war over words, phrases, questions, or challenges you don't like and don't understand.

 

[Edx]

The point it, that our world so complexed enough that people can and do choose from a host of authorities. It would appear that you choose science, and that is fine and good, others might choose philosophy, religion, psycology, etc. If everything in this world could be reduced to science, then that would be a different discussion, but that is not the way our world works and so, an authority must be desided upon and that is the basis for your belief system. It's not hard, scary, it does not reduce you or your opinions, what is so scary? It is what life is, it is how our world works.

But thats not how the world works. there is no absolute authority, no absolute truth. If there is such a thing it is reality. Objective verifiable evidence. That is what science is about.

Ed

 

[Edx]

We aren't talking about truth, we are talking about what authority you are accepting. And btw, this is the first time the lawyers are coming into the equation. Who do you equate the lawyers to?

I didnt bring up lawyers you did when you started talking about court rooms. The point is that science doesnt use faith. Science isnt a belief system nor are detectives at a crime scene. If they did have faith they would be very bad at their jobs. There is no use for faith in science, or in crime scene investigation.

It depends on what their individual authority is.

So when they take a drug they say god made it with supernatural powers, not science developed this?

You really think this kind of intellectual dishonest self deception makes sense?

Personally, I think most of them have some merit. So I adapt a bit of this and a bit of that. I find science to be a good authority in some things, whereas God is a good authority in other issues. That kind of thing.

Please stop talking in these meaningless riddles. The only authority is reality. Science objectively studies reality, and if something doesnt agree with the evidence (reality) then its wrong. You are saying you can believe in an ancient cultures creation story over objective studying of the evidence because you find "god" the authority? Authority over what? Reality? How do you find any of that making sense?

I have talked to some

How did you know they werent ignorent, if you are yourself?

Ive never met, known of or talked to any any Creationist that is fully knowledgable on how evolution works and has no misconceptions at all yet still believes in Creationism based on science, or even simply on faith. That is why there are no credible creationist sources. That is why I keep asking you to cite one. Im not asking for much, did you even read that link I gave you to the other topic?

My point. it still comes down to your authority

Why? So you can choose to ignore everything you dont like? If I have a red car, you will swear blind its green because your "authority" is different to mine?

Explain how you read this please, does this mean that we had a common ancestor or that we share genes common to both species?[/i]

Why did you not read the link? When it says, "there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated" IS the change in alle frequencies over time. Commen ancestry IS evolution. Speciation happens when enough significant gentic differences have occured in 2 different populations where they can no longer sucessfully breed. That is 'macro evolution', if the term is to be meaningfull of anything at all. http://locolobo.homestead.com/chelicerates.html <- All of these are drawings of actual fossils. Tell me if you can see where these huge gaps of missing links Creationists say there is.And considering that fossilzation is quite a rare event, its amazing we have such a detailed record.

Yep which is why claims need to be supported.

Which is something religion never does, becuase thats why they demand faith.

This thread is all about incouraging communication rather than simply argueing in circles.

No offense but you need to stop talking in riddles, and using using words out of place. You say you are concerned with definitions of words and that they are used properly and yet seem to refuse to use them correctly even when you are told.

Ed

 

[Edx]

credible is a relative term. The term refers to what is believable. If your perspective is that science is not believable, then your arguements are not credible. If you believe that science is believable, then you will not believe the arguements of the creationist. Why is it so hard to understand this concept?

What is so hard to understand about my challenge? Show me one credible Creationist source. Im not asking for much. I'll even copy and paste this since you dont seem to like following links.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1559052-credible-creationists.html


"I would like to see Creationists here present any credible scientific sources that support their position.

"Credible" meaning, they 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."

 

[razzelflabben]

But evolutionists don’t believe evolution is a fact. They know from the evidence that it is a fact without having to believe it. Just as you know that 2 + 2 is 4 without needing an authority to validate your faith in that fact. Or do you only believe this because your kindergarten teacher told you?

Do you even hear yourself? Your evidence, is the authority you accept. Even in 2+2=4, we first believe the kindergarten teachers authority to be true, or we ask our parents whose authority we accept. Then as we grow and our authority changes, we believe 2+2=4 to be true because of evidence that it is, evidence based on experiments. It still comes down to our basic authority which is what we base our beliefs on. You "know" evolution to be fact because your believe that evidence is the authority. If you don't accept evidence as authority, you most likely won't believe what that evidence says. You complain that the creationist accepts another authority other than evidence and therefore discards it but you can't accept that you must accept the authority of evidence. You can't even be listening to yourself now.

The nature of evidence is that it must all be accepted. You cannot pick and choose which evidence you will believe and still do valid science. A scientific theory must account for all relevant evidence, not just the evidence that the researcher wants to believe.

Right, but there are different degrees of evidence. That is the point. We put different weights to different degrees of evidence. Hard evidence having greater weight than soft.

This again is why creationism fails to meet the criteria of science. Creationists do pick and choose which evidence to believe. That is not allowed in science. You can’t pick and choose your evidence. You have to account for all the evidence.

I don't recall this being one of the criteria you presented, you might want to add it to your list. Thanks!

