Start communicating

[razzelflabben]

Premises are statements, not an authority. For example, I might have a major premise that states:

All swans are white.

Based on what?

And a minor premise which states:

There is a swan in the millpond.

based on what?

My conclusion would then be:

The swan in the millpond is white.

If both my premises are correct, the conclusion will also be correct.

based on what? You don't have anything concrete to base any much less all these assumptions on. You have to establish some kind of authority to determine, or else the conclusions will be different and that is what we are talking about now isn't it? Is common ancestry, large scale, ancestrial kind, marcoevolution a logical conclusion of speciation? If there are no absolutes to base our conclusions on, than we can come up with at least a hundred logical conclusions and each would be valid. So why then the debate? Why debate whose "logical conclusion" is best when we have no absolutes to base them on? I see your answer to my question below but wonder why if the creationists "logical conclusion" is as valid as yours that you would have a problem with their teaching?

In this case my major premise is not correct. It is not the case that all swans are white. So it may be that the swan in the millpond is not white either. If we observe that the conclusion is false, we know that one or both of the premises must be false as well.

But we have nothing but opinion to base the conclusions on. We can't determine if the conclusion is false or not without an athority to base our claims on. How is this such a hard concept for someone as educated as you seem to be? If I have no absolutes, if anything I want to say or believe is okay, then who determines if the premis is false? The individual does! and if the individual decides, then, the "logical conclusion" is nothing more than yours or my opinion of what we think happened and therefore, there should be NO debate. Settled that, there should no longer be any debate over evolution and creation because glaudy's hads deemed that everyone can make their "logical conclusion" based on anything they want to base it on and they will be right. How cool is that, both the evolutionist is right and the creationist is right and the IDist is right, and the alien cloning is right, and therefore, why are we teaching the toe in our schools? Why if everyone is right in their logical conclusions do we teach only the toe? Why not teach all of them? Wow this is not what you seem to be saying later in this thread, I wonder what it is you are really intending to say?!?

The rules of logic do not require accepting an authority. They are simply rules that people have discovered that lead to conclusions that cannot be wrong if the premises are correct. What the rules of logic will not tell us is whether or not the premises are correct.
But neither the premises, nor the rules, require an authority.

Right, but if we don't accept the rules of logic to be the authority for determining logic, then, it doesn't matter how I get there, if I call it locial, it is. The rules haven't changed, but we don't have to follow those rules and still can call it logical because it might be logical for the person with that opinion. See this is the problem with being so afraid of certain words and ideas that you refuse them out of hand without ever thinking about them or trying to understand them, because later they will come back to bite you in the bum. By not accepting an athority, than anything someone says or claims can be considered logical. Therefore, the creationist that you so violently disagree with, also has a logical conclusion that differs from your and so, who is right, that totally depends on whose premises to line up closer with. So why get so testy about their logical conclusions? You have no basis for disagreement because each individuals opinions are equal when determining what is logical. How cool is that you just ended the debate. Cool. Awesome cool!

Because, despite the name “rules”, logic is not an authority. An authority could change the rules. But the rules of logic cannot be changed. They simply describe how to be sure the conclusion of a logical process is consistent with the premises.

But have you read anything I have said about the use of authority? Of course not because you were to interested in proving me a wrong creationist to read anything I said with any amount of understanding. So let's go over it again, okay? Okay! If we want to be consistant in our understanding, then we must accept an authority, in this case we accept the authority of rules of logic. That way, when a question arises as to how we got to the conclusion we did, we go back to the athority we chose, that of the rules of logic, to determine what "path" is the correct or accepted path. See, the whole discussion about authority was how one group of people can come to a different conclusion than another. The answer, is that when they have a question that is not obvious to them in answer, they look for the answer in the authority they have choosen to have the answers. To some it might be science, to others, scientific method, to some God, to some the bible, some hold thier authority to be self, while others hold to what they have been taught. It is the different authorities that allows different answers to the same question. So when we are talking about origins, then we must establish which authroty we will come back to when there is a disagreement. Will we come back to science, scientific method, God, the bible, our teachings, etc. But you don't like this or accept this, so there are no set answers to any of this, what ever anyone wants to believe they can believe and you should not be upset by this because you are the one now advocating such.

I am not asking you to accept any authority, including mine.

Oh, so there is no debate going on! Cool! and all this time when you have talked down to me as if I didn't understand anything scientific you were not saying that I didn't understand it, you were saying that my logical conclusion was different than yours and that was okay with you. I wish you would have saved all of us the trouble by just saying this before and not trying to make mountains out of mole hills. But, that is my opinion and you have to accept it as equally fact with yours because we have no basis for disagreements. How cool!

Good, in part. Scientists don’t accept a logical conclusion as fact just because it is logical. They check the logical conclusion against the reality of nature first. A scientist would say my argument about the swan in the millpond is indeed logical and follows from the premises. But that would not be good enough to make it a fact. So the scientist would go and take a look at the swan in the millpond.

And he would also say that you are missing my point and blinding yourself to what is right in front of you.

Did you read your own link? Did you study the chart and the explanations? It is the very nature of logic that if the premises are true, and the inferences are valid, the conclusion cannot be false. No authority is needed to establish any absolutes.

Logical conclusions are not debatable. When logical conclusions are not true, the problem does not lie in the conclusion, but either in the premises (at least one is not true) or in the inferences (they were not valid, but based on fallacious reasoning). So when presented with a logical conclusion that is contrary to fact, it is necessary to go back to the premises and the inferences to see what is wrong with them.

See, you are missing the point again.

In science, the final and only authority is always the observed facts.

Can't be, because science doesn't accept an autority. observed facts can't be the authority if we can't accept any authority. Be consistant with your own claims.

Logic can steer us toward finding what the facts are, but it does not replace them.

Yea, I didn't hear anyone claim otherwise. so your point is.....

Scientific method is a process, not an authority. It is a method of research, not something that tells you what your research must lead to. When all parties use the same method (which includes, but it not limited to, logical arguments), they will come to the same conclusions, though it may take a long time and a lot of convincing evidence to get there.

What are you talking about? If I accept scientific method as the means of getting to the answer, then I have accepted scientific method as the authority in finding the answers. In other words, the process of scientific method is what we revert back to when there is a despute, because scientific method is the accepted authority. Isn't that earth shattering and disturbing teaching? So disturbing in fact that it takes pages and pages and pages of insults to bring us to this post in which you claim that science has an authority of observed facts without accepting the authority of observed facts. You don't even hear your own arguements, just put them out there and hope that they make me look stupid.

If you and I are coming to different conclusions, we can find out who is right by following scientific procedure. (Or we can find there is not enough evidence to decide.)

Not if scientific procedure is not the authority we are accepting. If I accept scientific procedure as the authority on the issue and you accept self, or something else, then our conclusion are likely to never be the same and so using scientific procedure will do nothing to solve the disagreement. Both are logic conclusions and both are acceptable equally. That is your claim.

No we cannot. If the same methods are used to test the same claims, under the rules of logic, it is not possible for the conclusions to be different. A logical conclusion is not debatable. The claims are debatable, the premises can be challenged, logical inferences can be examined for fallacies, methods can be called into question. These are what we have to look at---these and the reality of nature which is the final scientific arbiter.

All of those variables, are determined by what authority is choosen and since we don't accept that, then there is no right answer and all the argueing is meaningless.

Sure, your premises are just as valid as mine. We don’t need an authority to validate premises. The logical conclusion based on those premises will decide. If the conclusion is not true, we know that some of the premises are not true, or that the inferences (aka predictions) based on the premises failed to follow the rules of logic in some way.

If we don't accept the rules of logic, much less a standard to our premisies, than anything I want to say can be a logical conclusion and so, there is no disagreement. That is what your claims bring us to. When I first brought up the concept of accepting an authority, I tried desperately to show you that in order for communication to be effective, you needed to have an acceptable basis for your claims, IOW's, both sides had to accept science or scientific method, or God or the bible etc. as the place they would go when disagreement arose. You said definately not! we need no authority! So we disbute science with theology or doctrine or scientific method and wonder why communication isn't going anywhere.

 

[razzelflabben]

part 2

They have already been defined scientifically. Using a non-scientific definition only obscures matters.

But you refuse to accept the authority of science on the issue and so any discussion of the subject is clouded by your own claims of having not authority, not the other person who tells you up front what authority they choose. but let's move on

If creationists want to draw the line between micro-evolution and macro-evolution somewhere other than the definition of species, they will have to say where that is. And they will have to explain why speciation can occur to the extent of parent and daughter species, but not to the extent of great-grandparent and great-granddaughter species.

That was not the question. I have heard evolutionist use the term common ancestry to refer to the idea of man is a common ancester with apes, etc. But when we start talking about this concept you suddenly claim that that is not what the term common ancester means. So I asked you for a word or term that would mean this type of common ancestrer so that communication could proceed and you come here making claims that the creationist this and the creationist that. It has nothing to do with the creationist, get over that in a big hurry! It has to do with what term or word can be used to express the idea of man is related to apes, horse is related to zebra, we are all related to the single celled organism, etc. If we can't use the words common ancestry to relate this idea, what word/words can we use?

What I am saying is that creationist problems with evolution are based on a false understanding of how evolution works. Learn how evolution works and creationist problems (in so far as they are scientific) melt away. Theological problems, of course, are a different matter.

Well, that isn't always the case from what I have seen, so why don't we try to communicate with them and see if the problem is not understanding or if the problem is lack of communication and before you claim that you have, let me point you to the evidence in this thread in which every time I said somthing to you that you didn't like you claimed that I didn't understand and never once assumed that I knew something just didn't see it the same way as you. Example, you said that a theory must be evidenced in order to be a theory. Definate contridiction, so I asked you to explain. You assumed from my asking you to explain the contridiction that I didn't understand hypothesis. If this is the only way to talk to those you deem creationists, you will never know if they understand the toe or not, because you are trying to hard to show them as being wrong that you fail to hear what they are saying. No wonder you think that all creationist are unknowledgable, because you never give them a chance to show you what they know.

There is no point re-inventing scientific vocabulary. Scientific terminology is well-defined. The correct solution is not to try and change it, but to learn to use it.

yeah, we have seen that well defined terminology with the word evolution which can mean at least 2 different things and three if you want to expand your understanding. But let's work with the scientific voc. Evolutionists use the term common ancestry to include the concept of all organisms evolving from a single celled populations that includes man and apes being related but not limited to. So when I come here using the term common ancestry to mean the same you tell me know that is not an acceptable use of the word. Now I am not here to educate you or argue with you, as the op says, I am hear to communicate, to learn what you understand and don't understand. So, I am asking you to give us the acceptable word or term for the common ancestry that says that we are evolved from a single celled population. That would include but not be limited to the idea of man and apes and horses and zebras. The last sentences offered for clarification which seems to be a foreign idea to the evolutionists here on this thread. Thanks I'm anxious to start using this new term and thus move communication along.

The logic of reproduction says it continues on as long as species continue to exist. So does a great deal of evidence. If you have evidence that there is a barrier to evolution continuing as long as a population lives, please present it so that we can discuss it.

How? the logic of reproduction says that an organism will continue to exist. The logic of speciation might be that it continues on, that would depend on the authority we are using to make premises but since there is none, that means that any conclusion I come to could be logical. Oh well, it's nice idealizm to have no absoluties and thus, anything I want to believe is fact. I don't live in this type of ideal world, so I can only speculate that it is a fine place to live.

To do that, I would have to take the training a fire marshal gets to do her job. And to understand most of what I learned, so would you. Nevertheless, this is the sort of thing a fire marshal does, based on what she learned and on her experience. That is why her testimony in court will be accepted as “expert testimony”. Do you really think that insurance companies and courts would base important decisions on the testimony of a fire marshall if unwitnessed arson could not be detected? You know, just by reading the papers, that fires are investigated to see what caused them. So you know it is possible to determine the cause. If it were not, it would be pointless to investigate.

right, but all science has is the existance of organisms, and speciation which is the fire starting materials. That isn't enough. That is the problem with your analogy, more is required and you don't have more infact, by your own admission, some of our observances of speciation are only inferances of the observation, so that reduces the fire start materials in this analogy to matches. So to make the analogy fair, we have the existance of organisms (burnt building) we have firs starting materials (speciation) and we have a fire marshall(scientist) when we ask the fire marshal for what evidence he is basing his claims on, he gives us assumptions based on the materials found. "well, if you use these materials the right way they could start a fire". Any court that accepted that as evidence that the fire was arsen would be laughed out of existance. In fact, any fire marshall that claimed arson based on this evidence would truely not be considered an expert. So when the claim is made that the toe is evidenced, we need more than the materials to start a fire, and noone can produce them.

Absolutely not! No action can be taken on an assumption. The evidence must be examined and a conclusion based on the evidence must be determined. Only when it is concluded (not assumed) from the evidence that this is a case of arson will the police become involved. The simple existence of fire-starting materials is not enough to base a conclusion on.

see above

Exactly. See above.

Evidence either exists or it doesn’t. That is not a matter of anyone’s belief.

??? This makes no sense.
And science does not attempt to investigate God. If God is hiding any part of nature, that is evidence the scientist has no access to. It would be God’s fault then, if the scientist comes to incorrect conclusions.

Can we shift to this discussion by way of being done with the above or should we hold off on this one for a while?

Interesting that you pass this statement off as my opinion rather than asking what the evidence is. The evidence is there and when you are ready to look at it with an open mind, it will still be there.

It is your opinion because you have no authority to base your observations on. That is your claim and I respect that claim. But in respecting your claim, I refuse to accept your opinion as anything but your opinion. I rely on science in this discussion as the authority by which I determine evidence and not your opinion. Thanks for offering it however.

