Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8863 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2018 2:42 AM
269 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (4 members, 265 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 838,661 Year: 13,484/29,783 Month: 930/1,576 Week: 142/303 Day: 2/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
barbara
Member (Idle past 2694 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 181 of 205 (570484)
07-27-2010 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
02-05-2010 11:02 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
"The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use"

This is a very arrogant statement. Building a language barrier will not provide the financial support you need now and in the future.

It you cannot properly communicate your research for the general public to comprehend how are you going to promote an interest in your accomplishments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 02-05-2010 11:02 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 3:18 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 183 by Stile, posted 07-27-2010 3:55 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 184 by dwise1, posted 07-27-2010 3:55 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2010 4:22 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 6:14 PM barbara has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30837
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 182 of 205 (570485)
07-27-2010 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by barbara
07-27-2010 3:11 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
barbara writes:

This is a very arrogant statement. Building a language barrier will not provide the financial support you need now and in the future.

It you cannot properly communicate your research for the general public to comprehend how are you going to promote an interest in your accomplishments.

Your failure to learn the accurate meanings of words can only keep you in ignorance.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 3:11 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3234
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 183 of 205 (570495)
07-27-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by barbara
07-27-2010 3:11 PM


Science is Big
barbara writes:

Coyote writes:

The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use

This is a very arrogant statement.

It would be if science was just starting out, or was really small or something. But, well, science is pretty big. Kind of world-encompassing big. Bigger than America's Got Talent.

barbara writes:

Building a language barrier will not provide the financial support you need now and in the future

Again, this is very good advice... for a small group that is starting out and trying to gain a foothold. Science is not starting out, and they already have footholds... pretty much everywhere. Science isn't a small company, it's a part of life, everyone's life, yours too. Think really big. Bigger than Oprah.

If you cannot properly communicate your research for the general public to comprehend, how are you going to promote an interest in your accomplishments?

Science has already promoted an interest in it's accomplishments. Like that computer you're using, the car you drive, any museum you've ever heard of, even the food you eat. Science isn't really looking for any more "promotion". It's good. Remember, really, really big. Bigger than McDonalds.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 3:11 PM barbara has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3168
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 184 of 205 (570496)
07-27-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by barbara
07-27-2010 3:11 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
This is a very arrogant statement. Building a language barrier will not provide the financial support you need now and in the future.

It you cannot properly communicate your research for the general public to comprehend how are you going to promote an interest in your accomplishments.

Every profession and just about every activity has its own vocabulary, more commonly known as "jargon". Indeed, the first lectures of college intro classes consist mainly of learning the terms and definitions for that field's jargon. While jargon can have the effect of making it difficult for outsiders to understand what's being said, its purpose is not to create a language barrier, but rather its purpose is to provide specific and immediately understandable terminology to make communication easier and more accurate. I would hate having to use only "plain language" while doing my job, especially having to try to figure out what a fellow programmer is trying to tell me.

When someone wants to communicate with the general public, then they will use plain language and will introduce and explain pertinent elements of their jargon to their audience so that the audience will understand the speaker's use of those elements.

If you want to understand a jargon, then you need to learn it. Just like everybody else.

PS
As an example of how different jargons will give the same word different meanings, the instructor at a multi-service supply course offered this:

quote:
What would you do if I told you to secure this building? If you're in the Navy, you would turn off the lights and lock the front door. If you're in the Army, you would set up a defensive perimeter around it. If you're a Marine, you would shoot the place up and then set up a defensive perimeter. If you're in the Air Force, you would buy it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 3:11 PM barbara has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 185 of 205 (570505)
07-27-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by barbara
07-27-2010 3:11 PM


Re: why use a wrong definition?
"The bottom line is that science does science so they get to determine the words they use"

This is a very arrogant statement. Building a language barrier will not provide the financial support you need now and in the future.

But don't you see that what Coyote advocates is not building a language barrier, but destroying one?

Scientists came up with a concept which they decided to call "evolution", and started talking about it in the scientific literature under that name.

If someone then teaches the general public that "evolution" means something different from what scientists actually mean by it, then that's a language barrier. Because it means that anyone who then tries to find out about evolution by reading about it in the scientific literature won't understand what the literature actually means. And then you have a language barrier between the general public and the scientific literature.

