Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

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.

Which is an excellent arguement for believing evidence to be the authority but does nothing to explain away the need for the belief of what authority we choose.

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.

This may be true of the extremists, but from my observations, the majority of the population has only a casual interest in the subject and communication goes a long way to finding the middle ground.

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.

And don't forget and evaluation of that evidence based on the authority you believe in. (same as above for creationists)

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.)

Forgive me for correcting you once again, but I have never said that I do not have a grasp of scientific knowledge or scientific method but rather that I am not a scientist by nature but rather a philosipher. Scientist have a different thought process, they get to their conclusions differently, but as was already discussed in this thread, they are related to each other. I think like a philosopher, I ask questions based on that natural ability. It is not that I don't understand science or how it works, or even how the scientist thinks, it is rather than my process of getting there is different. This is what you have been told many times now. And still you assert that I don't understand science by my own admittion? When will you start listening and stop assuming to know what you do not?

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.

And if our evidence is all based on assumptions, then I can assume that the gene is common not because of common ancestry but because of creation. More is needed to base our assumptions on than simply our belief system that science is the authority, or the bible is the authority or the Koran is the authority or the evidence is the authority. Good, solid hard (not just hard) evidence can stand up to all these other authorties. For example, there are few people in the world today that accept that the world is flat, why because the evidence stands up to all the different authorities. This doesn't mean that the toe must do this, but, it does mean that the evidence is not as hard as people want to pretend that it is. If communication is to exist, then it must be called what it is. If it is a billion bits of soft evidence, then call it a billion bits of soft evidence. If it is one bit of hard evidence and 100 bits' of soft, then call it so, don't just pretend that you haven't choosen an authority, don't pretend that we have hard evidence when we have soft, don't pretend that ........

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.

Right, let me tell you a true story about probability. I live and have lived most of my life in an area pron to tornadoes. One such tornado tore through a neighboring town and many amazing stories were told. In one of the stories, an aquantance of ours was telling about loosing keys and a dimond ring to the storm. Years passed by, many many years, and one day this same woman was walking down another street from where she lost the keys and ring. Something chaught her eye, she looked down and saw, guess what, her diamond ring. The ring was identifiable and was in good shape except for being dirty. What is the probability that she would find the ring. Hint: astronomically against it. But guess what, she did find it. Probability is not a useful tool for knowing truth, only for predicting or assuming what will or did happen.

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

Because you kept asking me. See sometimes on the forum peoples zeal gets the better of them. They post, and then post the same thing again, then post the same thing again, then post the same thing again. You are good about doing just that. So in order to address all the questions you ask, in order to keep up with the questions and comments, it is often necessary to repeat what is being said. So when I say thank you and you bring up the subject again, I can only assume that you are not finished discussing it and we have more to talk about. If this is not the case, then you must learn to delete parts that have been finished or close the topic with a similar comment and allow repeats to go. As long as you bring up the subject, I am bound by my personal code to answer the questions to the best of my ability. If you accept my thank you, it is your responsibility to accept that as my completion of the discussion and then accept that completion or carry it on your own agenda. You choose the later and so I played by your rules till you have completed your agenda and the topic is closed. That is the way discussion goes.

 

[razzelflabben]

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

Good point which is why I adjust my authority to fit the discussion or subject. For example in a biblical debate on Christ, science is a poor authority though some try to make it fit. I believe that this world cannot be reduced to only one authority. That there is a place for science, religion, philosophy, psycology in understanding our world. To remove any one or more of these leaves us with huge gaps in our understanding of the world. A great discussion then would allow each of these into the discussion. A good discussion would allow only a couple and a poor discussion allow for only one and tolerates none other. That is what I base my authority on and why, but the authority we choose is always an individual thing.

 

[Edx]

More is needed to base our assumptions on than simply our belief system that science is the authority, or the bible is the authority or the Koran is the authority or the evidence is the authority. Good, solid hard (not just hard) evidence can stand up to all these other authorties. For example, there are few people in the world today that accept that the world is flat, why because the evidence stands up to all the different authorities. This doesn't mean that the toe must do this, but, it does mean that the evidence is not as hard as people want to pretend that it is.

Sorry but flat earthers are Creationists as well, they just take the Bible even more literally than YEC's do.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1519946-isaiah-circular-earth.html

If communication is to exist, then it must be called what it is. If it is a billion bits of soft evidence, then call it a billion bits of soft evidence. If it is one bit of hard evidence and 100 bits' of soft, then call it so, don't just pretend that you haven't choosen an authority, don't pretend that we have hard evidence when we have soft, don't pretend that ........

You keep talking about evolution when you still dont understand it. Evolution is based on hard evidence. What is this "soft evidence" you keep referring to?

Ed

 

[Edx]

That there is a place for science, religion, philosophy, psycology in understanding our world. To remove any one or more of these leaves us with huge gaps in our understanding of the world. .

Psychology IS a science, and philosophy is good to learn how to use logic and reason (other than that its useless to gain knowledge)

And so you are saying that without religion it leaves gaps in our understanding? Like where? What do we really "know" thanks to religion?

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

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.

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

Actually I said, that most people would accept that the police investigating the crime would no more about the actual crime than the judge would. It is choosing your authority. If you are asked to find out details of the crime and you can choose to talk to the police who investigated the crime or the judge who will hand our the punishment, you must decide which authority you will accept, the police or the judge. You brought up the lawyers and I am still wondering who you think the lawyers are? Do you see the lawyers as the authority? Why did you bring them into the discussion? What is their relavance?

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

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?