Yes, that has been done. The genetic basis of the human tail is the same as that for the coccyx, since the coccyx is composed of the bones that form the tail in other vertebrates, and (temporarily) in the human embryo, and in those rare humans who are born with a tail.
This is a deformity caused by a malfunction in embryonic development. It has no relation to evolution unless we start getting populations of six-legged calves, instead of isolated individuals born with a rare disorder. Remember, individuals do not evolve. Only populations evolve..

That is not what I asked you to evidence about tails in humans but that could be a miscommunication problem, are you done with the above so we can move on into this type discussion or should be hold off a bit more?

Not my conclusion. The conclusion of the vast majority of biologists who have working knowledge of the evidence. Not based on absolutes either, but on evidence and logical inferences from the evidence.

and many that disagree with the conclusion or you don't remember that long list of reputable scientists that I gave ed to choose from?

Yes. It is. That’s the problem with it.
I don’t know about other people. My reason for learning about it was that it bothers me a great deal that Christians are being fed a line of false teaching, both scientifically and theologically, by the creationist movement (and now the ID movement as well). I believe the truth is never an enemy of God, and should never be presented as if it is. I want my children, my future grandchildren, all children to be taught the truth both in school and in church. I want them taught the truth about God and about God’s world. And that cannot be as long as creationism has a foothold in the church.

got a problem with this claim based on the above but thanks for answering the question we can discuss your problems at another time if you like. I'm guessing that a lot of your problem is that you see creation as doctrine and don't understand what it really is, but you aren't ready for that and it is being discussed on the other thread, so we'll hold off on that discussion till your ready for it.

LOL. You start a thread called “Start communicating” and you complain about semantics? Can’t communicate without attention to semantics. Just what do you think semantics is all about?

I don't think I was complaining, maybe I was, I simply asked you to clarify some things and I was accused of playing a semantics game of some kind. Changing the meaning of words and not trying to listen to what is being said is the kind of semantic games that hurt communication, not consistancy and understanding of how words are used. In other words, when I was corrected for using the word science in place of biology, I accepted it without contest because it was semantics, the meaning of the question did not change, nor was it clarified by the correction. But, when meanings of words are shifted, such as common ancestry to a meaningless formate in order to avoid the idea being presented, that is a sementics game that hurts communication.

I have no difficulty using the word “origin” both in the phrase “origin of life” and “origin of species”. In both cases, “origin” means “source, beginning”. But the processes are quite different in each case. The first process is abiogenesis. The second is evolution. I refuse to use a meaning for “origin” which obscures this essential difference.

and as discussed, a teaching on biology does not mean that everything known to biology must be taught. If I teach a third grade class on math, I don't have to teach algabra and geometry in order to call it a math lesson or class. So when we talk about teaching origins, we are not limiting the understanding to everything that is known about our origins, it can mean anything between abiogenisis and speciation. But, you as a teacher already know this, you just refuse to accept it in this discussion because it might make me sound like I know something, and that would be bad news for you and your opinions.

Indeed, the debate is about whether or not it is possible to become grandparents. Creationists insist it is impossible, but can provide no reason why. And since grandparents do exist, it seems the creationists must be wrong.

No, that is not the debate, that is why you need to listen for a moment before assuming that you disagree. You have assumed from the moment you first read what someone else thought I said that you disagreed with me and nothing I have said sense has made any difference to you much less have been heard because you are trying to hard to argue your point to even know what point you are arguing. It is the common tactic of evolutionists and an all to common tactic of those who are indoctrinated. I wonder if there is a connection?

 

[gluadys]

Based on what?

A major premise does not need to be based on anything. It is simply a general statement. It need not be true or false or supported by evidence. But if it is not true, the conclusion will not be true either.

A minor premise refers to a particular instance of the class named in the major premise:

e.g.
All swans are white.
There is a swan in the millpond.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.

All even numbers are divisible by two.
278 is an even number.

Logic reasons from the general to the particular. It proposes a general premise. Then it applies this general premise to a specific case. If both premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

Conclusions are based on the premises.

You have to establish some kind of authority to determine, or else the conclusions will be different and that is what we are talking about now isn't it?

You have three examples above. How many conclusions does each lead to?

Please show me how an appeal to authority can lead to a different conclusion, given the premises.

Is common ancestry, large scale, ancestrial kind, marcoevolution a logical conclusion of speciation?

Yes. Note, however, that a logical conclusion is not necessarily true. In the swan example above, it is possible that when one goes to look at the swan, that it is not white, but black. That is because the major premise in this case is false. Not all swans are white, and finding a black swan proves this. So you can have a logical conclusion that is not a true conclusion.

So although common ancestry is a logical conclusion from the fact of speciation, science also requires evidence.

If there are no absolutes to base our conclusions on, than we can come up with at least a hundred logical conclusions and each would be valid.

Show me. Show me a valid logical argument which has more than one conclusion.

But we have nothing but opinion to base the conclusions on.

On the contrary, we have the premises. The conclusion is based on the premises and on valid inferences from the premises.

We can't determine if the conclusion is false or not without an athority to base our claims on.

A conclusion is valid if it follows logically from the premises. It is true, if it also agrees with the evidence.

Neither of these requires an appeal to any authority except reason and nature.

How cool is that, both the evolutionist is right and the creationist is right and the IDist is right, and the alien cloning is right, and therefore, why are we teaching the toe in our schools? Why if everyone is right in their logical conclusions do we teach only the toe?

Because it is not enough to be logically correct. Logic is an important part of science, but it is only a part. So, in addition to being logically correct, there must be evidence that the logical conclusion is true. If the premises and inferences on which a logical conclusion is based are unsound, the logical conclusion may be false, not true. So we have to sort out which logical conclusions are true. To do that, we check out the conclusions against the evidence.

To date, the evidence supports the theory of evolution, contradicts creationism, and says nothing about ID, because ID is a philosophy, not a scientific proposition. That is why in science class, only the theory of evolution is taught. Only the theory of evolution is based on both sound logic and evidence.

Right, but if we don't accept the rules of logic to be the authority for determining logic, then, it doesn't matter how I get there, if I call it locial, it is.

No, it isn’t. If you don’t follow the method for getting a logical conclusion, you can’t call your reasoning logical, because, by definition, it is not.

The rules haven't changed, but we don't have to follow those rules and still can call it logical because it might be logical for the person with that opinion.

If you don’t follow the rules, you are not playing the game, and you can’t pretend you are. If you don’t follow the rules of bridge, you are not playing bridge. You may be playing something else, but not bridge. If you are not adhering to the rules of logic, nothing you say can count as logical.

Therefore, the creationist that you so violently disagree with, also has a logical conclusion that differs from your and so, who is right, that totally depends on whose premises to line up closer with.

Of course, the creationist can be logical. The reason the conclusion is different is that the creationist starts from different premises. But the premises don’t determine who is right, because the premises may be incorrect. Both correct and incorrect premises can lead to a logical conclusion, but only the correct premises will necessarily lead to a correct conclusion. So who is right, is not determined by the premises, but by who is using the correct premises.

So why get so testy about their logical conclusions? You have no basis for disagreement because each individuals opinions are equal when determining what is logical.

No, what is logical is determined by the rules of logic, not by anyone’s opinion. Logic is a thinking process which guarantees that correct premises and sound reasoning will lead to a correct conclusion. Failure to use correct premises can lead to incorrect conclusions. So can fallacious reasoning. The reasoning that led to the conclusion that logic is a matter of personal opinion is a good example of fallacious reasoning. Since this conclusion is built on fallacious reasoning, it is a fallacious conclusion.

See, the whole discussion about authority was how one group of people can come to a different conclusion than another. The answer, is that when they have a question that is not obvious to them in answer, they look for the answer in the authority they have choosen to have the answers.

Some people look to authorities, but if you want scientific truth, authority is not a way to find it. Neither the scientific method nor the rules of logic provide answers. Both provide a method of operation which allows one to have confidence in the answers one discovers. What they tell you is: “If you follow this path of action/reasoning, you will find answers that make sense and agree with reality.”

Authorities give answers, but do not provide any certainty that they have the right answer. How do we know the authority is right? All through medieval times, it was customary to appeal to authorities to back up one’s arguments. But eventually, it was evident that this was unsatisfactory, because authorities contradicted each other. We need a way of discovering which authority is right.

When scholars worked on the problem of authorities who contradicted each other, and how to determine what was right, the process they developed was the scientific method. The method does not give answers, as authorities do. But applying it leads to right answers; appeals to authority don’t.

It is the different authorities that allows different answers to the same question.

Exactly. That is why authorities are unreliable as a source of truth. If we want to know which of the many answers is right, we cannot rely on authority. We need to rely on a process or method which we know will lead to the right answer. There are no set answers when you rely on authority. There are as many different answers as there are authorities, and no way to tell who is right.

A method, whether of reasoning (logic) or of investigation (scientific method) is not an authority. It is a way of getting around the problem of appeals to authority, especially when the authorities disagree among themselves.

. In other words, the process of scientific method is what we revert back to when there is a despute, because scientific method is the accepted authority.

It won’t help to refer back to the scientific method to resolve the dispute. The method does not provide the answers. The reason we go back to the process is to see if the methodology was correct, not to see if the answers were right. If there were problems in the methodology, correcting the methodology may clear up the dispute. But if the methodology was good, and there is still a dispute, the problem lies elsewhere and cannot be resolved by going back to the method of investigation.

Not if scientific procedure is not the authority we are accepting.

If we don’t use scientific procedure, we will not get a scientific conclusion.

That is your claim.

No, it is not. That is your imagination speaking.

If we don't accept the rules of logic,…

We cannot come to a logical conclusion. Nor to a scientific conclusion, since science uses logic.

…than anything I want to say can be a logical conclusion

No, by definition, only logic leads to logical conclusions.

That is what your claims bring us to.

You are putting words into my mouth again. The claims you are referring to were not made by me, but by you presuming to speak for me.

When I first brought up the concept of accepting an authority, I tried desperately to show you that in order for communication to be effective, you needed to have an acceptable basis for your claims, IOW's, both sides had to accept science or scientific method…

Scientific method is the only basis for reaching scientific conclusions. But a method is not an authority.

… or God or the bible etc. as the place they would go when disagreement arose.

These are authorities, and they do not lead to scientific conclusions. But they are authoritative for doctrine.

 

[gluadys]

part 2
But you refuse to accept the authority of science on the issue and so any discussion of the subject is clouded by your own claims of having not authority, not the other person who tells you up front what authority they choose.

And in that I am following scientific procedure. Science does not claim authority. It claims evidence. Science is anti-authoritarian and accepts nothing on the basis of authority. It demands that all claims be tested against the evidence provided by nature.

I have heard evolutionist use the term common ancestry to refer to the idea of man is a common ancester with apes, etc.

Either you heard wrong, or the evolutionist was confused. Humans are not common ancestors with apes. Humans belong to a family of animals called apes. All apes (including humans) have a common ancestor. Within the family of apes, our closest relatives are the chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor with the chimpanzees. This ancestor lived more recently than the common ancestor we share with the whole ape family.

It has to do with what term or word can be used to express the idea of man is related to apes, horse is related to zebra, we are all related to the single celled organism, etc. If we can't use the words common ancestry to relate this idea, what word/words can we use?

In fact, that was the definition of common ancestry which I gave you. Horses and zebras are related through a common ancestor. Humans are related to other apes through a common ancestor. All life forms are related to each other through a common ancestor.

Well, that isn't always the case from what I have seen,

Not surprising. You don’t understand evolution either, so you don’t recognize how creationism raises pseudo-problems.

you will never know if they understand the toe or not,

When someone spouts nonsense about evolution, it is self-evident that they do not understand it.

So, I am asking you to give us the acceptable word or term for the common ancestry that says that we are evolved from a single celled population.

Common ancestry covers it. Where did I say otherwise?

How? the logic of reproduction says that an organism will continue to exist. The logic of speciation might be that it continues on, that would depend on the authority we are using to make premises

Actually, the logic of reproduction says that an organism will die, but it will have children. And the children will grow and have children. Organisms die, but as long as they leave children, the species continues on.

And species change over time. And they may speciate, so that over time, instead of one species there are two (or more). And these separate species also continue as long as organisms have children. And they, too, change over time. And they too can speciate into two (or more) species. And so on.

None of this requires authorities to establish. The evidence is there whenever a chick hatches or a kitten is born or a bacteria divides itself into daughter cells.

right, but all science has is the existance of organisms, and speciation which is the fire starting materials. That isn't enough.

Science has all the evidence it needs. It is enough as you will see when you allow yourself to look at it. It doesn’t matter how often you repeat to yourself that the evidence is not there or that it isn’t sufficient. It is still not true.

It is your opinion because you have no authority to base your observations on.

You think scientists need an authority to tell them what their observations are? Who do you turn to tell you what you see when you look out the window?

That is not what I asked you to evidence about tails in humans but that could be a miscommunication problem, are you done with the above so we can move on into this type discussion or should be hold off a bit more?

If it was a miscommunication problem, you will have to rephrase or clarify the question, as I thought this answer did speak to the question.

and many that disagree with the conclusion or you don't remember that long list of reputable scientists that I gave ed to choose from?

I’ll let you and ed discuss the relevance and credibility of those scientists. They are still less than 1% of biologists, so my point still stands. I refuse to let you categorize accepted scientific consensus as “my opinion”. It is not “my opinion”. It is science.

In other words, when I was corrected for using the word science in place of biology, I accepted it without contest because it was semantics, the meaning of the question did not change,

On the contrary, the meaning of the question changed a great deal. That is why attention to semantics (which is all about meaning) is important.

and as discussed, a teaching on biology does not mean that everything known to biology must be taught.

Exactly. And in elementary or high school, this is not possible. So it is important to correctly identify what we are teaching: abiogenesis, natural selection, mutations, genetics, whatever. An obscure word like “origins” will not do.

