This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.

[oldbadger]

No arrogance, merely a bit of impatience with gross ignorance and dodging.

Your question is pointless. Why should I answer it?

I don't think that you can answer it. You mention 'dodging' above.......... you youself are dodging.....
I begin to believe that you've never been involved in scientific research or discovery in your life, mate...... or you would have just answered the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think that you can answer it. You mention 'dodging' above.......... you youself are dodging.....
I begin to believe that you've never been involved in scientific research or discovery in your life, mate...... or you would have just answered the question.

No, not answering an inappropriate question is far from dodging. You on the other hand are doing that since you won't justify your asking of the question. My first suspicion was that it was a dishonestly asked question and you have merely confirmed my assessment.

And it is obvious that I can answer your question. I simply refuse to play "gotcha games".

 

[oldbadger]

No, not answering an inappropriate question is far from dodging. You on the other hand are doing that since you won't justify your asking of the question. My first suspicion was that it was a dishonestly asked question and you have merely confirmed my assessment.

And so much for your 'let's keep it simple for them'.......

My justification? Your thread title reads:-
This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.

....... and I seek to discover whether or not you have any experience whatsoever as a scientist. A person who has personally researched, developed or discovered, or taken part in research, development and discovery.

...... and I'm beginning to feel just a bit worried that you haven't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And so much for your 'let's keep it simple for them'.......

My justification? Your thread title reads:-
This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.

....... and I seek to discover whether or not you have any experience whatsoever as a scientist. A person who has personally researched, developed or discovered, or taken part in research, development and discovery.

...... and I'm beginning to feel just a bit worried that you haven't.

What would it matter if I had not? You see your question is dishonest. You are trying to draw an unjustified conclusion to an answer for it.

I can answer your question, but there is no point in doing so. You tipped your hand by merely asking it. It looks like you are trying to do a reverse appeal to authority fallacy.

Ham fisted questions only demonstrate at best the incompetence of the person asking that question.

 

[InChrist]

And so much for your 'let's keep it simple for them'.......

My justification? Your thread title reads:-
This thread is dedicated to first going over the basics of science and working up to evolution.

....... and I seek to discover whether or not you have any experience whatsoever as a scientist. A person who has personally researched, developed or discovered, or taken part in research, development and discovery.

...... and I'm beginning to feel just a bit worried that you haven't.

I think Subduction Zone mentioned somewhere that his field was geology, but I could be wrong or may be thinking of someone else.

 

[InChrist]

We have seen species 'evolve into another'. So how is that ridiculous?

Such as?

 

[InChrist]

Why do you think that other animals don't think, reason, communicate and exercise some form of morality?? I find that to be an odd claim.

I acknowledge animals think and communicate in their own way, but not at all as humans do with the ability for conceptual ideas and communication through words, nor do animals express spirituality.

"Being made in the image of God gives man the ability to form conceptual ideas and express them in words. This places man on the other side of a chasm that separates him from animals—a chasm that no evolutionary process (even if there were such) could ever cross. This impassable barrier was referred to by Mortimer J. Adler in his 1967 still-in-print book, The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes. At that time, Adler, a University of Chicago philosophy professor, co-founder of the Great Books of the Western World, and an editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica, was an agnostic. He later became a professing Christian. Such reasoning in the search for truth is only possible because man was made in the image of God, who says, “Come now and let us reason together” (Is 1:18)."
https://www.thebereancall.org/content/march-2005-q-and-a-3

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think Subduction Zone mentioned somewhere that his field was geology, but I could be wrong or may be thinking of someone else.

Do you think that the user name might be a hint?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Such as?

Here is a rather long article on it with the background information that you need first:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And another basic article:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

And one more where not only has speciation occurred,we can still observe it right now:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_02

 

[Earthling]

Is this a debate forum? I ask because I thought it only fair that I try to learn this stuff again, and that it may be possible to do it in a non debate forum. I came here and see you've already started. If I can learn, without debate, I would like to participate.

The chart you posted makes absolute sense to me. A good start.

 

[Earthling]

Atheistic evolution??? Sound like you are confused.

Those you mention are few and far between.

And im sure @Subduction Zone was not specifically targeting those few with intelegence but were unfortunately indoctrinated before they had a say in their own education but creationists in general.

I've read every post in this thread so far and the only question I have at t his point is this: Is it necessary to mention creationist and creation in order to teach the basics of science while working up to evolution? It's just a distraction, isn't it?

 

[Earthling]

The problem is that if you want to claim a designer you need to find evidence for a designer. Since you do not understand either the scientific method or the concept of scientific evidence you will not be able to do so.