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

I said nothing about believing in the creation story. What I said is that I believe that not everything in this world can be explained by science. For example, well what the heck this will be the last post before I leave for the day, how about 2 examples.
1. Leap day of 1980 was a really cold day around here, I have an appintment in a new building and in trying to find it, I got lost. While I was lost, I was hit by a train. The train hit my car where the front door and the front fender meet. When the police and anbulance arrived, I was told several times by several different people that I was lucky to be alive that there was and accident about a week before mine and later about a week after mine in which the people were killed. Now here is the real kicker to the story. The only salvagable part to the entire car was one tire, there was not enough room in the drivers compartment for my legs, yet I walked away (literally) with a cut over my eye, and a small cut on my ear. I was stitched up and sent home. Science cannot explain that, it is beyond scientific explaination. However, religion can offer an explaination, whether good or bad, it offers it, and that is more than science can do.

Example 2. I broke my arm when our third was a baby. The doctor was going to do surgery but saw I was not compliant with that decision and so he said, I will try to set it without surgery but will reserve surgery if necessary. So he set my wrist, and watched it, and worried over it. When the cast came off, he couldn't believe how well it had healed. He, the Dr. had no explaination for the healing other than to say it was a miracle (his words not mine). Again, science cannot explain it.

See, there is much in our world that science cannot explain that is why we have people who study psycology and philosophy and religion, and a host of other things. And that is why one must first choose and authority.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

How sad, Most of the "creationists" I have talked to are lay people who do not hold to creation above all else, but who also do not keep up on all the new scientific observations being done. They have some basic understandings of words, and how they are used, and use them according to their understanding. Some of them have old understandings of the evidences and meanings of words, some new, some aren't sure to what degree of literalness they should take the Gen account. So they come on here to find our some things and express what they understand from the point of view of whatever authority they accept, and they are run off by people who harbor arrogant, hateful, predjudice, bitter additudes and never know what real discussion and exchange of ideas really is. They are accused of things they are not, they have their questions and comments addressed by assumptions made that they are other than what they are, and then, when they leave to look for something more palatable, they are ridiculed and boasts are made of how the almighty evolutionists have defeated yet another creationist. How sad for you that you cannot accept that some people who believe the creation story simply believe the creation story. To a host of varying degrees and the aditudes that chase them off only create a bigger riff because they do not want to become angry and bitter like you. BTW, when our eldest was young, we were at a family get together, one of his uncles was acting badly, he ask me about it and I made an excuse to defend the uncle. OUr son looked me directly in the eyes and said, "I don't ever want to act that way". Many people who would otherwise discuss the issue of our origins will not come here because of the way they are treated and many of them say what my son did, "I don't ever want to act that way". Your boasts are for your arrogance, and not for your intelligence, because there is not intelligence in treating people like idiots.

 

[gluadys]

And don't forget and evaluation of that evidence based on the authority you believe in. (same as above for creationists)

No. The evidence must be evaluated without the bias of a belief system. No one individual is free from such bias. That is one of the reasons science must be public. So that scientists evaluating the evidence from many different biases can correct each other's biases to get an interpretation that is NOT biased by belief in any authority, but rises solely from the evidence.

Forgive me for correcting you once again, but I have never said that I do not have a grasp of scientific knowledge or scientific method

I said that you "indicated" this, not that you said it. You didn't need to say it. What you have said about science was sufficient to indicate that you have a very poor grasp of science and its methods. Nor do I buy the excuse that you think philosophically rather than scientifically. As Edx pointed out, a grounding in philosophy generally gives the student tools of logic---tools which you do not appear to use.

If it is one bit of hard evidence and 100 bits' of soft, then call it so, don't just pretend that you haven't choosen an authority, don't pretend that we have hard evidence when we have soft, don't pretend that ........

In the case of the Vitamin C synthesis gene, there are trillions of bits of hard evidence---two copies of it in every cell of every mammal.

What is the probability that she would find the ring. Hint: astronomically against it.

Yes, and the probability that the same mutation will occur independently in the same locus on the same gene with the same effect in two different species is even more astronomical.

btw, probability is not an argument against something that has already happened. The probability of an actual event that has already happened is 100%.

Because you kept asking me.

I didn't ask you anything about criteria. I answered your questions and the only reason the topic was raised again was because you asked the question again in post 129

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

 

[Physics_guy]

For example, there are few people in the world today that accept that the world is flat, why because the evidence stands up to all the different authorities. This doesn't mean that the toe must do this, but, it does mean that the evidence is not as hard as people want to pretend that it is. If communication is to exist, then it must be called what it is. If it is a billion bits of soft evidence, then call it a billion bits of soft evidence. If it is one bit of hard evidence and 100 bits' of soft, then call it so, don't just pretend that you haven't choosen an authority, don't pretend that we have hard evidence when we have soft, don't pretend that ........

So I am confused here. From what I can tell, the only real distinction you make between "hard" evidence and "soft" evidence is that "hard" evidence is enough to convince you while "soft" is not. Sorry, but I just find this all a bit too subjective for me.

 

[Edx]

Actually I said, that most people would accept that the police investigating the crime would no more about the actual crime than the judge would. It is choosing your authority
If you are asked to find out details of the crime and you can choose to talk to the police who investigated the crime or the judge who will hand our the punishment, you must decide which authority you will accept, the police or the judge. You brought up the lawyers and I am still wondering who you think the lawyers are? Do you see the lawyers as the authority? Why did you bring them into the discussion? What is their relavance?