No, that is not the debate, that is why you need to listen for a moment before assuming that you disagree. You have assumed from the moment you first read what someone else thought I said that you disagreed with me …

No, I have assumed nothing based on someone else’s authority. I don’t accept authority, remember? You have provided ample evidence yourself for me to draw a conclusion based on your own words. And the possibility of grandparents is indeed the debate. Grandparents are common ancestors. If we can’t have common ancestors, we can’t have grandparents.

 

[Edx]

And then we add the possible definition of shorthand for the toe, which includes common ancestry, ancestrial kind, large scale, macroevolution but is not limited to common ancestry

What do you mean "then we add "?

Common ancestry is in the Theory of Evolution just like I told you.

.. which is the most common point of disagreement. So, when the words are used interchangably, there are times when it will be necessary for you to clarify what you mean.

I said Evolution was the foundation of modern biology, the single unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together.

You asked me for "clairity". You also said recently that you understand that when talking about evolution in terms of biology, it is either referring to a specific process or the theory itself.

Well I can admit that in some cases, there can be some confusion.

However in this case it was clear. Why did you not look at the context of the statement, and figure out that of course I was talking about the scientific theory? No, I'll rephrase. How could I have been talking about anything but the theory of Evolution? See also below.

They are quite a nuisance and pain in the butt because they take away our excuse, that they simply didn't understand, thus leaving us empty handed when it comes to viable arguements. I do wish these type of people would simply leave the forum so as to never challenge our ideas and views don't you?!? WRONG!!!

Yes Im just such a horrible horrible person saying you are being difficult on purpose, and you refuse to correct your errors or learn anything.

The problem is there was that time you claimed that not only that you had "gotten no answer" to your question as to the differece between Evolution and the Toe, but that I had "refused" to answer you. You also claimed my position was that "the toe is what modern science is based". Now it was unbelievabely difficult for you to admit that it was a typo, that you actually meant "biology", not "science". The problem is not just that it took you so long to admit it was wrong, but also that you never really saw how it was necessary that you realise how wrong it was.

For just these two reasons alone, I am justified in my evaluation of you.

People like that are needed on the forum and in our lives, they help us learn what we believe rather than to just tell us what to believe. They test us to make sure we understand what we are saying, they are very benificial to learning, knowing, and logic.

You know, you might have a point if you were one of these people.

But you don't have any patience for being questioned because in your opinion anyone who doesn't parrot the same answers is simply an uneducated fool trying to prove that they know more than they know.

Oh, I have patience alright. With someone who is willing to have an proper discussion. You arent trying to have a proper discussion.

I would say to you that you need to close you mouth long enough to learn that differing opinions does not equal uneducated fools.

Of course that is true. But that doesnt mean all opinions are worth the same either.

sorry, I looked at the context and still wasn't sure, I asked my husband who was standing nearby, and he wasn't sure from the context

So you thought that I may have been saying that the "process of evolution" was actually "the single unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together"?

Why?

Instead I used the word programmed because your arguements are the same canned arguements used by evolutionists no matter what question is raised.

So I assume from that you have already been told that you use scientific terms in the wrong way, but still do it.

If I asked you how the fossil record evidences evolution you would come back with the arguement that I don't understand evolution if I have to ask you how the fossil record evidences evolution.

No I wouldnt, but I would if you included with your question some Creationist misrepresentation. If you really dont understand, you seem to think I should keep my mouth shut.

If we are talking about common ancestry, large scale, microevolution, ancestrial kind, you will go back to the arguement that common ancestry means parent and nothing more.

I didnt say that. Commen ancestry can refer to the parent, though when the term is used it is usually refering to the common ancestor on the species level. The overall concept of common ancestry is that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related.

Way much later in the discussion. Do keep up.

Do keep up?

What am I going on about? Yea, I wonder...

You: "why you didn't show us all the possible ways the term theory of evolution could be used."
Me: "You arent seriously asking for an exaustive list of every single way you can possibily use the the word are you?"

not necessarily

Yes necessarily.

Why the heck do you think I asked you for clarity?

You didnt read what I wrote, did you? I just got done explaining how the process of evolution cant be the single unifying theory of biology. The theory of evolution is the single unifying theory of biology. So why was that so hard to get from the context?

your confusing discussions here.

That is funny. This entire thread is about using scientific terms correctly. Thats why I started posting on this thread in the first place.

different discussion, are you ready for some questions, oh that's right, you don't like to be questioned, okay, we'll do this one another time another thread when you are ready.

Oh look you are putting words into my mouth again. Im certainly happy for questions, but at the moment we are discussing how to use scientific terms correctly.

I am just not willing to try discussing something more than that becuase you are so unwilling to do this. Its not even just a matter of you not understanding, its your arrogance in talking like you already do.

Now isn't it ironic that you view creationists this way all the while when evolutionist present evidence they must explain how the observations fit the theory.

No irony, since that isnt what "Evolutionists" do. But from their own words that is what Creationists do.

Huh? I ask people to clarify what they mean and I am pretending that my uneducated idea of science is fact, and refuse to learn.

I was referring to you talking so arrogantly about science, when you actually show you really dont understand it. See below.

When was the last time you said that the theory of gravity is fact and theory? The above in trying to prove that I don't understand anything? First time I have ever seen the claim. In fact, I took the time to do a quick web search on gravity and none of the sites even once suggested that the theory of gravity is fact and theory. Why is this when the toe is so quick to make the claim?

The issue is you dont understand what a scientific theory is. This is proved by these statements.

You: "(Evolution) is only a theory"

Me: Is aerodynamics only a theory? Is gravity only a theory? Is germ theory only a theory? Is atomic theory only a theory

You: Last time I checked, they were still theories, and your point is.......

No one who understands what a scientific theory is, would call them "only theories". And no one that understands what a scientific theory really is would imply that a theory could or would ever get promoted up to anything, because thats not how they work. It doesnt matter how much evidence we gather for any scientific theory they will always remain theories. We can launch as many atomic bombs as we want and kill as many people we want with them, but Atomic Theory will still be "only a theory".

You: We do not teach the theory of gravity as fact and theory because it is assumed that the theory is based on fact....So either teach the theory of gravity as fact and theory (of which I have never ever heard done)

Which is wrong, of course. Gravity is a fact, and it is also a theory. Just like Evolution. The theory of Gravity is General Relativity. And Gravity is certianly taught as such.

"...In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. ...

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

see above

There is nothing to see. Try again:

And this is now the third time you have skipped this part of my post:
Now, back to what you said. It (Evolution) has everything to do with modern biology. See the last time I told you that, and where you disregarded the link becasue it said "evolution" and you needed clarification. Now considering I told you they were refering to the fact and theory of biological evolution and everything therein you can now address it properly, cant you?
[page 38, post 397]

covered, I still accept it as a compliment because it is the nicest thing you I have ever heard you say to someone you deem a "creationist"

My Uncle and his wife are YEC's. They are so clueless they even believe Hovinds nonsence. But they are good people. They are smart (generally). But their religious faith is so strong they would rather believe in Hovinds pseudo science than learn real science. Any argument is good for those that think Hovind is a scientific source. They made me watch some of his DVDs and questioned me on my "belief". I decided to send them an email asking them to 'choose any YEC argument they liked' and we would discuss it. Discuss it "civilly" of course, they are my family after all. The email was long, outlinging my position and how I came to be in that position and also why I didnt see Creation "Science" as real science, and also various other things. They never accepted. Now they can believe whatever they like. I just dont want them to try and convince me they are correct and "convert" me. When I gave them the opportunity to discuss properly through email, they declined. I just hope they dont believe everything Hovind says. The man is actually insane.

But if you wish to demonise me you go right ahead. It must make you feel better. I am treating you as an individual, not as a Creationist. Your arguments just happen to be Creationist arguments and your misrepresentations and misunderstandings of science just happen to be what you would expect from a Creationist.

You want a compliment? Heres one. The OP on the surface is a good idea. But you wont use it so people will understand how to use scientific terms correctly.

right, and that is why I asked you to clarify your use of the word evolution, because I have no interest in communication, learning, listening, only interested in convincing people that I am right.

No you asking me to clarify isnt wrong, because I did clarify. You asked many times in the same way and I answered politely each time. Then out of the blue you claim you got no answer at all, and that I "refused" to answer. Gee thats nice, I thought. I answered politely each time yet apparently that meant nothing to you and you totally ignored it.

You also continue to use words like "origins" and "theory" in totally the wrong way and refuse to use the correct words and correct definitions. You want to use YOUR definitions, and then continually berate others for not using them. And when people are foolish enough to actually try and use your definiton and get it "wrong" you claim they have misrepresented you or claim they arent listening. For these reasons and many more is what shows us you arent really interested in "communicating".

what I once would have given the toe credit for I have found was hasty on my part and I should not have done so because the claims have no basis.

We havent really even been talking about evidence, not even gluadys. We cant even get you to use scientific definitions properly. My guess is you wont accept anything in favour of evolution anyway. You will always find some pedantic sematical argument to try and convince yourself not to accept it. That is what you do with a simple definition, so why wouldnt you do it with anything else?

And if you really wanted to understand evolution why are you here? Why arent you on peer reviewed scientific websites, or Talk Origins? Why talk to non scientists on a forum, not even about evolution itself but rather about sematics of scientific terms you wont use correctly, yet you still think you can claim that from this discussion that the theory of evolution has no basis? And you wonder why people see you as a Creationist?

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

A major premise does not need to be based on anything. It is simply a general statement. It need not be true or false or supported by evidence. But if it is not true, the conclusion will not be true either.

A minor premise refers to a particular instance of the class named in the major premise:

e.g.
All swans are white.
There is a swan in the millpond.

snip for space

Logic reasons from the general to the particular. It proposes a general premise. Then it applies this general premise to a specific case. If both premises are true, the conclusion must also be true.

Conclusions are based on the premises.

Oh why can't you grasp this simply concept?!? Deep breath and try again. What do I base my premise on? Take swans for example. If I base my premis on my own ideals, I might say, all swans are white. But if I base my premis on scientific evidence, I would say that swans do not have to be white. The authority I choose for establishing the premis is what we are tlaking about. If I accept the authority of logical process for determining what is a logical conclusion, then we come to two completely different logical conclusions based solely on the authority we choose as knowing if swans are all white or not. It is about who you deem as having the answers you base you assumptions on. To start with, I don't have to accept the logical process in order to claim a logical conclusion. That is an authority that I must choose and when discussing logical conclusions with others, we must all agree to accept that authority. Next we have to establish what authroity we will base our premises on. Is our premis based on our own observations, our scientific observations, scientific methods, religious beliefs, what base of understanding will be use to determine the premis (what authority do we choose). Now if all parties agree to the authorities that we choose to use in discussion, then the conclusions should be the same, however, if I choose a different authority on the subject, my premises will likely be different and therefore, our conclusions will be different. When we have never identified the authorities we are using for our premis, we have no understanding of how the pemesis are different and communication stops. That is why I can't take your claims that common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, ancestrial kind, seriously, because it does not rely on anything scientific for it's premis because you refuse to accept any part of science as the authority on the issue. Even in a scientific discussion, you could accept a scientist, scientific method, a scientific study, etc. as the authority and if you do not accept one, then your ideas, and claims and premises can change with the wind with no absolutes and not way of holding you responsible for your own claims and that is worthless. You have to deside in a scientific discussion as in any discussion what authority you will base your premises on. But you refuse to do this and so your claims are opinion only and offer nothing meaningful to the discussion.

You have three examples above. How many conclusions does each lead to?

Please show me how an appeal to authority can lead to a different conclusion, given the premises.

An appeal to a different authority can lead to a different conclusion because it can lead to a different premis. How can you be missing this?

Yes. Note, however, that a logical conclusion is not necessarily true. In the swan example above, it is possible that when one goes to look at the swan, that it is not white, but black. That is because the major premise in this case is false. snip for space
So although common ancestry is a logical conclusion from the fact of speciation, science also requires evidence.

But, you must first assume that the logical conclusion is based on the authority of the process of detemining what is logical as well as the authority of what premises we are using to determine what is logical.

BTW, if appears that in this statement you are using the term common ancestry to mean macroevolution, large scale, common descent, ancestrial kind, I wonder why you are allowed to use it that way but no one else is? What word is acceptable to use to mean the above so when we are talking about the above we are communicating and not looking for ways to dismiss the ideas by manipulating the meaning of the word to a meaningless bunch of nonsense?

Show me. Show me a valid logical argument which has more than one conclusion.

On the contrary, we have the premises. The conclusion is based on the premises and on valid inferences from the premises.

A conclusion is valid if it follows logically from the premises. It is true, if it also agrees with the evidence.

see above

Neither of these requires an appeal to any authority except reason and nature.

But see here, you are accepting reason and nature as the authority. So in your premis, you accept the authority of reason and nature according to this statement. Is that the authority you accept when determining that common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, ancesreial kind, common decent are the logical conclusions, or are you basing your premises on another authority? It is a simple question that should not take pages and pages of discussion to answer and yet, in your ideal world, you can accept an authority but deny doing so because you like the idea of being under anyones authority.

Because it is not enough to be logically correct. Logic is an important part of science, but it is only a part. So, in addition to being logically correct, there must be evidence that the logical conclusion is true. snip for space.

Only if we accept evidence as the authority. This is not hard, why can't you get this elementary concept?

To date, the evidence supports the theory of evolution, contradicts creationism, and says nothing about ID, because ID is a philosophy, not a scientific proposition. That is why in science class, only the theory of evolution is taught. Only the theory of evolution is based on both sound logic and evidence.

well, I disagree with you from the standpoint that scientific method gives us a different answer, but that is for another discussion, and we are touching on that issue on the other thread, maybe we can allow that thread to evolve into a full fledged discussion on what science says about each.

No, it isn’t. If you don’t follow the method for getting a logical conclusion, you can’t call your reasoning logical, because, by definition, it is not.