As for myself, personally, I earnestly came here to learn science and evolution. For this reason I have no interest in making such claims, or even discussing the possibility. I'm going to pretty much overlook any references to Jesus, God, Creation, Creationism, etc. as irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As for myself, personally, I earnestly came here to learn science and evolution. For this reason I have no interest in making such claims, or even discussing the possibility. I'm going to pretty much overlook any references to Jesus, God, Creation, Creationism, etc. as irrelevant to the topic.

That is a wise move. If life evolved it does not disprove God. If life did not evolve it does not prove God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this a debate forum? I ask because I thought it only fair that I try to learn this stuff again, and that it may be possible to do it in a non debate forum. I came here and see you've already started. If I can learn, without debate, I would like to participate.

The chart you posted makes absolute sense to me. A good start.

Good then perhaps we should analyze it. All of those are important steps, but forming a testable hypothesis is key. If one cannot test one's ideas they are worthless. A phrase even arose in the world of science to describe non-testable (and in the case that caused the first use of the word almost certainly wrong) ideas. If one cannot test one's ideas one cannot properly claim to have either evidence for or evidence against that idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read every post in this thread so far and the only question I have at t his point is this: Is it necessary to mention creationist and creation in order to teach the basics of science while working up to evolution? It's just a distraction, isn't it?

Nope, not necessary at all. Though it was started largely because creationists do not tend to understand these basics. But the concepts covered here are applicable to all of science. For example if you are debating AGW it will help you to access the sources that are used by either side. I used to oppose the idea of AGW. The problem was that the AGW people kept coming up with reliable sources and the more I looked at the sources that I was using the less reliable I realized that they are.

 

[osgart]

How does anyone prove that evolution is unguided? Where does that conclusion come from?

 

[Earthling]

I am mildly disappointed. So far no real participation by those that could benefit most from learning the basics.

To the creationists if you think that you understand the basics then prove it. No copy and paste of poorly written definitions. In your own words what is the scientific method? In other words how is science done?

1. First a question is asked. You said that there may need be some education at this point even, meaning, I take it, that in order to ask the proper question or the question in the proper method, an education would be helpful, perhaps crucial. Makes sense to me.

2. The chart doesn't explain doing background research, and the thread, up to this point (where I'm at while I write this) unfortunately veers off into a creationist debate. I assume that it's self explanatory. You research the background having to do with the question you are asking. That's what I would do if I were trying to establish a possible answer to a question.

3. Constructing a hypothesis. For the sake of clarification I look up the basic definition of hypothesis and came up with a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

You are presenting, building would be a better term, a sort of model for a possible answer to the question. At this point you are looking at possibilities.

4. You test to see if the possibility is a reasonable one. Will it produce the results you expect or some other results.

5a. If the procedure you've selected doesn't work, trouble shoot it, check for errors etc.

5b. If it does work record the data. You are recording your results, well, the procedure so far, for future reference and for peer review.

6a. If the results align with your hypothesis then you communicate your results, which may imply, to me, that the hypothesis wasn't a random set of possibilities but a specific goal? You wouldn't be looking for answers, as such, but rather building the model for a specific answer and testing that?

6b. If the results only partially jive or not at all with your hypothesis then you created what you call experimental data which helps explain to me what background search might entail. Your failed hypothesis becomes background material for future hypothesis.

7. Get back on the horse and ride. Uh, start again.

 

[Earthling]

Nope, not necessary at all. Though it was started largely because creationists do not tend to understand these basics. But the concepts covered here are applicable to all of science. For example if you are debating AGW it will help you to access the sources that are used by either side. I used to oppose the idea of AGW. The problem was that the AGW people kept coming up with reliable sources and the more I looked at the sources that I was using the less reliable I realized that they are.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term AGW. What is that, please?

As for me, my intention on this forum . . . well one of my intentions, in addition to teaching the Bible, actually became, due to your - shall we politely say, provocation, learn evolution just as I had learned the Bible as an atheist years ago, so that I would at least be more educated than I am, in the case of science in general and evolution specifically, about what I am or was in the case of the Bible, critical of.

Grammatically speaking that word salad might be abhorrent, it's late. What I mean to say is I'm not here to discuss the theological. I want to learn what you are trying to teach. So, that's enough about that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does anyone prove that evolution is unguided? Where does that conclusion come from?

I think that you have that backwards. If you want to claim that it is guided you need to show that is the case. That life would evolve is clear, even without guidance. Guidance would only be needed if there was a specific goal in mind.

 

[Skwim]

How does anyone prove that evolution is unguided?

I give up. How?

Where does that conclusion come from?

Where does your question come from?

.