They are relevant because you equated science to an authority like a judge in a court room. The court room isnt a comparison to science because the judge delivers his finial verdict at the end, which to a certain extent cannot be overturned. The judge is the finial authority. The law is unlike science also because there are many loop holes as in such cases where you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. None of this is like science. There is no "finial" authority that could be compared to a judge. As for the lawyers, they are part of the courts to convince the judge (or jury) who acts as this finial authority. They aren't interested in truth. They are out to do a job, either successfully defend or prosecute and they will twist whatever they need to to do it. This also isnt anything like science, however if they could be compared to anyone it would be to professional Creationists.

There is simply no authority for anyone to accept. The only true finial authority is the evidence and facts. Biological evolution is one of the most well supported theories in science. Anyone amateur or professional could challenge it at any time with actual evidence that could withstand the critical analysis of peer review.

I said nothing about believing in the creation story.

What I said is that I believe that not everything in this world can be explained by science.

No you didnt. What you actually were saying was that science was the same in believing in God or Buddha. Because it all depends on what "authority you hold to", remember? So then if science shows my car is red, you can tell me that you think its blue and thats perfectly fine because your particular "authority" says otherwise. Thats your logic you keep presenting here. Science shows evolution is a fact and the earth is ancient, but it all depends on what your finial authority you have in the end right? God, the fairy mice men, or the flying pink ponies its all the same as objective evidence as far as your conserned, right? And if the Bible says god created the earth in 6 days, thats the same as objective evidence that it isnt, right? Because you hold the Bible as a finial authority and I hold science, right? (//sarcasm, in case it wasnt obvious.)

For example, well what the heck this will be the last post before I leave for the day, how about 2 examples.

1. Leap day of 1980 ... Science cannot explain that, it is beyond scientific explaination. However, religion can offer an explaination, whether good or bad, it offers it, and that is more than science can do.

And sometimes terminally ill patients recover. But you have to realise that science doesnt know everything, nor claims to. In fact it claims the opposite. How hard is that to understand? Sometimes the odds are against something like that happening, but that doesnt mean its a miracle if it does. Out of the billions and billions of ill patients thousands will recover at an improbable rate, hundreds will recover at a statistically even more improbable rates and so on. It is improbable that you will get up tomorrow and be killed by lightening, but if it happens it doesnt mean a god had anything to do with it, and a certain number of people do die from improbable events such as this each year.

And here I see the same tired "god of the gaps" argument, again. We cant explain it so therefore there must be a supernatural explanation. They used to say the same thing about the stars and the planets. Some cultures used to believe that volcanos were a direct link to the underworld for example, and invented many superstitions and supernatural explanations because they didnt understand various natural occurrences. But this is the same thing you are doing here.

And the problem is it doesnt even end with this. Which god saved you, or was it some other supernatural "power"? If you are suggesting this might be evidence for a Christian god, why? It only raises more questions. Why would this god only save you, and not the millions of babies that die horribly from birth defects? Why would this god save you, and not save the thousands kiledl in the World Trade Center? Why would this god save you, and yet let so many die from the Tsunami? Humans didnt have anything to do with the Tsunami it was, as the insurance guys might say "an act of god" so why did he let the natural world he created kill all those people?

Why do we have to invent these self conflicting beliefs about things just to make us be able to pretend we know things that we really dont? Your "religious explanation" isnt an explanation of anything, but where I say "I dont know", you say "god did it", but neither of us really know any more than each other.

Example 2. I broke my arm when our third was a baby.... He, the Dr. had no explaination for the healing other than to say it was a miracle (his words not mine). Again, science cannot explain it.

People use the word miracle in different contexts.

A "highly improbable event" can be called a miracle. A "religious miracle", which is what you are talking about, is a supernatural event that goes against the laws of the universe. They are quite clearly different.

See, there is much in our world that science cannot explain that is why we have people who study psycology and philosophy and religion, and a host of other things. And that is why one must first choose and authority.

Again, religion doesnt teach you anything. All you did is replace, "I dont know", with "god did it". It might as well be "Vishnu did it", "Apollo did it", "Faries did it", "Satan did it", "Aliens did it with their anal probes" and none of it would teach us anything about anything, but provide a way for people to feel like they know something they really dont.

Honestly, how does saying "god did it" going to teach us anything more than putting your hands up and saying "I dont know, yet"? If we both walk into a old mansion at night and we hear a floorboard creek you might say its a demon or a goblin, whereas I might say I honestly dont know but you will claim you somehow "know" more than me because you "have an explantion".

Im reminded of a story I think was first told by Douglas Adams. It basically went like this. There was a man who believed little men were inside his tv controlling the pictures and making it work. Now one day his friend explained to him how a TV really worked, and the man listened intently to this then at the end he said "well, Im sure theres still a few little men in there, right?"

How sad, Most of the "creationists" I have talked to are lay people who do not hold to creation above all else, but who also do not keep up on all the new scientific observations being done.

And that kind of Creationist fits my profile as well, as those that are simply not so evangelical about it and dont really care as much but are still ignorent of the science.

They have some basic understandings of words, and how they are used, and use them according to their understanding. Some of them have old understandings of the evidences and meanings of words, some new,

And most simply dont understand the words they use, which is we we get so many uneducated Creationists, and a startling number of apparently educated ones saying things like "yea well evolution is only a theory". What gets me is they generally dont like to admit they are wrong. It usually takes a long time before they will even relent and admit that 'theory' doesnt actually mean what they thought it meant, if they acknoledge it at all. Usually it will be skipped completly as they quickly move onto the next senseless Creationist argument, and then they do the same again.

some aren't sure to what degree of literalness they should take the Gen account.

Which only means how much science they are willing to accept. Flat Earthers deny just about everything. Young Earth Creationists deny just about everything but accept heliocentricity. Old Earth Creationists accept the age of the earth, and some deny the flood, some dont. Etc. Its only about how much of the Bible you want to interpret as literal, and that determins how much science you will accept. Thats all it is.