I can call it whatever I want to if I accept no authority for what is and is not correct. I can invent my own process for determining logic and if that is the authority I accept, than it is a logical conclusion. It is only when I accept the process of logic that is established as authority, that we have enough consistancy to determine what is a logical conclusion. But remember, you are not claiming any authority so we can't assume that you are using the standard process of determining logic and therefore all your claims are mearly your opinions.

If you don’t follow the rules, you are not playing the game, and you can’t pretend you are. snip for space.

Let me ask you a question, what rules are we playing by? If there is no authority, no base of understanding, then there are no rules. If there are no rules, then anything goes and your claims are once again baseless. Every game has rules, this is the authority we use for playing the game. But if you don't accept that authority, then the rules have no meaning. That is the point. You have to find a common authority, a common set of rules that you agree to in order to be able to communicate effectively. Easy easy concept that you still don't get. What is the problem?

Of course, the creationist can be logical. The reason the conclusion is different is that the creationist starts from different premises. snip for space.

This is what I have been telling you, so apparently we are starting to get somewhere close to a break through. Now tell me, what the creationist premis is based on? Why do they base that premis on x when you base yours on y?

No, what is logical is determined by the rules of logic, not by anyone’s opinion. Logic is a thinking process which guarantees that correct premises and sound reasoning will lead to a correct conclusion. Failure to use correct premises can lead to incorrect conclusions. So can fallacious reasoning. The reasoning that led to the conclusion that logic is a matter of personal opinion is a good example of fallacious reasoning. Since this conclusion is built on fallacious reasoning, it is a fallacious conclusion.

see above and before calling something fallacious reasoning make sure you understand what is being said both by me and yourself.

Some people look to authorities, but if you want scientific truth, authority is not a way to find it. Neither the scientific method nor the rules of logic provide answers. Both provide a method of operation which allows one to have confidence in the answers one discovers. What they tell you is: “If you follow this path of action/reasoning, you will find answers that make sense and agree with reality.”

Which is exactly what an authority does, it gives directions, rules, sets limits, an authority can and often is a process, but other times is it what we base our assumptions on. For example I might base my assumptions on my personal observations, that would then make my observations my authority. If I say that something is red when it is blue, and accept no other explaination, then my authority, the thing by which I place all rules and understandings is my own observations. If I am willing however to accept that it is blue, than my authority might be based on science or collective reasoning, etc. It is the thing that determines what rules I play by, what premises I make, what I am willing to negotiate, etc.

Authorities give answers, but do not provide any certainty that they have the right answer. How do we know the authority is right? All through medieval times, it was customary to appeal to authorities to back up one’s arguments. But eventually, it was evident that this was unsatisfactory, because authorities contradicted each other. We need a way of discovering which authority is right.

Your authority is what you put your confindence in as to what is right. Okay, here is another word to agitate you and challenge you all at the same time. Your authority is what you believe to be the most correct way of knowing truth. It can vary and in my opinion should vary but that is a different story.

When scholars worked on the problem of authorities who contradicted each other, and how to determine what was right, the process they developed was the scientific method. The method does not give answers, as authorities do. But applying it leads to right answers; appeals to authority don’t.

If you agree with the scientific method, and if you believe that the scientific method is the best way to determine truth, then, the scientific method is your authority. When a question arises you do not turn to the scientists for the answers, you do not turn to your bible, your friends, your husband, your children, you turn to your authority, in this example, you turn to scientific method and hope to there find the answer you seek. It really is an easy concept, I am totally stumped by why you don't understand it.

Exactly. That is why authorities are unreliable as a source of truth. If we want to know which of the many answers is right, we cannot rely on authority. We need to rely on a process or method which we know will lead to the right answer. There are no set answers when you rely on authority. There are as many different answers as there are authorities, and no way to tell who is right.

A method, whether of reasoning (logic) or of investigation (scientific method) is not an authority. It is a way of getting around the problem of appeals to authority, especially when the authorities disagree among themselves.

see above.

It won’t help to refer back to the scientific method to resolve the dispute. The method does not provide the answers. The reason we go back to the process is to see if the methodology was correct, not to see if the answers were right. If there were problems in the methodology, correcting the methodology may clear up the dispute. But if the methodology was good, and there is still a dispute, the problem lies elsewhere and cannot be resolved by going back to the method of investigation.

If our authority is scientific method, then we can assume that following the scientific method will lead us to truth.

If we don’t use scientific procedure, we will not get a scientific conclusion.

didn't hear this being disputed but then again, I have been accused of saying things that I haven't said so you can point out to me where I disputed this claim.

Scientific method is the only basis for reaching scientific conclusions. But a method is not an authority.

These are authorities, and they do not lead to scientific conclusions. But they are authoritative for doctrine.

And if I come here accepting science as the authority on our origins, and you come here assuming the bible as the authority on our origins we will undoubtably clash in our ideas and understandings. That is why in a debate like this, it is important to effective communication to establish what authority you will use. Let's look at an even more basic idea. If we are discussing the toc/c and your authority is the creationist organizations that we have talked about and mine is the biblical account, then we will never be able to understand what each other is saying unless we can figure out what authority each is speaking from. The authority we choose establishes the rules, the understandings, the pemises, that is why it is necessary for effective communication.

 

[Jet Black]

are you saying that evidence is meaningless now or something?

 

[razzelflabben]

And in that I am following scientific procedure. Science does not claim authority. It claims evidence. Science is anti-authoritarian and accepts nothing on the basis of authority. It demands that all claims be tested against the evidence provided by nature.

science most definately relies on authority and it wasn't long ago that you spoke of that authority. But now you deny it because it doesn't fit your agenda. This is shifty and we thank you for such a vivid display of shifting ideas and definitions to fit your arguement at the moment. We should all take a lesson on how to using shifting ideas and definitions. Brovo, thanks for the lesson.

Either you heard wrong, or the evolutionist was confused. Humans are not common ancestors with apes. Humans belong to a family of animals called apes. All apes (including humans) have a common ancestor. Within the family of apes, our closest relatives are the chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor with the chimpanzees. This ancestor lived more recently than the common ancestor we share with the whole ape family.

I stated it poorly, sorry, I knew what I was saying but my fingers and my brain didn't connect well. So let me make it abundantly clear to those who think I have a problem with admitting that I was wrong, that I am wrong because I'm sure the above mentioned isn't good enough. So I am formally and publically admitting that I stated the above wrong and am not only taking responsibility for stating it wrong but accepting the correction that was given. hopefully that was enough to cover the issue. We'll see.

In fact, that was the definition of common ancestry which I gave you. Horses and zebras are related through a common ancestor. Humans are related to other apes through a common ancestor. All life forms are related to each other through a common ancestor.

But when I used the word to talk about common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, common descent, ancestrial kind, you proceeded to talk nonsense about we all have parents and great grandparents and somthing about I was talking about witnessing the birth of my great grandparent or some other totally confusing mumble of a mess that has nothing at all to do with what I said. So I need a word that communicates the idea without you and others assuming that I am talking about the parent or grandparent species but rather the long version as it were, the idea that we are all descendant from a single celled population. And if the term common ancestry is the correct term, then you need to cease the nonsence long enough to listen to the issue presented. So, what word do be accept for talking about common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, common descent, ancestrial kind, it is quite cumbersome having to say all these things in order to get an ounce of understanding on the issue and is in large part why I mistated the above, because I was too worried about whether I was using the right words to clearly state what I was trying to say. My bad. Help me out here, you are the one who wanted me to practice using the scientific words correctly. When I try, you could at least try to understand what I am saying.

Not surprising. You don’t understand evolution either, so you don’t recognize how creationism raises pseudo-problems.

Okay, this claim has been made many times and when I asked for evidence, the subject is usually changed, so maybe it is time to put your money where your mouth is and tell me exactly what you don't think I understand about the toe so that we can clear the air about what I know and don't know and then you can't use that arguement anymore. But remember, I don't have to quote the same evolutionist arguements to understand the theory.

When someone spouts nonsense about evolution, it is self-evident that they do not understand it.

You haven't shown the nonsense I have "spouted" yet and I have asked you to do so many times. Wonder why that is, because I don't sound like an indoctrinated, well educated, intellectual that mimics the evolutionist answers without ever understanding them. Cool! I will then wear the title proudly, heck I would even be willing to broadcast it from the rooftop if that is all you mean by me evidencing that I don't understand evolution. I finally have a title to what I believe about our origins, thanks, I've been wonder where what I believe fits into the whole debate.

Common ancestry covers it. Where did I say otherwise?

I was talking about common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, common descent, ancestrial kind, and you went off on some nonsense about witnessing my great grandmothers birth and how common ancestry just means that we have ancesters. That is totally missing the point of my post, but as we see later, you didn't miss the point, because the meaning of the word was clear right? Wrong again.

Actually, the logic of reproduction says that an organism will die, but it will have children. And the children will grow and have children. Organisms die, but as long as they leave children, the species continues on.

Opps, I misstated agian, do I really have to go into a big long discussion in order to people here to understand that I intended to say the above but my words came out a little cockeyed. But I know, if you don't understand what I am saying, then it is because I don't understand science, scientific method, evolution, or the toe. Cool, I don't understand that this is what I was trying to say, so we move on. And by the way ed, that's twice in one post that I admitted that I made a mistake, did I get vocal enough about it to satisfy you or do I need to be even more clear, I typed it wrong, and accept the correction, shoot me, I didn't say I was wrong please forgive me I made a mistake, I humbly bow before you a broken women in awe of your supperior ability to never make a mistake and admit that you were wrong. (hopefully that will satisfy the need to have me formally and publically admit when I was wrong because if is clear that accepting responsibility for the wrong statement and allowing myself to be corrected isn't enough to satisfy the blood thristy evolutionist.

And species change over time. And they may speciate, so that over time, instead of one species there are two (or more). And these separate species also continue as long as organisms have children. And they, too, change over time. And they too can speciate into two (or more) species. And so on.

But none of this evidences common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, common descent, ancestrial kind, it evidences speciation which is all I have ever said about the subject.

None of this requires authorities to establish. The evidence is there whenever a chick hatches or a kitten is born or a bacteria divides itself into daughter cells.

And so then, are you accepting direct observation as the authority on reproduction?

Science has all the evidence it needs. It is enough as you will see when you allow yourself to look at it. It doesn’t matter how often you repeat to yourself that the evidence is not there or that it isn’t sufficient. It is still not true.

Looked at it many times, for many many years now and it always comes back the same, It would make an interesting discussion if you took the time to really study it without assuming to know what it was saying. It is in fact quite fascinating and totally amazing what science can and can not tell us about our origins. But when all you can see is what you are told to see, you miss so many wonders that science has uncovered. Oh well, evolutionist aren't will to accept what is right in from of their faces, so we move on.

You think scientists need an authority to tell them what their observations are? Who do you turn to tell you what you see when you look out the window?

Most scientists accept observation as their authority, but that has been covered already.

If it was a miscommunication problem, you will have to rephrase or clarify the question, as I thought this answer did speak to the question.

when some of the other issues are cleared up.

I’ll let you and ed discuss the relevance and credibility of those scientists. They are still less than 1% of biologists, so my point still stands. I refuse to let you categorize accepted scientific consensus as “my opinion”. It is not “my opinion”. It is science.

There you go with popular opinion again, I got to wonder why you can't be consistant even in this small thing. Oh well, that shifting sand is evidenced again.

On the contrary, the meaning of the question changed a great deal. That is why attention to semantics (which is all about meaning) is important.

Right, the question did you mean evolution or the theory or evolution takes on a totally different meaning when we substitute the word science for biology. I rewrote the question and didn't even need to use the word science or biology. I wonder how that concept changes the question. But than your logic is based on no authority so you can claim anything you like and call it logical conclusions. See this is exactly why I do not buy your arguement that common ancestry is the logical conclusion, because apparently you have no idea what logical conclusions mean if you base your premis in this issue on what you assume I believe.

Exactly. And in elementary or high school, this is not possible. So it is important to correctly identify what we are teaching: abiogenesis, natural selection, mutations, genetics, whatever. An obscure word like “origins” will not do.

Do you understand that you are once again changing the subject? Origins in light of the question asked includes but is not limited to the origin of the species. So if we teach that the toe is our origins but also teach that there is a debate over the idea of common ancestry and then continue to explain the debate, we are still talking about origins and not limiting the discussion to abiogenesis natural selection, mutations, genetics, whatever and btw every classroom I have been in that was discussing origins, at least once had to deal with a question about creation. So make some sense out of the question and stop trying to force everything into your ideal little world where everything has to be as you say it does to have any meaning.

No, I have assumed nothing based on someone else’s authority.

Huh? that would mean that you accept gossip as authority. Which may be the case as you have demonstrated a tendancy toward such however, I expect more from you, and so I assume that gossip is not your authority.

I don’t accept authority, remember? You have provided ample evidence yourself for me to draw a conclusion based on your own words. And the possibility of grandparents is indeed the debate. Grandparents are common ancestors. If we can’t have common ancestors, we can’t have grandparents.

Well, we can see if we can look up the first thread where our paths first crossed and we can review the entire thing if you like. I was misquoted and had ideas and words twisted around from another thread (most of the words used were not even related to the issue of our origins in any fashion) but you took those words to assume that I was a creationist who didn't know anything about science or evolution and argued with everything I said as such. From that time to now, you are still doing the same, assuming you know me by the twisted out of context words posted by another. Why not dispense with the preconcieved idea of who you think I am and listen to what I am telling you. I said nothing about grandparents and common ancestry. In fact, I can totally see how one could come to the conclusion that speciation goes on and therefore common ancestry is a natural conclusion. However, my claim is that common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, ancestrial kind, common decent, is not evidenced and therefore is not fact. NOw isn't that earth shattering revalation that I don't understand anything about evolution. Wow! You are amazing!

 

[razzelflabben]

What do you mean "then we add "?

Common ancestry is in the Theory of Evolution just like I told you.