And as far as I can see, “hard” evidence is the evidence you choose to believe and “soft” evidence is the evidence you choose not to believe. But, as stated above, you cannot choose which evidence to believe. In science you must deal with all the evidence without picking and choosing.

Where do you read that I don't believe soft evidence? I recall saying that I put less stock in soft evidence some to the degree that it is not of much use. If you didn't understand this, it falls upon you to ask. Evidence needs to be evaluated based on a scale of hard and soft evidences. This is my opinion. So evidence can be so soft that it's weight is of little to no use to us, for example, my fingerprint at my grandmothers home when I have already admitted to being there and my being there is already predicted. That fingerprint then is of little use in determining who commited the crime. Soft evidence. (to the extreme so that the point is understood). Hard evidence on the other hand, carries much more weight, maybe hard evidence would be a video tape of the crime being committed (again to the extreme so that the point is understood) now any other evidence collected might fit into the middle of these two extremes, but is evaluated not solely based on whether the evidence exists, but also on how hard or soft the evidence is. It is a method of evaluating the evidence to determine how hard or soft it is. Direct observations being the best evidence while inferances are the least convincing. Then, after the evidence is collected, it is up to the lawyers to spin, twist, manipulate, evaluate, convince the individuals what the collective evidence says in order to convict for aquite their client and it is the responsibility of the jurors to evaluate the evidence for themselves. I really am amazed that you can't understand or accept this concept of hard and soft evidence.

If you are not going to believe in any kind of circumstantial evidence or any sort of logical inference, why don’t you agitate for a policy of liberating every criminal convicted by such evidence? The evidence for past events in evolutionary history are no different in kind than the evidence used by forensic scientists to reconstruct a crime and suggest who the principal suspect is. For that matter, the same sort of evidence is used to reconstruct the original text of scripture. And archeologists use the same sort of evidence to verify much of biblical history.

What are you going on about? See above. In fact, when I study the bible, I automatically compare all the available evidence, and put more weight in the harder evidence than the softer evidence. That is why hard and soft evidence are important to our understanding of science and not just lumped together as evidence. But, that is my opinion and I do not force that upon you, but I fail to see how that equals lack of understanding of science, maybe if you keep trying you can get me to understand how this is lack of understanding of science. (I haven't yet been asked to be on a jury to compare my practise of that with the comments you made)

It is inconsistent to allow this “soft” evidence when you agree with it, but disallow it when used to validate that evolution from common ancestors has occurred.

I don't know what you are going on about. Soft evidence is not as strong evidence as hard and cannot be taken with as much "knowing". Some soft evidence is in fact so soft that it cannot tell us anything about our origins.

I was not consistent in post #136. Humphries’ name rang a bell, but I didn’t follow through at the time. I corrected myself in the later post. His “theory” (and therefore his prediction) is not related to the “theory” of creation(ism). In fact, his “theory” is not scientific at all and is riddled by errors. It is pure fluke that he can claim to have got something right. (And I haven’t followed up on that either, so I am not sure he did get it right.)

Now, twice in this thread you have admitted that the toc makes at least one testable prediction (btw, if the definition for the toc cannot be identified then anyone claiming to use it as the basis for predictions is acceptable), but then when you evaluate the claims you excuse them as not testable for a host of reasons. The claim was not about their validity, but rather that they exist. Twice now you have confirmed that they do exist. That is the sole burden of proof on my claim. Any discussion of the validity of the predictions is another discussion completely. Doesn't matter who makes the predictions for what "thread" of creationism they hold to, they are making testable predictions based on their understanding for the toc and that is the extent of the claim and question, anything else is infered by you and shows us a perfect first hand example as to why it is beneficial to seperate evidence into the hard (direct observations) and the soft (infered).

Do you know the term “hypothesis”? Before a scientific model has been tested and shown to be correct in at least one of its predictions, it is not a theory; it is an hypothesis. It does not become a theory until at least one of its predictions has been verified as true.

So the flow is this:

Hypothesis A (untested “theory”) is tested.

If prediction is shown to be false, the hypothesis is discarded or revised. If it is revised, the revised hypothesis (Hypothesis B) is tested. This is repeated as many times as necessary until the hypothesis is discarded altogether or until it gets a prediction right.

Let us say it is Hypothesis D which got the prediction right. If it was a major, risky prediction, it might now be upgraded to a theory. But if it was a fairly minor or safe prediction, it may not be recognized as a theory until it succeeds in making several more correct predictions.

Now, with one or more correct predictions under its belt, Hypothesis D will be recognized as a scientific theory. Not before.

Okay then how about answering the question I asked you on the subject, how many predictions must be evidenced before it is considered a scientific theory? When does it become a scientific theory? Answering these questions might have avoided this long discourse.

No, you are going off the deep end again. How about you listening to and answering the questions.

Assuming you know (or knew, if she is now deceased) your grandmother and converse(d) with her in person, then you know she exists/ed. Is that evidence that she was born?

Well, that is exists, is evidence that she was born, or hatched, but the scientific evidence would indicate born. To whom and when and where she was born would still be a mystery now wouldn't it?