So they come on here to find our some things and express what they understand from the point of view of whatever authority they accept, and they are run off by people who harbor arrogant, hateful, predjudice, bitter additudes and never know what real discussion and exchange of ideas really is.

And how many times has there actually been a Creationist on here that honestly asks questions to learn? How many come on here and do not start telling us all how utterly wrong and silly evolution is as after all its only a theory anyway I mean we didnt evolve from monkeys or a fish and we still have monkeys anyway so how did we evolve from them and i dont see a cat giving birth to a dog or a human sprouting wings and my friend went to the zoo but didnt see any monkeys evolving into men did i so that disproves evolution and there are no transitional fossils and even the second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is wrong haha its an atheist fairy tale and Darwin recanted on his death bed so prove it to me but I wont believe it anyway. Etc....

Once we figure out someone is willing to learn instead of showing how amazingly ignorent they are and how much they do love it we are all very helpful and nice from what Ive seen. But 99.9% of the time we deal with versions of that ^^(see above)^^. And the ones that seem sincere at the beginning actually tell us straight out that nothing we say will make a different anyway, that they'll still go on believing the same regardless.

(Just like to also point out that all of those above arguments have been used by creationists)

They are accused of things they are not, they have their questions and comments addressed by assumptions made that they are other than what they are, and then, when they leave to look for something more palatable, they are ridiculed and boasts are made of how the almighty evolutionists have defeated yet another creationist. How sad for you that you cannot accept that some people who believe the creation story simply believe the creation story. To a host of varying degrees and the aditudes that chase them off only create a bigger riff because they do not want to become angry and bitter like you.

See above. I have seen a few Creationists honestly willing to learn, and they werent Creationists for very long. Thats the thing. You cant honestly understand evolution properly and still believe in Creationism, though I do wonder how some of these Creationists with legitimate relevant degrees behave so dishonestly towards science that they must surely understand. But this is why you cannot find any credible Creationist to show me. Im not even asking for the impossible here, but no Creationists can cite any credible sources and you havent even tried. I even said if people have a problem with my points of credibility we could discuss it, except that hasnt happened either.

Your boasts are for your arrogance, and not for your intelligence, because there is not intelligence in treating people like idiots.

Please dont lecture me about my attitude when you clearly havent been in the thick of it for very long. Just read this forum for a while here and see how other Creationists behave. And not everyone here has the same attitude as I have, but even those that are the most calm get annoyed eventually when Creationists just ignore absolutely everything they have said and arrogantly state things like "yea well evolution is only a theory, and I wont believe you anyway whatever you say". And when I said I have an 'attitude' what I really mean is frustration. Occasionally a Creationist appears that sounds like they are willing to learn properly, and I am more than nice. Though I do tire of having to explain the same basic stuff over and over when it almost always gets habitually ignored anyway.

Ed

 

[USincognito]

Not necessarily, what you are missing in this idea is that creation has nothing to do with our orgins. The term creation is not specific to origins. Creation means to make something.

In other words, "how something originated" then? I'm sorry Razzie, but after reading the pages I have where you're asking for some sort of common ground on definitions, the fact that you would claim that "creation has nothing to do with origin" is simply astounding.

Every time I think I've encountered creationist post-modernism at it's finest, see something jaw droppingly original. To claim that how something was "created" has nothing to do with (your words) it's origin in a thread concerning sematics is, well, I'm speechless...

 

[razzelflabben]

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."

Well, the challenge is nonsense if you make your own determination as to what is and is not credible that was my point. Credible by definition even here is relative. You are asking me (who btw did not make the claim that the creationist arguements are credible but rather that credible depends on the point of view) to offer you web sites that are credible when you will deny them credible because of your view. That's the point. Because credible is relative, there is a no win situation presented. That is like asking you to reference a credible website for evolution without using evolution web sites to do so. It is nonsense. See, if the challenge was, a creationist arguement that is believable, or maybe a creationist website that is not following the extremist ideas of the AIG or the ICR, or something like that, then the challenge would be a fair one and though I would have to look, I am confident I could find one, in fact, I have run across a couple in my researches. But the criteria you provide are are subject to your point of view. IN OTHER WORDS, CREDIBILITY IS A RELATIVE TERM! Even the criteria for credibility is relative in nature. Look at the first one for an example: 1. ... pretend they are qualified to comment or know what they are talking about. You cannot determine what someone know or doesn't know simply by their interpretation of the "evidence". You can determine what they believe about the "evidence", but not what they know. Here's an example. There was some kind of bird of prey in our yard a couple of years ago, it was odd to see him there because he was out of place environment wise. Now our son caught a glimpse of him and tried to identify him based on what he had seen. Now, the conclusion was based on observations, but his conclusion tells very little about what he actually knows about animals and that animal inparticular because the information asked for was limited. So if I ask a creationist for information, it does nothing to identify what they know but rather how they interprete what they know. That is the problem with presenting a reality challenge then crying when it is not accepted. I do recall asking you to give a more specific definition so that the challenge could be accepted with the variable being limited, but you don't want to do that, or you can't do that, so the challenge will remain unanswered do to the realitiveness of the criteria needed to meet the challenge.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry but flat earthers are Creationists as well, they just take the Bible even more literally than YEC's do.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1519946-isaiah-circular-earth.html

Again, not the creationists I usually talk to, and by the way do you understand that (as many "christians" understand) the bible does contain many figurative references, and that not everything is literal, for example, we have parables and phrases such as "it was like" or "as if". It might also be inportant to your understanding of the bible, that the bible has been translated and that translation for the word circle can include circle, horizon, or vaulted and that when the analogy of a tent is used, it is not referring to the ground on which the tent is sitting, but rather the covering that protects the inhabitants, this could be compared to a prediction that we have an atmosphere surrounding the earth that allows us to inhabite it. Now, I know that is a bit off topic, because your point is that all creationists are our of their minds with ideas that counter what science evidences, but, if you want to make such claims you must back them up with real solid evidence not some far out interpretation that has no basis in the actual understanding and interpretation of the text. iow, it would be like me picking up a science book and interpreting it wrong so that I could prove to you that you were an idiot for believing that the earth is flat.

