Introduction to Genetics

Nobody here seems to understand the nature of this debate. It really is a paradigm clash. Paradigm clashes involve different views of the facts. That involves different definitions, certainly in a case where the prevailing paradigm has stacked the deck with interpretive views of its own, which is the case with the ToE.

I think many of us understand the nature of the debate quite well.

It is between one "paradigm" which is derived from evidence, leading to hypotheses and theories to best explain that evidence, and a second "paradigm" which is derived from ancient tribal myth, with a series of beliefs not supported by evidence.

If the ToE had simply honestly stuck to simple descriptive factual definitions of words the clash would not be as severe as it is. While paradigm clashes usually do involve some degree of hostility between the views, it's not scientific to try to define your opponents out of the argument, let alone force your terminology on them, and heap ridicule on them and all the rest of it.

Science does not look to religions, of which there are some 40,000 different branches, sects, and denominations worldwide, for permission or guidance on how it conducts its affairs.

Why should it? The tens of thousands of religions can't agree among themselves, and rather than use evidence to settle differences, more often split into competing sects based on differing beliefs.

Science is correct to ignore those various religions.

If anyone, religions or whatever, want to influence science they need to bring evidence, but that's the last thing most religions want to deal with. We see evidence of that in your posts--virtually all the evidence on dating you simply reject as being wrong. You have no coherent reasons or evidence, you just believe it is wrong, therefore it is wrong.

And then you seem hurt or mystified when science, and in this specific case scientific terms, doesn't accord much credibility to your particular beliefs?

You shouldn't be surprised, and you're not alone. Science doesn't accord much credibility to magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo or any of that other weird stuff either.

Just the usual formulaic answer based on theory and utterly devoid of actual fact. Oh well.

If by formulaic answer you mean one you have heard on numerous occasions, you are probably right. That doesn't mean it is wrong.

Why should science change its methods and terminology to accommodate various folks who are inherently anti-science?

Creationists are just about 180° away from science in their approach (paradigm, worldview). They follow what are in essence old tribal myths and deny what evidence shows. When the results of scientific investigations disagree with their beliefs, they seek to destroy those offending branches of science.

Actually, first they tried to emulate science with creation "science," but when that failed they attacked the scientific method itself with the "its just a theory" campaign, and the "teach the controversy" campaign, both of which failed. Now it seems to be "were you there?" and "observational science vs historical science."

But the bottom line really is evidence vs. belief. You mentioned differing paradigms in a previous post--that's a fancy term for the same thing. Or you could call it a worldview difference and be just as accurate.

I would have no argument with your beliefs if you just stated them as beliefs. It is when you try to destroy certain branches of science to accommodate your beliefs, against the vast amounts of evidence to the contrary, that I take umbrage.

You keep asking, "... is that a test?"

The answer is -- maybe.

If the test results contradict someone's interpretation of the bible then its not a test, its an incorrect test, its a meaningless test, or its just wrong, somehow.

If the test results confirm someone's interpretation of the bible then its a test.

You keep trying to do science when science will be rejected at the point where it contradicts someone's interpretation of the bible.

Or...

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make 'em think.

it all remains theory and assumption

"Assumption" does not mean automatically wrong, as creationists are wont to imply. An assumption is essentially a method for testing something. Here's an example. If we assume X, then Y must occur. So, we are testing for Y. If Y occurs, then the assumption, X, may be accurate. If Y does not occur, then the assumption X is not accurate and you try something else. Claiming "its just an assumption" only displays ignorance of how science works--or a denial of the scientific method.

And "theory" denotes an explanation for a collection of facts that 1) successfully explains them all, 2) is not contradicted by any relevant facts, and 3) makes successful predictions. Theory is the highest level of explanation in science.

"Proof," which creationists keep demanding, has no role in science. Try down the hall at the math department.

So, creationists shouldn't say "it all remains theory and assumption" because that shows they are either ignorant of the scientific method, or deliberately misrepresenting it in pursuit of their own anti-science agenda.

I can't believe that you are ignorant of these matters, given how many times they have been explained to you.

But I'm not saying assumptions are wrong. The point is that assumptions are assumptions, unproven, the assumptions in this case are based on the expectations from the ToE, and yet although they ARE but assumptions they are treated as fact and not as assumptions. This is NOT good scientific procedure.

Sure you are. You and other creationists are trying to imply that "assumptions" are way below wild-ass-guesses in terms of reliability or accuracy. You are trying to imply that they are useless, wrong, and shouldn't be considered a part of "real" science. Otherwise you wouldn't keep harping on the subject. The real problem is that you don't like where those assumptions lead. Otherwise you wouldn't care a whit.

Assumptions that are supported by evidence and are not contradicted by evidence can be treated as fact until shown otherwise. An example of an assumption: I assume the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. We have no proof that it will do so, but that assumption is not just a wild-ass-guess. Nor is it wrong until it can be demonstrated to be wrong. Again, creationists are attacking assumptions because they don't like the results, not because they can actually show those assumptions are wrong or inappropiate in their use.

I think it's time that it was fairly recognized that since creationists do keep raising these issues that maybe there is something to them that you should all consider for a change.

That creationists keep raising vacuous issues does not make those issues valid.

We aren't lying, we aren't stupid, and we are persistent on the point that the ToE is scientifically wanting.

Some of you are lying, and some of you are stupid. Some are both.

But you have no business saying that the theory of evolution is "scientifically wanting." You should be saying that it is "scripturally wanting."

Further, creationists are inherently anti-science and that should automatically disqualify them from having any valid opinions in the matter. You don't pretend to have valid opinions on brain surgery or koniology so why should you think you have a valid opinion on evolution and related matters?

The assumptions in question are NOT supported by evidence, that's the whole point!

That is your belief. That is not what scientific evidence shows.

unproved assumptions???

You didn't learn a thing from my previous post, did you. You just went blithely on your way as if I hadn't said a thing.

How can you even pretend to do science when you are speaking gibberish?

If you want to have a discussion concerning science at least use the language that scientists use.

I realize that, as a creationist, you are used to making things up as you go along but I'm not going to play that game.

I'm no longer going to read your posts beyond your first abject misuse of scientific terms that have been explained to you dozens of time.

You want your posts to be read, straighten up your act.

It just occurred to me that you're probably complaining that I used the word "unproved" after you told me how I'm supposed to think about it? I did answer that, it's the most natural word that comes to mind, but if it matters so much, would you prefer it if I said "unverified" or "unconfirmed" assumptions or something along those lines?

I advise you maybe ten times over the months that science doesn't deal with proof and you just ignore my posts and blithely continue on using terms incorrectly.

We all use terms incorrectly once in a while, but what you demonstrate is that you are unwilling to learn even the rudiments of science and how it works.

And then you proceed to lecture the rest of us on how we should be doing science.

What a joke!