How can Biologists believe in the ToE?

I take it this is your list of "big problems" with the ToE ... ... is absolutely irrelevant to biology and the theory of evolution. Whether it is finite of infinite has no effect on the behavior of life on this planet, which in either scenario exists for a brief period with a beginning and an end regardless of the universe. ... which cannot be evaluated until you provide a definition of what you mean by speech so that it can be tested. This was the whole point for the Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind, where you failed to make any case for speech due to avoiding the definition issue (for fear that your pet concept would not hold up to rational evaluation).Honest scientists (including biologists) define their terms so that they can be tested. Dishonest people don't. Only in your mental world. One is totally irrelevant and the other has been shown to be a difference of degree unless there is some additional information that is relevant ... and we are waiting for honest input from you on what that could possibly be to proceed to see how relevant it is.Next?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : honest

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

So we can evaluate all the countries and nations down through history on this basis and see who comes out on top?Just curious -- this has nothing to do with the topic but everything to do with your ability to present a rational argument.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not what they said. Go back to the thread and read again.{abe} What I find is that in Message 146 you quoted a creatortionista website ("answers in genesis") article and in Message 188 you quoted another creatortionista website ("talkorigins") with the same article (the same quote anyway, the first link doesn't work), one that quoted various scientists and not their original sources. Not one of the quotes of scientists in the field made in your article says that speech is not definable. I can find no posts where you actually quote scientists in the field.Implying that you quoted scientists is dishonest.{/abe} This is an absolutely absurd statement: Speech: the ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by vocal sounds and gesture. See how easy it is?This was posted on the speech thread and using it shows that animals use speech to a different degree than humans.This does not invalidate my position, only yours. Yours will remain invalidated until you can provide a different definition that can be used (and that doesn't beg the question -- the refuge of the logically challenged). ... with the understanding that you would come back and actually post a definition. You have not done that and are no longer posting there because that was when you "ran screaming from the speech thread making up excuses and ducking the issue" -- otherwise you would have actually resolved the issue.You are still running from the issue.This is one of your latest excuses for running screaming from the issue of the thread (the other was that addressing the topic was off-topic ... ) And they are not any kind of problem (see Message 228), so what you "did" failed to accomplish what you thought you did (again). Self delusion is like that. This twaddle is irrelevant once you actually define speech or accept the definition that is available. Avoiding the issue is not the way science is done, but it is the way creationism is done -- it relies on delusion of self and others and denial of reality. Confronting the issue involves using a definition of speech first and foremost.Your failure to substantiate your position on speech is documented on the thread, by your own posts as well as by everyone elses.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : abe

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

But what was quoted was not what you said was quoted. It doesn't matter what name you put on it if you are making up stuff that is not in the quote. It's called a falsehood.Not one of them said speech was undefinable as you (falsely) claimed. Again you are quoting from an article that (claims to) quote from these people instead of from the original sources. You don't know if the article is misrepresenting them because you are too intellectually lazy to look into the original materials.This is sloppy at best and repeating false witness at worse. And it still does not make your point: not one of them said speech was undefinable as you (falsely) claimed.Further discussion should be directed to the Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind in general and Message 216 in particular rather than tying up another thread with your false and self deluded claims.This has nothing to do with this topic -- although it speaks volumes about (1) your inability to deal with topics and (2) make a rational argument, because yours is based on falsehood and self delusion. It will remain such until you go to the speech thread and define speech in a rational and useful manner.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : -

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray, bluescat48 See Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind for some inclination of the bizarre world of IamJoseph.Enjoy.ps -- as you are new:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on formating questions when in the reply window.Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Not the same. Not the right thread.Your point is refuted by the fact there are definitions (if there are definitions it cannot be undefinable).None of your quotes say speech is undefinable. You have posted these quotes before and I pointed out that they do not say that speech is undefinable. Saying they make your argument is a falsehood.What you hope to accomplish on this thread by continuing to be off-topic and to repeat refuted arguments from other threads I can't tell, but I am not deluded by your continued avoidance of the issue and refusal to define speech into thinking there is something mystical about speech.I suggest that one of the reasons you can't deal with the truth of biology is your evident failure to deal with reality.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You would be in adequate company if that is what they said. Your continued misunderstanding does not advance your argument on speech nor any argument you may be making to this topic about the truth of biology and the people that study it. If you are claiming that scientiest misrepresent reality and then all you do is misrepresent their arguments then it clearly shows that the perception of falsehood and the falsehoods claimed are entirely of your own creation.To make a point you actually need someone to say what you claim they say. Not one of your quotes does that -- regardless of the topic you are babbling on.Misrepresenting what people say is not substantiation of any argument. Repeating unsubstantiated assertions does not make them any more valid than they were the first time, rather they lose validity due to the lack of requested substantiation that is still missing. It is dishonest.Perhaps biologists believe in the Theory of Evolution because they can't believe the dishonesty of creationists, dishonesty which IS documented and substantiated.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : msg#

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

More likely an oblique reference to the "Nebraska Man"A discredited claim, rather than an outright hoax, and I don't recall anything about modifying the evidence in that case.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's obvious, the theory explains Achiropsettidae, Bothidae, Paralichthyidae, and Pleuronectidae, a moving experience.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The question LucyTheApe, is how do you determine reality, how do you test concepts for truth?Biologists accept the Theory of Evolution for a number of reasons, including its explanatory power, and lack of real competition, but mostly because it is tested against reality by the scientific method, and that this testing shows the theory to be a very robust sound theory. They have better reason than the general population to either accept or reject the theory because they work with it and the evidence every day, yet the proportion of evolutionary biologists that accept the theory of evolution is much higher than the general population.Do you research creationist claims to see what their validity is, how they actually measure up against the evidence?Or do you accept them without question because they match your template for reality, and anything that appears to be "true" to that template is good enough for you?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray AreWeNotMen? Perhaps you would like to submit a paper to The Silly Design Institute?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yet I look at the Constitution and read:

quote:

---

Article VI
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

---

Nor would I like to have the success of my job interview depend on the question of my faith. In fact I thought it was illegal for employers to ask.Are we into "don't ask don't tell" now?The question should revolve around the whether or not Abraham was willing and capable of doing the work to the standards of the lab, and have nothing to do with his beliefs - unless and until he says "I cannot do {X}" and {X} is a necessary part of the job. Actually doing science involved with the face to face encounter with evolution may be the best education one could want eh? In America? With judges on the supreme court that are religious bigots that installed a religious nut as president?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

That doesn't necessarily make it right. Do you have to be a christian to wash floors in a baptist church?I do think it is valid and reasonable for a business\operation\organization\etc to say "These are the principles that you agree to in joining us: (list), and if there are any that you feel you cannot do then we expect you to willingly withdraw, and failure to do so is taken as willingness to abide by the principles."For Woods Hole that would mean saying we are a biological lab, and we do biology, including evolution.If something comes up that is off the list then that is a matter for discussion or negotiation regarding termination etc if it is not reconcilable. The employer learns to add something to their list and the employee should be compensated.That would seem to involve integrity eh?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : floors

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.