It is what I have said and why I asked you to clarify what you meant, because common ancestry is not evolution (speciation), it is however the toe. Common ancester being large scale, macroevolution, common decent, ancestrial kind. You know the common use for the term

I said Evolution was the foundation of modern biology, the single unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together.

and later you said that the foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution which is why there was a question of clarity. Go figure, there is a difference between the two and when you used the two independantly, you were asked which you were refering to. Go figure.

You asked me for "clairity". You also said recently that you understand that when talking about evolution in terms of biology, it is either referring to a specific process or the theory itself.

Well I can admit that in some cases, there can be some confusion.

However in this case it was clear. Why did you not look at the context of the statement, and figure out that of course I was talking about the scientific theory? No, I'll rephrase. How could I have been talking about anything but the theory of Evolution? See also below.

further explaination below.

Yes Im just such a horrible horrible person saying you are being difficult on purpose, and you refuse to correct your errors or learn anything.

The problem is there was that time you claimed that not only that you had "gotten no answer" to your question as to the differece between Evolution and the Toe, but that I had "refused" to answer you. You also claimed my position was that "the toe is what modern science is based". Now it was unbelievabely difficult for you to admit that it was a typo, that you actually meant "biology", not "science". The problem is not just that it took you so long to admit it was wrong, but also that you never really saw how it was necessary that you realise how wrong it was.

For just these two reasons alone, I am justified in my evaluation of you.

You know, you might have a point if you were one of these people.

Oh, I have patience alright. With someone who is willing to have an proper discussion. You arent trying to have a proper discussion.

Your opinion of which I respect you for, but know for fact, since it is me that we are talking about, that you are wrong and refuse to see how or why.

Of course that is true. But that doesnt mean all opinions are worth the same either.

You don't want to go there, I said one time that all opinions were valid and got reamed fearsely from the evolutionist group.

So you thought that I may have been saying that the "process of evolution" was actually "the single unifying theory that ties all aspects of biology together"?

Why?

Why must a "theory" be the unifying tie of modern biology? Why is it impossible for an observed process (speciation) to be the foundation for our modern biological exploration? That I can agree with. Like taking an observation and doing a host of studies on it thus learning much about our empirical world. On the other hand, when we rely on theory and not observations to determine everything we know about biology, we are accepting assumptions as fact and thus removing the possibility of knowing objectively what fact is. That is why I can agree that evolution is the foundation of modern biology but not with the statement that the foundation of modern biology is the theory of evolution.

So I assume from that you have already been told that you use scientific terms in the wrong way, but still do it.

You've said it many times but other than opinion you have not shown me any misuse. For example you claim that I misuse scientific terms but when asked how, you go into long discourse about how the toc/c is not scientific and therefore the theory of creation has no meaning. To which I said, if the term is used is has a meaning and it is the meaning that we must address. Note nothing about whether or not it is a scientific theory but rather that if a word or term is used it does have some kind of meaning and in order for communication to prevail, we must understand what meaning it is trying to convey. So please tell me how that is not understanding the menaing of scientific terms? I'm anxious to see how you explain that one away because we are sure you can't be wrong.

No I wouldnt, but I would if you included with your question some Creationist misrepresentation. If you really dont understand, you seem to think I should keep my mouth shut.

I would hate for you or anyone else to "shut up" however, I would appreciate people on this forum listening to what is being said rather than simply assuming that it is the same old tired arguement. For example. I said that common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, common descent, ancestrial kind was not observed and I got an agruement that common ancestry only means parent or grand parent, and that that is like saying that we can witness the birth of our great grand parents. How does that address the issue I raised? I would love to know, but that is the type response I have gotten from the beginning. I asked glaudy's to explain what she means when she says that a theory must be evidenced before it can be called a theory and I am told that I don't understand scientific method because glaudy says that a chicken must mature into a chicken so that we can call it a chicken and I'm question her comment. I ask you to explain if you mean evolution or the toe and I don't understand scientific terms have exact meanings because I asked you to tell me which of the accepted meaning you meant. See, this is the problem I have, I say somthing and you and others read into it whatever you want to, make an arguement accordingly and never once take responsibility for listening to the question asked. Big big huge problem.

I didnt say that. Commen ancestry can refer to the parent, though when the term is used it is usually refering to the common ancestor on the species level. The overall concept of common ancestry is that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related.

and yet when I used it properly I was told that I didn't use it properly that I don't understand evolution and I need to get an education. So I went to putting a string of explanations in my use to avoid misunderstanding only to come to this point and here you say, yes you used it correctly but you didn't want to accept why I said so you twisted the meaning to mean parent and thus you can prove that I know nothing about evolution. Thanks for being so civil in our discussion. (sarcasm)

Do keep up?

What am I going on about? Yea, I wonder...

You: "why you didn't show us all the possible ways the term theory of evolution could be used."
Me: "You arent seriously asking for an exaustive list of every single way you can possibily use the the word are you?"



Yes necessarily.

You didnt read what I wrote, did you? I just got done explaining how the process of evolution cant be the single unifying theory of biology. The theory of evolution is the single unifying theory of biology. So why was that so hard to get from the context?

Now we are talking aobut the theory of biology, not the observations of biology. Why keep shifting our discussion?

That is funny. This entire thread is about using scientific terms correctly. Thats why I started posting on this thread in the first place.

Oh look you are putting words into my mouth again. Im certainly happy for questions, but at the moment we are discussing how to use scientific terms correctly.

 

[razzelflabben]

I just devided this poorly, sorry, in a hurry

I am just not willing to try discussing something more than that becuase you are so unwilling to do this. Its not even just a matter of you not understanding, its your arrogance in talking like you already do.

No irony, since that isnt what "Evolutionists" do. But from their own words that is what Creationists do. [/quote] read my words again, I think both sides do it way more than they should.

I was referring to you talking so arrogantly about science, when you actually show you really dont understand it. See below.

The issue is you dont understand what a scientific theory is. This is proved by these statements.

You: "(Evolution) is only a theory"

Me: Is aerodynamics only a theory? Is gravity only a theory? Is germ theory only a theory? Is atomic theory only a theory

You: Last time I checked, they were still theories, and your point is.......

No one who understands what a scientific theory is, would call them "only theories". And no one that understands what a scientific theory really is would imply that a theory could or would ever get promoted up to anything, because thats not how they work. It doesnt matter how much evidence we gather for any scientific theory they will always remain theories. We can launch as many atomic bombs as we want and kill as many people we want with them, but Atomic Theory will still be "only a theory".

You: We do not teach the theory of gravity as fact and theory because it is assumed that the theory is based on fact....So either teach the theory of gravity as fact and theory (of which I have never ever heard done)

Which is wrong, of course. Gravity is a fact, and it is also a theory. Just like Evolution. The theory of Gravity is General Relativity. And Gravity is certianly taught as such.

"...In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. ...

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

See again, you are using the creationist arguement rather than the arguement I gave you thus showing even more evidence that you are not listening. It is understood that scientific theory is based on observation (fact) because it is understood it does not need to be stated every time we talk about a scientific theory. In fact, when we talk about various theories like gravity, we allow the understanding that theory is based on observations (fact). So the question is not whether or not a theory is just a theory, any more than it is a quesiton of whether or not a theory is fact and theory. The problem is when evolutionist go around proclaiming that the toe is fact and theory as if it is some new revolation that must be understood so that the claim can be made that we have found truth/fact in the toe. This is a quite distasteful proclamation that is not false in its words but indicates and suggests somthing other than truth. I have no issue with the toe being fact and theory, all scientific theories are fact and theory. I have an issue with evolutionist going around parading the terms as if they have some special meaning to the toe and not to the other theories. It is once again about consistancy and not about the actual concept, but you are just trying to be difficult or you would have understood what I said.

There is nothing to see. Try again:

And this is now the third time you have skipped this part of my post:
Now, back to what you said. It (Evolution) has everything to do with modern biology. See the last time I told you that, and where you disregarded the link becasue it said "evolution" and you needed clarification. Now considering I told you they were refering to the fact and theory of biological evolution and everything therein you can now address it properly, cant you?
[page 38, post 397]

Didn't skipp it, don't know what you want me to say, I disagree with you that the toe is the foundation of modern biology and have explained why. Move on.

My Uncle and his wife are YEC's. They are so clueless they even believe Hovinds nonsence. But they are good people. They are smart (generally). But their religious faith is so strong they would rather believe in Hovinds pseudo science than learn real science. Any argument is good for those that think Hovind is a scientific source. They made me watch some of his DVDs and questioned me on my "belief". I decided to send them an email asking them to 'choose any YEC argument they liked' and we would discuss it. Discuss it "civilly" of course, they are my family after all. The email was long, outlinging my position and how I came to be in that position and also why I didnt see Creation "Science" as real science, and also various other things. They never accepted. Now they can believe whatever they like. I just dont want them to try and convince me they are correct and "convert" me. When I gave them the opportunity to discuss properly through email, they declined. I just hope they dont believe everything Hovind says. The man is actually insane.

But if you wish to demonise me you go right ahead. It must make you feel better. I am treating you as an individual, not as a Creationist. Your arguments just happen to be Creationist arguments and your misrepresentations and misunderstandings of science just happen to be what you would expect from a Creationist.

You want a compliment? Heres one. The OP on the surface is a good idea. But you wont use it so people will understand how to use scientific terms correctly.

and how does any of this address the issue of you reading into my arguements what is not there?

No you asking me to clarify isnt wrong, because I did clarify. You asked many times in the same way and I answered politely each time. Then out of the blue you claim you got no answer at all, and that I "refused" to answer. Gee thats nice, I thought. I answered politely each time yet apparently that meant nothing to you and you totally ignored it.

When I ask you which definition you are referring to, giving me a list of acceptable definitions and then saying the context should be enough to answer the question, is NOTANSWERING THE QUESTION. But you have to understand this, you are just being dificult.

You also continue to use words like "origins" and "theory" in totally the wrong way and refuse to use the correct words and correct definitions. You want to use YOUR definitions, and then continually berate others for not using them. And when people are foolish enough to actually try and use your definiton and get it "wrong" you claim they have misrepresented you or claim they arent listening. For these reasons and many more is what shows us you arent really interested in "communicating".

Okay, origins-how life came to it's present state. Note how many times evolutionist use the word origins then deny that the toe has anything to do with our origins. Interesting. theory- we cover how an idea becomes a hypothesis and then an evidenced hypthesis becomes a theory. What more of the definition do you need from me?

We havent really even been talking about evidence, not even gluadys. We cant even get you to use scientific definitions properly. My guess is you wont accept anything in favour of evolution anyway. You will always find some pedantic sematical argument to try and convince yourself not to accept it. That is what you do with a simple definition, so why wouldnt you do it with anything else?

show me what terms I am not using correctly please.

And if you really wanted to understand evolution why are you here? Why arent you on peer reviewed scientific websites, or Talk Origins? Why talk to non scientists on a forum, not even about evolution itself but rather about sematics of scientific terms you wont use correctly, yet you still think you can claim that from this discussion that the theory of evolution has no basis? And you wonder why people see you as a Creationist?

Ed

studied it, found it lacking, was brought to the forum discussion by someone else who twisted my words and took me out of context to prove a point, go involved in the discussion and found it challengind and disturbng all at the same time. Thus I figured that if I was ever goin to figure out why communication on the topic can't happen, I would need to go to the source and you are the source. I am on a quest to understand not evolution, I got that one down fairly well, but why communication cannot happen when evolutionist and creationist get together and how we can tear down the barriers that prevent communication and start talking.

 

[gluadys]

Oh why can't you grasp this simply concept?!? Deep breath and try again. What do I base my premise on? ...The authority I choose for establishing the premis is what we are tlaking about.

Oh, so now you are talking premises, not conclusions. Sure, if the premises differ, the conclusions will necessarily differ as well.

But if:
a) all parties use the same premises, and
b) all parties use valid logical inferences, then
c) all parties will come to the same conclusion.

Of course, people will differ in their premises. That is why scientific method adds the check of testing logical conclusions against the reality of nature.

To start with, I don't have to accept the logical process in order to claim a logical conclusion.

Your claim will be empty unless you do.

Next we have to establish what authroity we will base our premises on.

No, we don’t. People are free to base their premises on anything they wish. They just have to be clear about where they are getting their premises from. Not everybody has to agree on the same source.

So if someone wants to use personal observation and someone else wants to use a vision and someone else wants to use scripture, that’s ok. Each person should say what their premises are and where they got them from.

Then we see what conclusions they lead to. Of course, the conclusions will be different, but they can all be logically valid, and we can recognize the logic behind each one.

But then we put the conclusions to the test. We will find that some conclusions check out as true and others do not. Whenever the conclusions prove to be false, then we know something is wrong with the premises that led to the conclusion. This is where we start revising or eliminating false premises.

Now if all parties agree to the authorities that we choose to use in discussion, then the conclusions should be the same, however, if I choose a different authority on the subject, my premises will likely be different and therefore, our conclusions will be different.

Sure. But we do not all need to agree on the same authority. What we need to do is find out what is true. We do that by testing the different conclusions against reality. When the conclusion is not true, we also know that the premises is it based on are not true. If the premises are based on an authority, that also tells us the authority is not reliable.

When we have never identified the authorities we are using for our premis, we have no understanding of how the pemesis are different and communication stops.

Yes, if a person is relying on an authority for developing their premises, that person should identify the authority s/he is relying on. But science does not rely on authorities. It relies on evidence in nature. If you want to call evidence an “authority”, I suppose you can. But nature does not make pronouncements which have to be taken by faith, so to me, nature is not an authority.

That is why I can't take your claims that common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, ancestrial kind, seriously, because it does not rely on anything scientific for it's premis because you refuse to accept any part of science as the authority on the issue. Even in a scientific discussion, you could accept a scientist, scientific method, a scientific study, etc. as the authority and if you do not accept one, then your ideas, and claims and premises can change with the wind with no absolutes and not way of holding you responsible for your own claims and that is worthless.