You keep talking about evolution when you still dont understand it. Evolution is based on hard evidence. What is this "soft evidence" you keep referring to?

Ed

WEll, for the millionth time, hard evidence is direct observation, soft evidence is our explaination of how the direct observations explain the theory, hypothisis, prediction. And by the way, just to clarify even more, the discussion about the evidence is based on the claims that some evolutionists make that the toe is evidenced with hard evidence, not evolution. Seperated largely by the idea and concept of common ancestry which is the real heart of the disagreement.

 

[razzelflabben]

Psychology IS a science, and philosophy is good to learn how to use logic and reason (other than that its useless to gain knowledge)

And so you are saying that without religion it leaves gaps in our understanding? Like where? What do we really "know" thanks to religion?

Ed

In the loose sense of the word, they are all science, that being the study of, not the formal definition of science, but that is a totally different subject.

Many people take the aditude that religion tells us nothing about our world when in fact, it is the basis for our understanding of our world. Religion can be defined in a couple of different ways, so I will seperate two for the sake of discussion and deal with then seperately.
1. Ones belief as to what authority one uses to base their entire belief system on. This can incluse God, gods, supernatural beings, prophets, chance, no supernatural being, self, self awareness, etc. All these are forms of religious beliefs. Man is ultimately reduced to what he believe as the basis for the choices he makes. Religion is the core of mans decisions. Take any decision that man has to make, and it all can be boiled down to his belief system/religion. There was a gal on tv the other day, talking about how she gets up and sets her mind on the possitives of the day. (belief system/religion) The examples are endless. It is what our values are based on, how we conduct business, our relationships, even how we behave here on the forum is based on our religious beliefs and understandings. It is what seperates us from the animals, it is what frames our thoughts, it is why we get into heated emotional discussions when people interpret our belief system to be something other than what we think it is. It guides us into thoughts and opinions about everything from what we eat to the death penalty and gay marriage. Religion, like it or not is part of who man is.

2. Religion is taking care of the poor and widows. This is the biblical definition for religion and is a part of our daily lives as well. How we treat our fellow human beings, especially those who cannot fend for themselves, is determined by our religious beliefs, our convictions if you will. It is the core of civilization/humanity.

So we see that by both definitions, religion is who we are, it defines us, guides us, motivates us, compeles us, seperates us, it is vital to our understanding of our world.

 

[razzelflabben]

No. The evidence must be evaluated without the bias of a belief system. No one individual is free from such bias. That is one of the reasons science must be public. So that scientists evaluating the evidence from many different biases can correct each other's biases to get an interpretation that is NOT biased by belief in any authority, but rises solely from the evidence.




I said that you "indicated" this, not that you said it. You didn't need to say it. What you have said about science was sufficient to indicate that you have a very poor grasp of science and its methods. Nor do I buy the excuse that you think philosophically rather than scientifically. As Edx pointed out, a grounding in philosophy generally gives the student tools of logic---tools which you do not appear to use.




In the case of the Vitamin C synthesis gene, there are trillions of bits of hard evidence---two copies of it in every cell of every mammal.



Yes, and the probability that the same mutation will occur independently in the same locus on the same gene with the same effect in two different species is even more astronomical.

btw, probability is not an argument against something that has already happened. The probability of an actual event that has already happened is 100%.



I didn't ask you anything about criteria. I answered your questions and the only reason the topic was raised again was because you asked the question again in post 129

Thanks for opening the door of communication. You show a total lack of understanding of what is being said and even less understanding of who I am as a person and what I know and don't know because you are too busy assuming to know who I am and what I believe. That is an awesome way for you to provide an example of my point for the thread. Thanks.

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

Let's do be fair and view the question in light of what I was responding to okay?

 

[razzelflabben]

So I am confused here. From what I can tell, the only real distinction you make between "hard" evidence and "soft" evidence is that "hard" evidence is enough to convince you while "soft" is not. Sorry, but I just find this all a bit too subjective for me.

What I am actually saying is that all evidence fits somplace in a spectrum of evidence. One extreme being hard, direct observation. the other being soft, our understanding of how the direct observations relates to the given subject, in a court room, that would be equatable to circumstancial evidence. Now when determining truth, we look at all the evidence and attribute more weight to the hard evidence because there is less speculation involved. There are people who are conviced of crimes based solely on circumstancial evidence, but we also identify it as such. What I believe is that in science the same distinction should be made.

We talk alot about the observations being subjected to public review but we fail to allow the public to determine if the evidence is enough to convict or not. how do we determine if it is enough to convict? By determining whether it is hard or soft, how much of each there is, and to what degree each leans in the spectrum.

 

[Physics_guy]

What I am actually saying is that all evidence fits somplace in a spectrum of evidence. One extreme being hard, direct observation. the other being soft, our understanding of how the direct observations relates to the given subject, in a court room, that would be equatable to circumstancial evidence. Now when determining truth, we look at all the evidence and attribute more weight to the hard evidence because there is less speculation involved.