My question is “do you have hard evidence for the relationship”. If so, what is it, and why do you consider it to be hard evidence? We can get to the point after these questions are answered.

There is hard evidence to the relationship, because we have direct observations. We have direct observations by my step great grandmother, and eye witnesses that observed her relationship to my grandfather. WE have eye witnesses that knew my grandfather. That would be about as direct as it gets. (I'm assuming since you didn't clarify that you are talking about my grandfather and step grandmothers relationship, if you had another in mind, you will have to specify since that was the relationship brought up by my post.)

No. First you have to say what the evidence is. Then you can evaluate it as hard or soft or whatever. What would you consider to be evidence that you are related by blood to your grandfather’s birth mother?

Hard evidence that I am related by blood to my granfather's birth mother, that would be direct evidence by science as to how reproduction works. Hard evidence as to who my grandfather was, the closest I could come to would be direct observations by indivduals present, and knowing all the parties involved, birth certificates, which are weaker evidence, birth certificate which is only a direct observation as to my blood relationship with my mother, apart from that, I know of none existing today other than direct observation of science as to how reproduction occurs. But this does not identify who my grandfather or my grandfathers mother was, only that they existed. Beyond this point, we get into speculations as to who they were and all observations would be based on much softer evidence. The farther down the road we go, the less direct evidence that exists, and the softer that evidence is, because simply put, history is not science. But that is another story.

BTW, the only way I can believe that the eye witness accounts are accurate is if I believe that their word on the issue is my authority.

 

[gluadys]

credible is a relative term. The term refers to what is believable.

And the believability is ordinarily lodged in the reputation of the source. For example, we have four newspapers in Toronto: The Globe & Mail, The Toronto Star, the National Post and the Toronto Sun. Now, I will generally take a story in the Globe & Mail or the Star as credible. I will be a bit leery of the Post, and I don’t consider the Sun worth the paper it is printed on. But a person whose politics are different than mine will believe what is printed in the Sun, because they consider the Sun a reputable source of information, and they will have a low estimation of the credibility of the Star.

Similarly here, creationists think that ICR and AiG are credible sources of information, but distrust talkorigins. While anti-creationists take the reverse stand.

So how do we determine the facts? By going beyond the source of information to the evidence. All the evidence—not just what the source chooses to discuss.

That would be fine if the arguements didn't sound so much the same. For example, the evolutionist claims that creation is a religion. The creationist claims that evolution is a belief system. The truth is somwhere in the middle where both are based on a belief in what authority you accept, but neither is a religion in and of itself except where the extremists make it so.

It sounds nice and fair to say the truth is somewhere in the middle, but that is not necessarily the case. We have claims on both sides and as long as we listen only to the claims, we don’t know who to believe. But when we go to the evidence, we get answers.

What are creationist beliefs based on? On an interpretation of the bible.
Where are creationist beliefs promoted? On web sites which identify themselves as Christian.

These are facts that show creationism is indeed a religious concept.

What is the theory of evolution based on? Observed evidence
Where does one find information about evolution? In scientific papers and university textbooks.

These are facts which show that evolution is science, not religion.

Last time I checked, asking people to clarify their views was not an accurate assessment of what one believes, but I guess that requires communication and that is in very low supply on this issue.

The comment was not about what you believe, but about what you know—or rather don’t know. You have indicated many times that you do not have a grasp of scientific knowledge or scientific method. (And you still have not posted your understanding of scientific method.)

But in order to "do science" one must accept the authority of evidence. Not hard, not scary, come on.

Yes, that is the essence of science.

This is for another thread, but let's go ahead and get you really riled up, you are commecting a lot of dots that don't necessarily fit. For example, of course we inherit genes from our ancestors, but there are completely different individuals that share genes that are not related. For example, I have a cousin who is 5'6" tall, so is a friend of mine. But so is my husbands brother. So we have 3 unrelated people who share a common characteristic.

Yes, and they all share the same human genes inherited from the same early human ancestors. If they did not have the genes of the human genome they would not be human.

Furthermore, humans share 98% of their genes with chimpanzees. We share some genes with virtually every species on earth.

One of the genes we share with all mammals and many other different species as well, is the gene which produces a protein for Vitamin C synthesis.

Now before you claim I don't understand, let me say, that I understand that the vit c syn is broken in identically the same way and same place, but the problem is that that doesn't automatically mean that they are the same ancestor,

Have you ever calculated the probability that two independent mutations in two different species will affect the same gene at the same locus in the same way? It is many times more unlikely than finding the same grain of sand in exactly the same place on two different visits to the beach. Inheriting the defective gene from a common ancestor is by far the more plausible explanation.

So, when I thank you for the criteria, thank you for answering the question and you continue to make assurtions and continue the discussion like I am an idiot, it is me who doesn't understand science or communication HOW? I thanked you many moons ago for answering the question and you keep coming back as if you still don't get that you answered the question…

So why did you ask the question again, as if you did not have the answer yet?

 

[gluadys]

Check out new thread:

For Razzelflabben--let's communicate some more