Science is based on evidence, not authority. Nobody has authority in science, no matter how famous they are. The only basis for scientific work is evidence and scientific method. The only basis for accepting someone else’s work is the evidence they present to support their case.

Authorities require that you accept them at their word. Science never does that. Science says “Don’t accept this on my word. Examine the evidence to see if you can find something wrong with my hypothesis.”

An appeal to a different authority can lead to a different conclusion because it can lead to a different premis. How can you be missing this?

I am not missing that at all. That’s a given. You don’t even need to appeal to an authority at all. You can make up any premise you want without appealing to any authority to do it for you. But as long as the premises are different from one person to another, the conclusions will be different.

That is not a problem.

The question is : which conclusions are in accord with real observations and evidence? That is how we sort out which premises are also in accord with real observations and evidence.

But, you must first assume that the logical conclusion is based on the authority of the process of detemining what is logical as well as the authority of what premises we are using to determine what is logical.

A logical conclusion is the inevitable result of logical reasoning. When you went over those examples, did you find anything other than one logical conclusion in each example?

Can you show me any set of premises which lead logically to different conclusions? Is not the only way to get a different conclusion to change the premises? Or to use illogical reasoning?

BTW, if appears that in this statement you are using the term common ancestry to mean macroevolution, large scale, common descent, ancestrial kind, I wonder why you are allowed to use it that way but no one else is? What word is acceptable to use to mean the above so when we are talking about the above we are communicating and not looking for ways to dismiss the ideas by manipulating the meaning of the word to a meaningless bunch of nonsense?

Some people use common ancestry or macroevolution only to refer to universal common ancestry (all living forms come from one common ancestor). A more precise meaning is that any two (or more) species derived from the same ancestor share that ancestor in common. Hence common ancestry or macro-evolution applies to all evolution at or above the level of speciation. The creationist doctrine of speciation within originally created kinds would also be an example of common ancestry. The significant difference between the creationist and the scientific version of common ancestry, is that creationists hold that an ancestral kind does not share common ancestors with other ancestral kinds, whereas there is a good deal of evidence that kinds identified by creationists do have common ancestors with each other. i.e. common ancestry not only includes the common ancestor of zebra and horse, but also of horse kind and rhinoceros kind. And of horse-rhinoceros kind with elephant kind. And so on.

Who is objecting to using common ancestry in this way? (I haven’t followed all the thread, so I must have missed that.)

But see here, you are accepting reason and nature as the authority.

Is that what you are getting at with all this authority business? What about other authorities? Do you mean to say that people who accept the bible or another scripture as their authority must renounce the “authority” of reason and nature? Does that mean no one can reason on the basis of scripture?

I am totally mystified as to why you would try to fold reason and nature into a bundle of other authorities. To rely only on reason and nature (as science does) means rejecting all authorities which require faith. It means rejecting even oneself as an authority and following the evidence wherever it leads.

So in your premis, you accept the authority of reason and nature according to this statement. Is that the authority you accept when determining that common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, ancesreial kind, common decent are the logical conclusions, or are you basing your premises on another authority?

I would dispute the use of “authority” in this context, since reason transcends all authorities and everyone either uses reason to show their authority is correct or disregards reason altogether in favour of faith.

But with that caveat in mind, the answer is “yes” to both questions. Also note again that common ancestry is not a premise; it is a conclusion.

Only if we accept evidence as the authority. This is not hard, why can't you get this elementary concept?

Again, I don’t know why you would call evidence an “authority”. Evidence does not require faith. And evidence is the same for everyone, no matter what authority they do rely on. Some people rely on authorities to explain what the evidence means. Some people prefer to use reason tested against nature to discover what the evidence means instead of having it dictated by an authority.

well, I disagree with you from the standpoint that scientific method gives us a different answer, but that is for another discussion, and we are touching on that issue on the other thread, maybe we can allow that thread to evolve into a full fledged discussion on what science says about each.

That disagreement can be resolved by assessing the evidence.

so we can't assume that you are using the standard process of determining logic

And you should not assume. You should examine what I say for logical fallacies and expose them when they occur.

Let me ask you a question, what rules are we playing by?

When it comes to logic, the rules are those developed over many generations of philosophical debate as those which lead to valid conclusions. When one departs from these rules, one can no longer have confidence in one’s conclusions.

When it comes to science, the method that has proven most useful in discovering the facts of nature.

Both of these were developed through empirical experience, not as a decree from an authority.

Or if you are very set on using the word “authority” you might say the authority in this case is the long-term collective experience of philosophers and scientists.

This is what I have been telling you, so apparently we are starting to get somewhere close to a break through. Now tell me, what the creationist premis is based on? Why do they base that premis on x when you base yours on y?

The creationist premise is that the early chapters of Genesis are a literal, historical, scientifically verifiable account of the creation of the universe and all its features and of humanity. It is based on teachings about how the bible is properly interpreted. Those teachings are accepted on the basis of faith in the authority of the church leaders who propound this way of interpreting the bible.

Which is exactly what an authority does, it gives directions, rules, sets limits, an authority can and often is a process, but other times is it what we base our assumptions on.

It seems that your use of the word “authority” is even more vague than your use of the word “origins”.

Let us put it this way. Science relies on a particular method to determine the characteristics of nature. It has confidence in this method because it has been shown through empirical experience to work.

So, if we are going to do science, or discuss science, we don’t have to flounder around wondering what “authority” to rely on. Any “authority” which does not use the scientific method is, by definition, not scientific.

Another authority may be more right than science about some other topic. E.g. an authority on Shakespeare will likely be more right about a passage in Hamlet than a scientist will. But for science, the scientific method is the only process and evidence is the only ultimate arbiter. You can’t do science any other way and still claim your conclusions are scientific.

My opinion on the matter doesn’t count. Nor does yours. We are not scientists. We didn’t do the leg work that led to the acceptance of this method by working scientists. Just as you would rely on your plumber to know how to do plumbing and your doctor to know which medication to prescribe, you have to rely on scientists knowing how to do science. It’s their ball-game and you & I have no right to change their rules.

If we choose to play by different rules, we have no right to call what we are doing “science”.

If you agree with the scientific method, and if you believe that the scientific method is the best way to determine truth, then, the scientific method is your authority. When a question arises you do not turn to the scientists for the answers, you do not turn to your bible, your friends, your husband, your children, you turn to your authority, in this example, you turn to scientific method and hope to there find the answer you seek.

Except that scientific method does not provide the answers. It doesn’t even ask the questions. What it does is show us how to answer the questions we choose to ask scientifically.

And if I come here accepting science as the authority on our origins, and you come here assuming the bible as the authority on our origins we will undoubtably clash in our ideas and understandings.

Why do you assume that a person relying on the bible will be at odds with a person relying on science? I don’t agree that this will be the case.

That is why in a debate like this, it is important to effective communication to establish what authority you will use. Let's look at an even more basic idea. If we are discussing the toc/c and your authority is the creationist organizations that we have talked about and mine is the biblical account, then we will never be able to understand what each other is saying unless we can figure out what authority each is speaking from. The authority we choose establishes the rules, the understandings, the pemises, that is why it is necessary for effective communication.

I am quite prepared to leave the creationist organizations out of the discussion and use only the biblical account. However, I think you will find that the biblical account is very malleable and will agree or disagree with science depending on how you choose to interpret it. So one thing you will need to do is think about and then communicate how you understand the biblical account.

We know that science relies on evidence and scientific method.

But we have not discussed authorities relative to biblical interpretation. When you are puzzled about a biblical passage, what authorities do you rely on for guidance in interpretation?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But if:
a) all parties use the same premises, and
b) all parties use valid logical inferences, then
c) all parties will come to the same conclusion.

Of course, people will differ in their premises. That is why scientific method adds the check of testing logical conclusions against the reality of nature.

This is an interesting idea.
in the real world, we seldom have enough premises to actually reach the conclusion we need or desire to. underdetermination is a big problem, not just on a personal level but on both scientific and theological levels as well. Partical information, faulty understanding, confusing, misdirection etc all add to the problem

what seems to happen in the read world, versus a logical or philosophy problem is that something like shaping principles enter into the picture of how we go from one level to the next in abstraction and system building. These shaping principles are from the highest levels of our system, they are those big, great and important ideas that we find most general and most compelling. They literally narrow our vision, constraint the universe of possibilities that we see at the level we are working on, and in doing so help us decide the next level.

neat stuff. thanks for the discussion.

....

 

[razzelflabben]

are you saying that evidence is meaningless now or something?

Who are you addressing this question to? I would hope that you are not trying to say that because I have said that in order for effective communication to happen, we must establish what rules we will accept and where we will look for answers to issue of disagreement that I am saying evidence is meaningless, I don't even see any possilble way of drawing that conclusion from what I am saying but I also can't figure out how you could draw that conclusion from anything glaudys is saying so I'm working with zero here.

 

[gluadys]

This is an interesting idea.
in the real world, we seldom have enough premises to actually reach the conclusion we need or desire to. underdetermination is a big problem, not just on a personal level but on both scientific and theological levels as well. Partical information, faulty understanding, confusing, misdirection etc all add to the problem

what seems to happen in the read world, versus a logical or philosophy problem is that something like shaping principles enter into the picture of how we go from one level to the next in abstraction and system building. These shaping principles are from the highest levels of our system, they are those big, great and important ideas that we find most general and most compelling. They literally narrow our vision, constraint the universe of possibilities that we see at the level we are working on, and in doing so help us decide the next level.

neat stuff. thanks for the discussion.

....

Pascal once said that the foundational premises of all philosophies were axiomatic and secured easy agreement. The disputes between different schools came about because they forgot this was just as true of the premises of their opponents' as of their own philosophy.

 

[gluadys]

science most definately relies on authority and it wasn't long ago that you spoke of that authority.

Well, it seems to me that what we need is to explore different concepts of authority. I think our understanding of each other on this point has more to do with differing uses of the word, than with what we do or do not rely on.

When you say science relies on authority, would you agree that the “authority” it relies on is evidence? And logical inferences from that evidence?

I would not call either of these an authority, but I would say science relies on them to get to the truth of things. But, if that makes them “authorities” as you understand the term, then we are agreed on the basis for scientific conclusions. Ok?

Would you agree that science does not rely on human authorities?

But when I used the word to talk about common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, common descent, ancestrial kind, you proceeded to talk nonsense about we all have parents and great grandparents and somthing about I was talking about witnessing the birth of my great grandparent or some other totally confusing mumble of a mess that has nothing at all to do with what I said.

Common ancestry means that two or more species share the same ancestor. This can be at any level from the process that generates a new species of fruit fly (species a and species b share a common ancestor in species x and all three species are species of fruit flies) to the fact that the bacterium E. coli shares a common ancestor with a mountain gorilla. That ancestor is buried deep in the sands of time, but evidence and logic assures us it once existed.

The common ancestors of species exist for much the same reason as parents and their parents and their parents before them. They exist because of reproduction with variation. Common ancestry is not a term just for the long view, although it includes it. It is a concept which unites all the levels of relationships between species. Common ancestry is how species are related to each other, just as common parentage is how individuals are related to each other.

So I need a word that communicates the idea without you and others assuming that I am talking about the parent or grandparent species but rather the long version as it were, the idea that we are all descendant from a single celled population.

Common ancestry includes this, but is not limited to this. I think the best you can do when you want to refer specifically to the relationship of all life forms to each other is add the word “universal” “universal common ancestry”. Otherwise, common ancestry refers to any relationship between any two species.

Okay, this claim has been made many times and when I asked for evidence, the subject is usually changed, so maybe it is time to put your money where your mouth is and tell me exactly what you don't think I understand about the toe so that we can clear the air about what I know and don't know and then you can't use that arguement anymore. But remember, I don't have to quote the same evolutionist arguements to understand the theory.

I don’t think you understand the process and mechanisms of evolution. I don’t think you know what natural selection is and what role it plays in evolution (most people are rather vague on this, so I am not picking on you.) I don’t think you have a correct conception of the predictions evolution does and does not make. (Again, few people do. You appear to think that common ancestry is a prediction of evolution, when it is actually a conclusion. This is a very common misunderstanding and it is no reflection on you personally.) Above all, I don’t think you have any conception of how much evidence supports evolution, or how to evaluate the evidence. (If you really understood ERVs, you could not entertain the idea that chimpanzees and humans do not share a common ancestor.)

You haven't shown the nonsense I have "spouted" yet and I have asked you to do so many times.

I made a general statement. Don’t take it personally unless the shoe fits.

Wonder why that is, because I don't sound like an indoctrinated, well educated, intellectual that mimics the evolutionist answers without ever understanding them.

I suppose you think that education is indoctrination?
Actually people who try to mimic scientific conclusions without understanding them usually give themselves away precisely because they don’t understand them, and so spout nonsense instead of knowledge.

Opps, I misstated agian, do I really have to go into a big long discussion in order to people here to understand that I intended to say the above but my words came out a little cockeyed.

Yes. When words have different meanings, a discussion can become very confusing if one is substituted for the other. How am I supposed to know you meant “species” when you said “organism” unless you tell me? Why would you use “organism” when you meant “species” anyway? It is not as if the words were very similar.

But none of this evidences common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, common descent, ancestrial kind, it evidences speciation which is all I have ever said about the subject.

The evidence of speciation is part of the evidence for universal common ancestry. If there was no speciation, universal common ancestry would be impossible. With speciation it is impossible not to have a universal common ancestor unless you find a way to inhibit speciation.

And so then, are you accepting direct observation as the authority on reproduction?

Really! Do you need an authority to verify direct observation? Are you so unsure of the capacity of your senses?

Looked at it many times, for many many years now and it always comes back the same, It would make an interesting discussion if you took the time to really study it without assuming to know what it was saying.