One, I don't think you know much about courtrooms and how evidence is treated. Hint: eye-witness testimony is no where near as reliable as circumstantial evidence (note that all that fancy stuff that those CSI guys do on TV is ircumstantial evidence).

Two, I don't think you have any understanding of what evidence is in science, nor what type of evidence is used to support any theory. No one has observed Pluto orbit the Sun, but you will find few who will doubt that it does.

We talk alot about the observations being subjected to public review but we fail to allow the public to determine if the evidence is enough to convict or not.

Depends on what you mean by "public." Joe Blow on the the corner sipping his beer is not the intended audience for scientific journal articles.

how do we determine if it is enough to convict? By determining whether it is hard or soft, how much of each there is, and to what degree each leans in the spectrum.

Yes, so you have determined that the evidence for Common Ancestry is "soft" and is not enough to "convict." The vast overwelming majority of the people who have actually looked at this evidence (i.e. the world's biologists) disagree with you and think that this "soft" evidence clearly and strongly indicates Common Ancestry. So, where does that leave us?

 

[Physics_guy]

WEll, for the millionth time, hard evidence is direct observation, soft evidence is our explaination of how the direct observations explain the theory, hypothisis, prediction.

No, evidence is evidence. A theory or hypothesis explains that evidence. Whether it is "hard" or "soft," the evidence itself does not explain anything.

Furthermore, you do realize we have direct observations (i.e. "hard" evidence) of evolution, don't you?

 

[Physics_guy]

And by the way, just to clarify even more, the discussion about the evidence is based on the claims that some evolutionists make that the toe is evidenced with hard evidence, not evolution. Seperated largely by the idea and concept of common ancestry which is the real heart of the disagreement.

We have direct observations of fossils in particular orders in the geologic column. This is "hard" evidence of an increase in biodiversity. The ToE explains this increase.

 

[razzelflabben]

They are relevant because you equated science to an authority like a judge in a court room. The court room isnt a comparison to science because the judge delivers his finial verdict at the end, which to a certain extent cannot be overturned. The judge is the finial authority. The law is unlike science also because there are many loop holes as in such cases where you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. None of this is like science. There is no "finial" authority that could be compared to a judge. As for the lawyers, they are part of the courts to convince the judge (or jury) who acts as this finial authority. They aren't interested in truth. They are out to do a job, either successfully defend or prosecute and they will twist whatever they need to to do it. This also isnt anything like science, however if they could be compared to anyone it would be to professional Creationists.

No, see this is the problem, I did not equate the authority to the judge in the courtroom, I equated the authority to which you choose to know more, the police who investigated, or to the judge who hears the case. It's all about listening and asking enough questions to understand what is being said instead of assuming to know. There was nothing in my analogy about a courtroom, lawyers, or any other such thing, only who you choose as the authority on the evidence. It still is reduced to what authority you choose. We are not talking about who has the authority to do what, but rather who you choose as knowing more about the crime and the crime scene.

There is simply no authority for anyone to accept. The only true finial authority is the evidence and facts.

Then that is your authority. See how easy that is?

Biological evolution is one of the most well supported theories in science. Anyone amateur or professional could challenge it at any time with actual evidence that could withstand the critical analysis of peer review.

Never said to the contrary.

No you didnt. What you actually were saying was that science was the same in believing in God or Buddha. Because it all depends on what "authority you hold to", remember?

No, what I said is that anything you believe to be fact, must be based on what you believe the authority is. That can and does change with age, experience, teaching, subject, etc. but we first still must determine an authority for the issue. See the above about police and judge.

So then if science shows my car is red, you can tell me that you think its blue and thats perfectly fine because your particular "authority" says otherwise. Thats your logic you keep presenting here.

I would think it a poor choice to choose a different authority but that is not the issue. The issue is that if I choose a different authority, then yes, I might believe the car to be other than red. It never ceases to amaze me how the simples concepts can confound the educated of our world.

Science shows evolution is a fact and the earth is ancient, but it all depends on what your finial authority you have in the end right? God, the fairy mice men, or the flying pink ponies its all the same as objective evidence as far as your conserned, right?

What is your question, what is my authority on the subject? if I think those with another authority are wrong? or something else? I am not discussion who has choosen wisely, I am discussing that we all must choose.

And if the Bible says god created the earth in 6 days, thats the same as objective evidence that it isnt, right? Because you hold the Bible as a finial authority and I hold science, right? (//sarcasm, in case it wasnt obvious.)

This sounds like you want to change the discussion to the wisdom of which authority we choose. Is that what you are wanting to discuss?

And sometimes terminally ill patients recover. But you have to realise that science doesnt know everything, nor claims to. In fact it claims the opposite. How hard is that to understand? Sometimes the odds are against something like that happening, but that doesnt mean its a miracle if it does. Out of the billions and billions of ill patients thousands will recover at an improbable rate, hundreds will recover at a statistically even more improbable rates and so on. It is improbable that you will get up tomorrow and be killed by lightening, but if it happens it doesnt mean a god had anything to do with it, and a certain number of people do die from improbable events such as this each year.

I did not equate everything to God, so be careful what you try to read into my post. And btw, that is the point. Science doesn't have all the answers that is why I personally believe that our authorities should change with topic, but some people don't hold to this, sounds like you are one of them, sounds like you think that science is always the authority. I believe that because science doesn't have all the answers, other authorities are equally important to our understanding of the world this includes but is not limited to God and our religious understanding.

And here I see the same tired "god of the gaps" argument, again. We cant explain it so therefore there must be a supernatural explanation. They used to say the same thing about the stars and the planets. Some cultures used to believe that volcanos were a direct link to the underworld for example, and invented many superstitions and supernatural explanations because they didnt understand various natural occurrences. But this is the same thing you are doing here.

