|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4822 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5946 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5
|
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. PSAs an example of how different jargons will give the same word different meanings, the instructor at a multi-service supply course offered this: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4822 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
"bacteria never turned into Humans"
Are you absolutely sure about that statement since most our DNA is bacteria in origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 3796 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4822 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
The genome project were not talking about cells, they were talking about our DNA and they said 10% was Human and 90% microbial DNA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4822 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024