I expect you are looking at a small, and selected, fraction of the evidence, and piecemeal at that, so that you have no idea how it relates to other evidence. But it would take an in-depth discussion of the evidence to see how it turns out. I hope we can get to that eventually. But not yet.

Oh well, evolutionist aren't will to accept what is right in from of their faces, so we move on.

Can you give an example of this behaviour?

There you go with popular opinion again,

I wasn’t speaking of popular opinion. I was speaking of scientific opinion. Horse of a different colour.

Right, the question did you mean evolution or the theory or evolution takes on a totally different meaning when we substitute the word science for biology.

Depends on the context. In the context “Evolution is the foundation of ……” it does make a big difference if you say “science” instead of “biology”. But I believe this has been covered thoroughly already..

See this is exactly why I do not buy your arguement that common ancestry is the logical conclusion, because apparently you have no idea what logical conclusions mean if you base your premis in this issue on what you assume I believe.

In the first place, don’t assume what I believe. I can speak for myself.
In the second place, what I believe is not what decides whether common ancestry is a logical conclusion. Given the scientific realities it is a logical conclusion whether I agree or not.

Do you understand that you are once again changing the subject? Origins in light of the question asked includes but is not limited to the origin of the species. So if we teach that the toe is our origins but also teach that there is a debate over the idea of common ancestry and then continue to explain the debate, we are still talking about origins and not limiting the discussion to abiogenesis natural selection, mutations, genetics, whatever and btw every classroom I have been in that was discussing origins, at least once had to deal with a question about creation. So make some sense out of the question and stop trying to force everything into your ideal little world where everything has to be as you say it does to have any meaning.

I am not changing the subject at all. I am explaining why a word so vaguely defined as “origins” is unacceptable when discussing the origin of anything specific. To discuss the origin of anything specific, one has to use terms that apply to that specific sort of origin. Yes, that can include the term “creation” for certain kinds of origin---though that would also have to be defined with more precision than simply “make”.

Huh? that would mean that you accept gossip as authority.

No, gossip would be someone else’s authority. I just said I have assumed nothing based on someone else’s authority. Seems you didn’t read that correctly.

 

[razzelflabben]

and you thought this thread was slowing down...

Oh, so now you are talking premises, not conclusions. Sure, if the premises differ, the conclusions will necessarily differ as well.

But if:
a) all parties use the same premises, and
b) all parties use valid logical inferences, then
c) all parties will come to the same conclusion.

Of course, people will differ in their premises. That is why scientific method adds the check of testing logical conclusions against the reality of nature.

But if we want to communicate effectively, then we will establish from the beginning what authorities we will accept so that this ideal that you put forth, can exist. That is the whole point, and I am sure you can understand this if you just try. Effective communication, exists when all parties understand what authorities are being accepted.

Your claim will be empty unless you do.

No, we don’t. People are free to base their premises on anything they wish. They just have to be clear about where they are getting their premises from. Not everybody has to agree on the same source.

Yeah, we are finally getting some where. If your authority is different than mine, we might come to different conclusions. If we are to understand and communicate, we must understand what authority each is baseing thier claims on. Brovo, I think the lightbulb is starting to come on, let's keep with it, we can find some common ground yet I'm sure.

So if someone wants to use personal observation and someone else wants to use a vision and someone else wants to use scripture, that’s ok. Each person should say what their premises are and where they got them from.

Your starting to get it, but it is not important to establish the premise but rather the authority, the reason for this is that the premises can be numerous and cumbersome if not in question and bog down the discussion. The premises are only necessary when the conclusion is in question. Keep with it, you will get it.

Then we see what conclusions they lead to. Of course, the conclusions will be different, but they can all be logically valid, and we can recognize the logic behind each one.

But then we put the conclusions to the test. We will find that some conclusions check out as true and others do not. Whenever the conclusions prove to be false, then we know something is wrong with the premises that led to the conclusion. This is where we start revising or eliminating false premises.

But, we aren't taking about the logic process, we are talking about what we base our assumptions on. IOW, if we accept the authority of logical process, then we cannot get a different answer using the process. We can if we also accept different authorities to determine our premises. Your getting it finally.

Sure. But we do not all need to agree on the same authority. What we need to do is find out what is true. We do that by testing the different conclusions against reality. When the conclusion is not true, we also know that the premises is it based on are not true. If the premises are based on an authority, that also tells us the authority is not reliable.

If we are talking about a scientific discussion, it is helpful to the discussion to determine if our authority is scintific method, evidence, direct observation only, etc. Not vital to communicaton but definately helpful. However, if I don't aknowledge what my authority is, than there can be a great deal of controversy without disagreement because we don't know where the other person is coming from. Of course, that means that the other person must accept that the authority that I have claimed is the one I am using, we see the problem with this denial when I tell you up front that in this discussion I accept science as the authority but every time I say somthing you read into it religious belief/doctrine. You thus fail to accept my basis in exchange for trying to prove your point, which doesn't help communication at all because you fail to hear the arguements. So two things are required. 1. I establish my authority and 2. you accept that that is the authority I am coming from. Then we have the basis for effective communication to take place.

Yes, if a person is relying on an authority for developing their premises, that person should identify the authority s/he is relying on. But science does not rely on authorities. It relies on evidence in nature. If you want to call evidence an “authority”, I suppose you can. But nature does not make pronouncements which have to be taken by faith, so to me, nature is not an authority.

Science is based on evidence, not authority. Nobody has authority in science, no matter how famous they are. The only basis for scientific work is evidence and scientific method. The only basis for accepting someone else’s work is the evidence they present to support their case.

Authorities require that you accept them at their word. Science never does that. Science says “Don’t accept this on my word. Examine the evidence to see if you can find something wrong with my hypothesis.”

I was hoping that I didn't have to point you to your own words here, but since you ignored them the first times I pointed them out to you, I don't hold a lot of hope for this time, but let me refer you to your post #423 on pg. 43 where you said
Neither of these requires an appeal to any authority except reason and nature.
and again pg 42 post 412
The authority for logic is the rule of logic which disallows upholding false premises with fallacious argumentation.
and even yet again pg. 42 post 420
In science, the final and only authority is always the observed facts. Logic can steer us toward finding what the facts are, but it does not replace them.

You see, you show us that authorities exist but you refuse to accept any of the authorities, even the one's you speak of. So what then are you basing your claims on if you accept none of these authorities. The only thing left is yourself as authority and that I cannot accept as evidence for what science knows about our origins. That is why I can't accept your word that common ancestry is a logical conclusion because all you are basing it on is your own opinion. You don't accept the authority of reason, nature, rules of logic, or even observed facts, so how can we take you seriously much less you claims? And please note that these are your very own words and I even took the time to look up the posts so you and everyone else here could verify that what I am saying is indeed truth and not based on memory or inferrances but rather on direct observations. (it helped that they were all resent comments, thanks, it required less time)

I am not missing that at all. That’s a given. You don’t even need to appeal to an authority at all. You can make up any premise you want without appealing to any authority to do it for you. But as long as the premises are different from one person to another, the conclusions will be different.

That is not a problem.

The question is : which conclusions are in accord with real observations and evidence? That is how we sort out which premises are also in accord with real observations and evidence.

But you don't accept observations and evidence as authorities and so, what do you have to offer the discussion?

A logical conclusion is the inevitable result of logical reasoning. When you went over those examples, did you find anything other than one logical conclusion in each example?

Can you show me any set of premises which lead logically to different conclusions? Is not the only way to get a different conclusion to change the premises? Or to use illogical reasoning?

Well, you don't have to accept the rules of logic and therefore, your conclusion could be different. It requires accepting the rules of logic as authority. Remember, that authority that you refuse to accept.

Some people use common ancestry or macroevolution only to refer to universal common ancestry (all living forms come from one common ancestor). A more precise meaning is that any two (or more) species derived from the same ancestor share that ancestor in common. Hence common ancestry or macro-evolution applies to all evolution at or above the level of speciation. The creationist doctrine of speciation within originally created kinds would also be an example of common ancestry. The significant difference between the creationist and the scientific version of common ancestry, is that creationists hold that an ancestral kind does not share common ancestors with other ancestral kinds, whereas there is a good deal of evidence that kinds identified by creationists do have common ancestors with each other. i.e. common ancestry not only includes the common ancestor of zebra and horse, but also of horse kind and rhinoceros kind. And of horse-rhinoceros kind with elephant kind. And so on.

And yet the claim has repeatedly been made that scientific terms have exact unchanging meanings, I wonder how you would thus know what is being discussed? We have seen this same problem with the term evolution, you know those exact, percise definitions that can mean a variety of things. What word or pharse do we use when we do not want confusion about talking about common ancestry, large scale, common descent, macroevolution, ancestrial kind. What term is not confused with the idea that I have a parent and a grand parent?

Who is objecting to using common ancestry in this way? (I haven’t followed all the thread, so I must have missed that.)

I said that common ancestry was not observed, thus indicating that common ancestry, large scale, common descent, macroevolution, ancestrial kind was not nor could be observed to which you went into a discussion about how common ancestry means that we have parents and grandparents and we can't observe our grandparents birth. What kind of sense or understanding does that show to what was being said? See, by refusing to understand what we being said, you were refusing to accept the term common ancestry to mean common ancestry, large scale, common descent, macroevolution, ancestrial kind so in order to communicate, we need a term that identifies which of the meanings are intended. Since you took away the intended meaning, you would be the most likely to ask for a term that would be correctly interpreted.

Is that what you are getting at with all this authority business? What about other authorities? Do you mean to say that people who accept the bible or another scripture as their authority must renounce the “authority” of reason and nature?

who said anything about renouncing an authority much less that you can only have one authority. In fact, I have said at least twice now, that I think that authorities change by subject, which would indicate that more than one authority is possible and that multiple authroties are possible. Go figure, you are reading into what I said what is not there nor indicated. From past experience this is all to common tactics of those who want to paint unfair pictures of those they disagree with.

Does that mean no one can reason on the basis of scripture?

How do you come to this conclusion? What logic are you baseing it on? If I say to you, in a discussion about evolution and creation, I use the authority of the bible, then you know right up front what I base my premises on, and we can discuss accordingly. Is I say my authority on the subject is scientific method them we discuss based on the premise that my authority is scientific method and I thus approach everything from a scientifc method to determine answers. It is quite simple really and I can't fathom why you can't grasp this.

I am totally mystified as to why you would try to fold reason and nature into a bundle of other authorities. To rely only on reason and nature (as science does) means rejecting all authorities which require faith. It means rejecting even oneself as an authority and following the evidence wherever it leads.

I will say nothing here, and let your own words come back to haunt you
post #423 on pg. 43 where you said
Neither of these requires an appeal to any authority except reason and nature.
and again pg 42 post 412
The authority for logic is the rule of logic which disallows upholding false premises with fallacious argumentation.
and even yet again pg. 42 post 420
In science, the final and only authority is always the observed facts. Logic can steer us toward finding what the facts are, but it does not replace them.

I would dispute the use of “authority” in this context, since reason transcends all authorities and everyone either uses reason to show their authority is correct or disregards reason altogether in favour of faith.

again, let your own words speak for me
post #423 on pg. 43 where you said
Neither of these requires an appeal to any authority except reason and nature.
and again pg 42 post 412
The authority for logic is the rule of logic which disallows upholding false premises with fallacious argumentation.
and even yet again pg. 42 post 420
In science, the final and only authority is always the observed facts. Logic can steer us toward finding what the facts are, but it does not replace them.

 

[razzelflabben]

part 2

But with that caveat in mind, the answer is “yes” to both questions. Also note again that common ancestry is not a premise; it is a conclusion.

A conclusion based on what authority, you accept no authority, that includes reason, nature, rules of logic, and observed facts, see above your own words. So common ancestry is a conclusion based on your own opinion. Now that that is settled, tell me how you are using the term common ancestry, because you changed it's meaning on me but refuse to give me a term that will be accepted for common ancestry, large scale, macroevolution, ancestrial kind, common descent. So if I play by your rules here, remember you are your only authority, then I can claim you have no understanding of evolution in that common ancestry is evidenced. We have parents and grand parents and grandparents and we have direct observations that that is how it works. See you really don't understand evolution though you try to convince everyone that you do. Your claim is that we conclude from our direct observations that our direct observations are correct. That is like saying that a theory must become a theory before we can call it a thoery, remember that discussion, you know where a chicken must mature into a chicken before we can call it a chicken. Now you are saying that our observations are not observations but conclusions based on the observations. By jove I think I am getting your rules figured out. How cool is that!

Again, I don’t know why you would call evidence an “authority”. Evidence does not require faith. And evidence is the same for everyone, no matter what authority they do rely on. Some people rely on authorities to explain what the evidence means. Some people prefer to use reason tested against nature to discover what the evidence means instead of having it dictated by an authority.

Okay, in your own words, drum roll please......post #423 on pg. 43 where you said
Neither of these requires an appeal to any authority except reason and nature.
and again pg 42 post 412
The authority for logic is the rule of logic which disallows upholding false premises with fallacious argumentation.
and even yet again pg. 42 post 420
In science, the final and only authority is always the observed facts. Logic can steer us toward finding what the facts are, but it does not replace them.

That disagreement can be resolved by assessing the evidence.

What evidence, the evidence of science, maybe the bible, how about stories, can we use that evidence as well. You didn't establish an authority to determine which evidence you want to discuss.

And you should not assume. You should examine what I say for logical fallacies and expose them when they occur.

didn't I just do that, using your own words and ideas to show you your error? Sounds like I went beyond your criteria and included inconsistancy, took quite a few pages but I was patient and allowed you to trap yourself, rather than to rely on the same old tired arguements that generate the same old tired responses. Instead, I allowed you to show us the flaws in your arguement and didn't even need to use the same old tired arguements, isn't this fun. My husband says that this technic reminds him of a cat playing with a mouse before he eats it, I think it is more like the teacher I had that taught us to never bet on anything but a sure thing. Either way, it is interesting what happens when you call people to consistancy.