Okay, you see something that cannot be explained by science but can be explained by God as being the "god of the gaps", so then can we infer by this that you believe that the only authority that can tell us anything about our world is science. That science is the "god of the gaps" for you?

And the problem is it doesnt even end with this. Which god saved you, or was it some other supernatural "power"? If you are suggesting this might be evidence for a Christian god, why? It only raises more questions. Why would this god only save you, and not the millions of babies that die horribly from birth defects? Why would this god save you, and not save the thousands kiledl in the World Trade Center? Why would this god save you, and yet let so many die from the Tsunami? Humans didnt have anything to do with the Tsunami it was, as the insurance guys might say "an act of god" so why did he let the natural world he created kill all those people?

Take these questions to the pm and we can begin to discuss them, but they are horribly out of place on this thread.

Why do we have to invent these self conflicting beliefs about things just to make us be able to pretend we know things that we really dont? Your "religious explanation" isnt an explanation of anything, but where I say "I dont know", you say "god did it", but neither of us really know any more than each other.

This is inferrring that I apply only science and religion, no I take that back, only religion to our understanding of the world, what I said is that I apply a multitude of disiplines to the understanding of our world including but not limited to religion.

People use the word miracle in different contexts.

A "highly improbable event" can be called a miracle. A "religious miracle", which is what you are talking about, is a supernatural event that goes against the laws of the universe. They are quite clearly different.

But notice I did not equate it to a religious miracle. You must be more careful when reading a post that you don't assume to know what is being said. I said that is was something that science could not explain. Does that mean that probability cannot explain it? That, history can't explain it? Psycology? etc. It is where science doesn't have answers that the other "authorities" are benedicial to our understandings.

Again, religion doesnt teach you anything. All you did is replace, "I dont know", with "god did it". It might as well be "Vishnu did it", "Apollo did it", "Faries did it", "Satan did it", "Aliens did it with their anal probes" and none of it would teach us anything about anything, but provide a way for people to feel like they know something they really dont.

Didn't read what I said did you?

Honestly, how does saying "god did it" going to teach us anything more than putting your hands up and saying "I dont know, yet"? If we both walk into a old mansion at night and we hear a floorboard creek you might say its a demon or a goblin, whereas I might say I honestly dont know but you will claim you somehow "know" more than me because you "have an explantion".

That is if the "god of the gaps" is your authority. If you choose another authority, you might go explore, you might say, well it sounded like, heck, my grandfather told a great story about a haunted house, I might tell you that story just to see how you would react. Our reaction to the situation depends on our authority. If my authority is myself, I would most likely act solely on emotion.

Im reminded of a story I think was first told by Douglas Adams. It basically went like this. There was a man who believed little men were inside his tv controlling the pictures and making it work. Now one day his friend explained to him how a TV really worked, and the man listened intently to this then at the end he said "well, Im sure theres still a few little men in there, right?"

And that kind of Creationist fits my profile as well, as those that are simply not so evangelical about it and dont really care as much but are still ignorent of the science.

Now, you need to explain that. Isn't creationism the religion of the creationist? If a creationist isn't so evangelical about it, then how is it their religion?

And most simply dont understand the words they use, which is we we get so many uneducated Creationists, and a startling number of apparently educated ones saying things like "yea well evolution is only a theory". What gets me is they generally dont like to admit they are wrong. It usually takes a long time before they will even relent and admit that 'theory' doesnt actually mean what they thought it meant, if they acknoledge it at all. Usually it will be skipped completly as they quickly move onto the next senseless Creationist argument, and then they do the same again.

And you have yet to admit that one must determine an authority, looks like maybe you are in the same boat as them on that issue.

Which only means how much science they are willing to accept. Flat Earthers deny just about everything. Young Earth Creationists deny just about everything but accept heliocentricity. Old Earth Creationists accept the age of the earth, and some deny the flood, some dont. Etc. Its only about how much of the Bible you want to interpret as literal, and that determins how much science you will accept. Thats all it is.

Still comes down to the authority you choose doesn't it?

And how many times has there actually been a Creationist on here that honestly asks questions to learn? How many come on here and do not start telling us all how utterly wrong and silly evolution is as after all its only a theory anyway I mean we didnt evolve from monkeys or a fish and we still have monkeys anyway so how did we evolve from them and i dont see a cat giving birth to a dog or a human sprouting wings and my friend went to the zoo but didnt see any monkeys evolving into men did i so that disproves evolution and there are no transitional fossils and even the second law of thermodynamics proves that evolution is wrong haha its an atheist fairy tale and Darwin recanted on his death bed so prove it to me but I wont believe it anyway. Etc....

Sounds like some I know and not like others.

Once we figure out someone is willing to learn instead of showing how amazingly ignorent they are and how much they do love it we are all very helpful and nice from what Ive seen. But 99.9% of the time we deal with versions of that ^^(see above)^^. And the ones that seem sincere at the beginning actually tell us straight out that nothing we say will make a different anyway, that they'll still go on believing the same regardless.

And yet, I come on here sincere and am judged as not being because you want to read into my posts and label me as something I am not. Hummm, I wonder what criteria must be reached in order to acheive the level of belief required to get this kind of treatment?

(Just like to also point out that all of those above arguments have been used by creationists)

Wouldn't know.

See above. I have seen a few Creationists honestly willing to learn, and they werent Creationists for very long. Thats the thing. You cant honestly understand evolution properly and still believe in Creationism, though I do wonder how some of these Creationists with legitimate relevant degrees behave so dishonestly towards science that they must surely understand. But this is why you cannot find any credible Creationist to show me. Im not even asking for the impossible here, but no Creationists can cite any credible sources and you havent even tried. I even said if people have a problem with my points of credibility we could discuss it, except that hasnt happened either.