A language barrier is what you get when you have two different languages. It is removed by having everyone speak the same language.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 3:11 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 2694 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 186 of 205 (570508)
07-27-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Tanypteryx
02-17-2010 4:38 PM


Re: What about another definition?
"bacteria never turned into Humans"

Are you absolutely sure about that statement since most our DNA is bacteria in origin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-17-2010 4:38 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 07-27-2010 4:36 PM barbara has responded
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2010 4:39 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 4:46 PM barbara has responded
 Message 197 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-31-2010 11:26 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 187 of 205 (570509)
07-27-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by barbara
07-27-2010 4:31 PM


Re: What about another definition?
Tanypteryx writes:

bacteria never turned into Humans

barbara writes:

Are you absolutely sure about that statement since most our DNA is bacteria in origin.

Did you read his whole post? He went on to explain that there were millions of transitional species between bacteria and humans. This is completely consistent with our DNA having a bacterial origin, billions of years ago.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 4:31 PM barbara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 5:34 PM subbie has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 188 of 205 (570510)
07-27-2010 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by barbara
07-27-2010 4:31 PM


Re: What about another definition?
"bacteria never turned into Humans"

Are you absolutely sure about that statement since most our DNA is bacteria in origin.

Evolution is not about one thing turning into another thing, but about one thing being descended from another thing.

Tadpoles turn into frogs, fish are ancestral to frogs. No fish ever turned into a frog.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 4:31 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 205 (570512)
07-27-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by barbara
07-27-2010 4:31 PM


Re: What about another definition?
Are you absolutely sure about that statement since most our DNA is bacteria in origin.

No, it's not. (Unless you mean by cell count, and then that's true only because most of the cells in your body aren't your body at all, they're the bacterial passengers we all carry.) Prokaryotic gene sequences are very, very different, in structure and regulation, than the sequences of eukaryotes. For instance, in bacteria related proteins are likely to be directly downstream of each other, and subject to combined regulation (the lac and trp operons are the classic examples of this.) That's rarely the case in eukaryotic genetics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 4:31 PM barbara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 5:22 PM crashfrog has responded

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1668 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 190 of 205 (570516)
07-27-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Arphy
02-14-2010 5:29 PM


Re: epic fail of creolution daffynition
In a similar way the word evolution does not mean what it technically means when used in society in general. Therefore I think it is inadequate to call evolution simply a "change in frequency of hereditary traits in a breeding population from generation to generation" because it is quite different from what the ordinary lay person understands by the word evolution. So I think that it is time that evolutionists got over that fact and started using it the way it is used by the population in general.

Do you realize the massive amount of confusion that would take place if lay people were the ones who defined what scientists meant with their theories. Which lay people get to choose? How educated should they be? What would be the quorum number allowed for changing a definition?

What is the problem you have with any definition provided by scientists that allows them to communicate without confusion?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Arphy, posted 02-14-2010 5:29 PM Arphy has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 2694 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 191 of 205 (570523)
07-27-2010 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by crashfrog
07-27-2010 4:46 PM


Re: What about another definition?
The genome project were not talking about cells, they were talking about our DNA and they said 10% was Human and 90% microbial DNA.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 4:46 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 5:25 PM barbara has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 205 (570527)
07-27-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by barbara
07-27-2010 5:22 PM


Re: What about another definition?
The genome project were not talking about cells, they were talking about our DNA and they said 10% was Human and 90% microbial DNA.

That still doesn't sound true. Maybe you could provide a cite?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 5:22 PM barbara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Wounded King, posted 07-27-2010 6:18 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 2694 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 193 of 205 (570531)
07-27-2010 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by subbie
07-27-2010 4:36 PM


Re: What about another definition?
Yes there is a lot of history between bacteria to us which would make the percentage much lower over time. The fact that it is so high gives you the impression that they have been actively involved in our DNA since its origin to present. If the other were true you see little evidence of its true origin.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 07-27-2010 4:36 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by subbie, posted 07-27-2010 5:36 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 5:47 PM barbara has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 194 of 205 (570532)
07-27-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by barbara
07-27-2010 5:34 PM


Re: What about another definition?
Yes there is a lot of history between bacteria to us which would make the percentage much lower over time. The fact that it is so high gives you the impression that they have been actively involved in our DNA since its origin to present. If the other were true you see little evidence of its true origin.

On what basis do you make this claim? What calculations have you done? What's the source of the information you based the calculations on? Or did you simply make this bald-faced statement without any evidence at all to support it?

{AbE}

Oh, and while you're at it, please explain what that has to do with definitions.

Edited by subbie, : As noted


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 5:34 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 205 (570534)
07-27-2010 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by barbara
07-27-2010 5:34 PM


Re: What about another definition?
The fact that it is so high gives you the impression that they have been actively involved in our DNA since its origin to present.

I continue to believe that you are mistaken about how high it is. Do you have a source for this claim?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by barbara, posted 07-27-2010 5:34 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018