When it comes to logic, the rules are those developed over many generations of philosophical debate as those which lead to valid conclusions. When one departs from these rules, one can no longer have confidence in one’s conclusions.

And the discussion is not about whether the rules of logic are a good authority or not, the discussion is about whether or not the authroties of the rules of logic are accepted.

When it comes to science, the method that has proven most useful in discovering the facts of nature.

And the discussion is not about whether facts and nature are a good authority or not, the discussion is about whether or not the authroties of facts and nature are accepted.

Both of these were developed through empirical experience, not as a decree from an authority.

And the discussion is not about whether the authorities are good or not, the discussion is about what authorities we are accepting.

Or if you are very set on using the word “authority” you might say the authority in this case is the long-term collective experience of philosophers and scientists.

And the discussion is not about whether the authorities are good or not, the discussion is about what authorities we are accepting.

The creationist premise is that the early chapters of Genesis are a literal, historical, scientifically verifiable account of the creation of the universe and all its features and of humanity. It is based on teachings about how the bible is properly interpreted. Those teachings are accepted on the basis of faith in the authority of the church leaders who propound this way of interpreting the bible.

And the discussion is not about whether the authorities are good or not, the discussion is about what authorities we are accepting.

It seems that your use of the word “authority” is even more vague than your use of the word “origins”.

shall we look at your words once again? post #423 on pg. 43 where you said
Neither of these requires an appeal to any authority except reason and nature.
and again pg 42 post 412
The authority for logic is the rule of logic which disallows upholding false premises with fallacious argumentation.
and even yet again pg. 42 post 420
In science, the final and only authority is always the observed facts. Logic can steer us toward finding what the facts are, but it does not replace them.


See, now you can't paint a picture of how little I know unless you paint the same picture of yourself because it is your own words that we are looking at.

Let us put it this way. Science relies on a particular method to determine the characteristics of nature. It has confidence in this method because it has been shown through empirical experience to work.

So, if we are going to do science, or discuss science, we don’t have to flounder around wondering what “authority” to rely on. Any “authority” which does not use the scientific method is, by definition, not scientific.

Another authority may be more right than science about some other topic. E.g. an authority on Shakespeare will likely be more right about a passage in Hamlet than a scientist will. But for science, the scientific method is the only process and evidence is the only ultimate arbiter. You can’t do science any other way and still claim your conclusions are scientific.

My opinion on the matter doesn’t count. Nor does yours. We are not scientists. We didn’t do the leg work that led to the acceptance of this method by working scientists. Just as you would rely on your plumber to know how to do plumbing and your doctor to know which medication to prescribe, you have to rely on scientists knowing how to do science. It’s their ball-game and you & I have no right to change their rules.

If we choose to play by different rules, we have no right to call what we are doing “science”.

But not every discussion about evolution and creation need be scientifically based, that is why it is important to establish an authority if we are to have effective communication.

Except that scientific method does not provide the answers. It doesn’t even ask the questions. What it does is show us how to answer the questions we choose to ask scientifically.

By jove I think she's got it!

Why do you assume that a person relying on the bible will be at odds with a person relying on science? I don’t agree that this will be the case.

Because if the pemises are different, the conclusions will most likely be different. If the conclusions are different and each side is argueing based on their own authorities without ever understand where the differences lie, there is no grasp of what the controversy is. Unless of course you are saying that creation agrees with science and if this is what you are saying, then I wonder why you are so adament about the creationist claims and assertions, that would be an interesting answer to be sure, can you inlighten us?

I am quite prepared to leave the creationist organizations out of the discussion and use only the biblical account. However, I think you will find that the biblical account is very malleable and will agree or disagree with science depending on how you choose to interpret it. So one thing you will need to do is think about and then communicate how you understand the biblical account.

we'll get to that when you are ready, for now we must take a scientifc approach if the discussion is the scientific nature of the story/theory.

We know that science relies on evidence and scientific method.

But we have not discussed authorities relative to biblical interpretation. When you are puzzled about a biblical passage, what authorities do you rely on for guidance in interpretation?

That would depend on your authority. You might choose teachers, pastors, God, the bible in it's entirty, maybe even the church, (that would ultimately mean an collective understanding, and not an individual one) All depends on the authority you are using to determine your premises and assumptions.

 

[razzelflabben]

This is an interesting idea.
in the real world, we seldom have enough premises to actually reach the conclusion we need or desire to. underdetermination is a big problem, not just on a personal level but on both scientific and theological levels as well. Partical information, faulty understanding, confusing, misdirection etc all add to the problem

what seems to happen in the read world, versus a logical or philosophy problem is that something like shaping principles enter into the picture of how we go from one level to the next in abstraction and system building. These shaping principles are from the highest levels of our system, they are those big, great and important ideas that we find most general and most compelling. They literally narrow our vision, constraint the universe of possibilities that we see at the level we are working on, and in doing so help us decide the next level.

neat stuff. thanks for the discussion.

....

good point thanks

 

[Tomk80]

Seems to me that Gluadys uses authorities as meaning 'persons', while you include more in it, namely things like 'logic', 'nature' etc. Now, basing it on what you have quoted from Gluadys, she does see those as the basis of the argument, however she does not refer to them as 'authorities'. When she says something like "authority except reason and nature" she doesn't mean that those are authorities in the real sense, only that those should be the basis of our arguments.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, it seems to me that what we need is to explore different concepts of authority. I think our understanding of each other on this point has more to do with differing uses of the word, than with what we do or do not rely on.

When you say science relies on authority, would you agree that the “authority” it relies on is evidence? And logical inferences from that evidence?

I would not call either of these an authority, but I would say science relies on them to get to the truth of things. But, if that makes them “authorities” as you understand the term, then we are agreed on the basis for scientific conclusions. Ok?

Would you agree that science does not rely on human authorities?

Shall we look at your very own words again?
post #423 on pg. 43 where you said
Neither of these requires an appeal to any authority except reason and nature.
and again pg 42 post 412
The authority for logic is the rule of logic which disallows upholding false premises with fallacious argumentation.
and even yet again pg. 42 post 420
In science, the final and only authority is always the observed facts. Logic can steer us toward finding what the facts are, but it does not replace them.

Common ancestry means that two or more species share the same ancestor. This can be at any level from the process that generates a new species of fruit fly (species a and species b share a common ancestor in species x and all three species are species of fruit flies) to the fact that the bacterium E. coli shares a common ancestor with a mountain gorilla. That ancestor is buried deep in the sands of time, but evidence and logic assures us it once existed.

The common ancestors of species exist for much the same reason as parents and their parents and their parents before them. They exist because of reproduction with variation. Common ancestry is not a term just for the long view, although it includes it. It is a concept which unites all the levels of relationships between species. Common ancestry is how species are related to each other, just as common parentage is how individuals are related to each other.

Common ancestry includes this, but is not limited to this. I think the best you can do when you want to refer specifically to the relationship of all life forms to each other is add the word “universal” “universal common ancestry”. Otherwise, common ancestry refers to any relationship between any two species.

Thanks, so you are saying that the word universal added to the term common ancestry allows the term, you know that scientific exact definition, never chaning definition term for common ancestry to have meaning. Cool, now we are getting somewhere. Hope to see you using the term in the future, it really does help me use new terms when I see them used.

I don’t think you understand the process and mechanisms of evolution. I don’t think you know what natural selection is and what role it plays in evolution (most people are rather vague on this, so I am not picking on you.) I don’t think you have a correct conception of the predictions evolution does and does not make. (Again, few people do. You appear to think that common ancestry is a prediction of evolution, when it is actually a conclusion. This is a very common misunderstanding and it is no reflection on you personally.)

all of these are general statements about what the majority of people know or don't know and have no specific relationship to what I have said or not said, wonder why if you don't assume to know what I believe based on anothers misquoted and twisted claims that you assume that I don't know these things because it is commonly misunderstood information? Interesting claim on your part. Interested to see how you correct it without admitting you are wrong.

Above all, I don’t think you have any conception of how much evidence supports evolution, or how to evaluate the evidence. (If you really understood ERVs, you could not entertain the idea that chimpanzees and humans do not share a common ancestor.)

That is left for a discussion about evidence which you and I have not had yet, so I don't think you can base an opinion on what is not evidenced. Wouldn't that be a logical conclusion?

I made a general statement. Don’t take it personally unless the shoe fits.

just asking you to clarify, nothing more nothing less.

I suppose you think that education is indoctrination?

some is some isn't. Well let's clarify that a bit okay? A teacher, asks the students to think for themselves, he/she says here are the facts, here is how we know the facts, ow problem solve and tell me how they fit. An educator cares nothing about thinking but only about shoving knowledge into brains. So his/her teaching would be more like this: here is what we know, here is what we think based on that knowledge go and be happy. The first is education, the best the second can do is border on endoctrination. So if the question is limited to true education than, no education is not indoctrination. On the other hand if your question is talking about any educational instituation that dispenses knowledge, then some yes and some no. I also realize that there terms are not widely accepted as such, thus require an effort on your part to understand what I am saying. I'm crossing my fingers that you put forth the effort.

Actually people who try to mimic scientific conclusions without understanding them usually give themselves away precisely because they don’t understand them, and so spout nonsense instead of knowledge.

and catch themselves in thier own words of contridictions. Amazing isn't it?

Yes. When words have different meanings, a discussion can become very confusing if one is substituted for the other. How am I supposed to know you meant “species” when you said “organism” unless you tell me? Why would you use “organism” when you meant “species” anyway? It is not as if the words were very similar.

You ask or clarify and ask if that is what I meant to say, your choice. Any you know what, while I am here on the forum, I am at minimum, also dealing with 5 children, business, and personal issues like my 93 year old grandmother just loosing her baby sister, and if it isn't raining, hanging clothes between posts, sometimes things don't come out right and I expect correction or questions, add to all this multitasking that I am not good at names and dates, (which includes exact uses of new words) and you have a picture of someone who might substitute the word organism when intending to say species. Go figure, I make a mistake once in a while when multitasking who could have guessed! And that's on a slow day.

The evidence of speciation is part of the evidence for universal common ancestry. If there was no speciation, universal common ancestry would be impossible. With speciation it is impossible not to have a universal common ancestor unless you find a way to inhibit speciation.

But, it is not evidence for universal common ancestry, it is evidence for speciation. Any claims to the contrary are false. universal common ancestry is a conclusion based on the premise of speciation but that isn't the whole picture, I look forward to having time to discuss scientific evidence with you, it will be fun I'm sure.

Really! Do you need an authority to verify direct observation? Are you so unsure of the capacity of your senses?

We have a dear friend who is color blind, he works in the art department of a local shop, and is considered one of if not the best graphic artist they have, in fact, they don't know he is color blind, because he fears loosing his job. Does he rely on his senses to determine or verify direct observation, no, because he has accepted that his direct observations are not always accurate. He has other authorities he relies on to adjust colors or determine certain colors, an authority other than himself. Let me ask you this, do you think he would be as valiable of an artist if he relied on his direct observations as authority?

I expect you are looking at a small, and selected, fraction of the evidence, and piecemeal at that, so that you have no idea how it relates to other evidence. But it would take an in-depth discussion of the evidence to see how it turns out. I hope we can get to that eventually. But not yet.

look forward to it

Can you give an example of this behaviour?

well, we have been talking about authority since early in the thread and you haven't accepted that yet. I say that universal common ancestry isn't observed and you talk about common parents instead of admitting that I am right, how's that for an example. I'm sure we can find more if you like.

I wasn’t speaking of popular opinion. I was speaking of scientific opinion. Horse of a different colour.

sure, the popular scientific opinion is not the same thing as popular opinion because......Right....okay..... still stumped, still waiting for consistancy.

Depends on the context. In the context “Evolution is the foundation of ……” it does make a big difference if you say “science” instead of “biology”. But I believe this has been covered thoroughly already..

If you make a statement, and I ask you to identify which meaning you were applying to a word, the proper thing to do is answer what meaning you applied to the word in question then clarify the misqoted word, not go off on pages of rhetoric about a misused word thus ignoring the question and clarity asked for. But them again, we have no set rules to play by so I guess your refusal to accept an authority makes all that okay.

In the first place, don’t assume what I believe. I can speak for myself.
In the second place, what I believe is not what decides whether common ancestry is a logical conclusion. Given the scientific realities it is a logical conclusion whether I agree or not.

if you are baseing your assumptions on "no" authority, (no authority means self is authority) then all your comments are based on your own opinions and they have no meaning. Do you still not understand how valuable it is to accept an authority when entering into communication? It isn't as hard as you are making it.

I am not changing the subject at all. I am explaining why a word so vaguely defined as “origins” is unacceptable when discussing the origin of anything specific. To discuss the origin of anything specific, one has to use terms that apply to that specific sort of origin. Yes, that can include the term “creation” for certain kinds of origin---though that would also have to be defined with more precision than simply “make”.

and yet evolutionists freely use it. Wonder why that is when we are talking about the scientific term that is so percise in meaning and never changes. Hummm.......good question, care to answer it?

No, gossip would be someone else’s authority. I just said I have assumed nothing based on someone else’s authority. Seems you didn’t read that correctly.

Not if you accept that gossip as fact. When you read the misquoted, twisted words of another, you accepted them automatically as fact, that is accepting gossip as your authority. When I corrected the account, you refused to accept the correction, that is accepting the authority of gossip over eye witness account. And you want us to believe your claims about evolution as fact? I don't think so. If you want to base your claims on an authority we can examine them in light thereof, but if you continure to refuse an authority, then I will respectfully ignore your claims as of importance other than personal opinion. As personal opinion, they have value, because you have value, but as a scientific explaination, you have no basis, not grounds, no authority to base your claims on and so, they mean nothing. Are you ready to establish an authority? If so, what authority do you choose? Then we can move on in this discussion.