Well, I quess that opinion will be supported or falsified if evolutionists and creationists ever start talking rather than simply argue that they have all truth.

 

[Edx]

Well, the challenge is nonsense if you make your own determination as to what is and is not credible that was my point. Credible by definition even here is relative.

Why is reality so subjective to you? Where you can tell me my car is not red but blue because "your authority" is different no matter how much objective evidence says otherwise. Where someone that lies is just as credible as someone that tells the truth, just as long as people find him "believable"

You are asking me (who btw did not make the claim that the creationist arguements are credible but rather that credible depends on the point of view) to offer you web sites that are credible when you will deny them credible because of your view.

No I will deny them if they fulfill the criteria of a credible source. Like I said, if you feel the points arent good enough or unfair we can talk about it.

That's the point. Because credible is relative,

Maybe in some strange subjective reality of yours but in science, and Creationists do claim to be arguing science here, credible is objective

there is a no win situation presented. That is like asking you to reference a credible website for evolution without using evolution web sites to do so. It is nonsense.

No I could reference many institutions and many qualified scientists, and they would fulfill the criteria as credible sources. I could even start with this forum and cite Aron Nelson (Aron Ra) and Glenn Morton (gmorton).

See, if the challenge was, a creationist arguement that is believable, or maybe a creationist website that is not following the extremist ideas of the AIG or the ICR, or something like that, then the challenge would be a fair one

How would it be fair? Do they or do they not understand the science they talk about? For example if I were to go to one and the first thing I see them doing is telling us evolution is abiogenesis and atheism we know they arent a credible source.

Believable is different to credible. Believable is relevative and subjective, but to be credible you must fullfill certian requirements especially if you are talking scientifically.

and though I would have to look, I am confident I could find one, in fact, I have run across a couple in my researches. But the criteria you provide are are subject to your point of view.

This should be interesting.

IN OTHER WORDS, CREDIBILITY IS A RELATIVE TERM!

See above.

Even the criteria for credibility is relative in nature. Look at the first one for an example: 1. ... pretend they are qualified to comment or know what they are talking about. You cannot determine what someone know or doesn't know simply by their interpretation of the "evidence".

You can determine what they believe about the "evidence", but not what they know.

What they "believe" is irrelevant.

But let me explain that first point:
"pretend they are qualified to comment" - This is talking about guys like, for example, Kent Hovind and Jobe Martin. Both of them dishonestly pretend to be qualfied to talk about the subject. Jobe Martin is a dentist and his degree is in theology. However Hovind is far worse as his diploma, in Christian Education, is from a known diploma mill where you can purchase degrees for a 100 dollars. So even despite the fact that their arguments are complete bunk, they also try and pretend they are qualfied in the area the speak about. Thats not what you do to appear credible.

"or know what they are talking about" - This refers to anyone that, for example, sets up a pro-Creationist website, or whatever else, and talks about evolution yet show they really have no idea what they are talking about. Hence they will use arguments such as, 'evolution is only a theory', 'thermodynamics violates it', 'no transitionals', 'its atheism'. etc etc Just things like that. You cant claim to disprove a theory if you dont know what the theory is. Again, this source wouldnt be credible either, or probably more to the point it really, really isnt scientifically credible.

Here's an example. There was some kind of bird of prey in our yard a couple of years ago, it was odd to see him there because he was out of place environment wise. Now our son caught a glimpse of him and tried to identify him based on what he had seen. Now, the conclusion was based on observations, but his conclusion tells very little about what he actually knows about animals and that animal inparticular because the information asked for was limited.

And your son wouldnt be a credible scientific source either, would he?

So if I ask a creationist for information, it does nothing to identify what they know but rather how they interprete what they know.

A credible scientific Creationist source, thats all. Im asking for one that fulfills the criteria. I didnt say anything about believability, or else I would have said so. My points detail exactly what I meant by credible, but you seem to have decided you dont accept it and used some other subjective definition where anyone can be credible no matter how little they know or how much they lie.

That is the problem with presenting a reality challenge then crying when it is not accepted. I do recall asking you to give a more specific definition so that the challenge could be accepted with the variable being limited, but you don't want to do that, or you can't do that, so the challenge will remain unanswered do to the realitiveness of the criteria needed to meet the challenge.

Again I ask you, what is so wrong with my definition?

I cant water it down to the point where your son is a credible source to talk scientifically on biology. Sorry.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

In other words, "how something originated" then? I'm sorry Razzie, but after reading the pages I have where you're asking for some sort of common ground on definitions, the fact that you would claim that "creation has nothing to do with origin" is simply astounding.

Every time I think I've encountered creationist post-modernism at it's finest, see something jaw droppingly original. To claim that how something was "created" has nothing to do with (your words) it's origin in a thread concerning sematics is, well, I'm speechless...

Happy to ablige, I seperate my understanding of things by words, creation means to create. Thus the theory of creation means how, why, when, where, the mechanics. So when I use the word creation, (in an evolution vs creation debate) I am using it as the creationed/evolved world, the emperical observations as it were. When I use the term toc, I am refering to the belief that life was created by a supernatural being, specifically God. ID would then be less specific about the supernatural being doing the creation. This is my understanding of the words and their meanings. It is not something totally foreign to some of the evolutionists I have run into on the forum one even made the claim that creation was fact in that we are here. So before you accuse me of making up the understanding, be sure to understand the words and concepts. Thanks