Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[lifepsyop]

I have no idea what the experiment they're doing in your video is, and I'm not particularly sure I care.

Lol, I link you to a two minute demonstration of a flume experiment and you spend all your time talking about everything but that.

Looks like I'll have to spell it out for you: Sediments tend to be sorted into distinct horizontal layers when transported in water. Now take a look around at the Earth's strata.

I know you'd rather not think about it, but there it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lol, I link you to a two minute demonstration of a flume experiment and you spend all your time talking about everything but that.

Where in this flume do we see the sorting of diatoms and fine clay particles into tens of thousands of alternating layers? Where do we see the sorting of insect and leaf debris within these layers so that the leaves and insects with less 14C are sorted towards the bottom?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, I link you to a two minute demonstration of a flume experiment and you spend all your time talking about everything but that.

Looks like I'll have to spell it out for you: Sediments tend to be sorted into distinct horizontal layers when transported in water. Now take a look around at the Earth's strata.

I know you'd rather not think about it, but there it is.

I discussed that. I guess you missed it. That does not explain shale deposits with obvious horizontal layering and lacking the layering that a delta would have. It is also too well sorted to be that sort of deposit. It also cannot explain carbonates. That means limestone and dolomite strata. It is even a poor explanation of most sandstone deposits. That could only be a possible explanation for the relatively rare poorly sorted strata.

So how do you explain the more than 90% of sediments that cannot be explained by this nonsense?

 

[The Cadet]

Lol, I link you to a two minute demonstration of a flume experiment and you spend all your time talking about everything but that.

Given the complete failure at the start of the video, I see little reason to believe that the experiment was carried out correctly or that the results are trustworthy. I am not an expert on the subject; I simply know how to spot obvious warning signs of bad information. Check out Subduction Zone, he seems to know a thing or two about geology

Looks like I'll have to spell it out for you: Sediments tend to be sorted into distinct horizontal layers when transported in water. Now take a look around at the Earth's strata.

But that video accounted for a specific type of flood event at best, and even then, if that were the case, we would expect to see all strata conform to that zigzag pattern - we don't.

I know you'd rather not think about it, but there it is.

No response to the chalk or salt deposits? Come on, these are ones even christian websites bring up!

Look, I'm sorry, this is just childish. The flood model has so many massive, gaping holes that simply cannot be accounted for without massive flights of fancy. Floods don't lay down deposits that way. Some deposits necessarily imply deep time. Genetic bottlenecks make it impossible for any particular species to have been brought down to two individuals a mere thousand years ago. We find no evidence of a massive transcontinental migration as every species traveled from the ark back to their native continent. Nothing makes sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given the complete failure at the start of the video, I see little reason to believe that the experiment was carried out correctly or that the results are trustworthy. I am not an expert on the subject; I simply know how to spot obvious warning signs of bad information. Check out Subduction Zone, he seems to know a thing or two about geology



But that video accounted for a specific type of flood event at best, and even then, if that were the case, we would expect to see all strata conform to that zigzag pattern - we don't.



No response to the chalk or salt deposits? Come on, these are ones even christian websites bring up!

Look, I'm sorry, this is just childish. The flood model has so many massive, gaping holes that simply cannot be accounted for without massive flights of fancy. Floods don't lay down deposits that way. Some deposits necessarily imply deep time. Genetic bottlenecks make it impossible for any particular species to have been brought down to two individuals a mere thousand years ago. We find no evidence of a massive transcontinental migration as every species traveled from the ark back to their native continent. Nothing makes sense.

RickG would probably have replied by now, but I suspect that the is still rolling on the floor with laughter.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

One of the evolutionist's favorite tactics is to immediately appeal to a "scientific consensus" that Evolution theory is beyond all reasonable doubt. If the vast majority of scientists accept Evolution theory (or more accurately, do not publicly oppose it) then it simply must be true. This reasoning is absurd on its face to any sophisticated reader, but lets demonstrate that it is false.

First, think about how many popular-science presentations you've watched where you've been matter-of-factly assured that the Big Bang really happened and is beyond reasonable doubt. It is casually stated as if it were as clear as the sky is blue. Audiences are never given the slightest hint that anyone with relevant expertise questions whether or not the Big Bang really happened.

Next, have a quick read through the following publication. (some technical jargon snipped)

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation...

...What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles...

...Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory..."
----------------------------

(Now, 'consensus defenders' would love to say these are just a few cranks making this noise, but that is not true. Have a look through the signees and you will find highly credentialed astronomers and physicists, and a great number of credentialed scientists in general.)

However, this thread is not about debating the Big Bang theory. It is to shed light on the reality of "consensus" and the nature of the academic world in general.

Notice what is being expressed in the letter above, that a dominating theory is so entrenched, that scientists do not feel comfortable openly questioning it. Not because of the strength of evidence for the theory - (as stated they have sound scientific reasons for calling it into question) but because the theory is being protected ideologically. It is protected from question because so many parties are invested in it.

(Again, recall all of those popular science broadcasts where some 'science-spokesman' like Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson tells you completely matter-of-factly how the Big bang occurred billions of years ago)

This paints quite a different picture than the mantras we hear day after day about how the consensus is based strictly on scientific merit, how scientists are eagerly waiting to have their theories disproved, how any young scientist who finds a hole in a reigning theory will be fast-tracked to a Nobel prize, etc. etc. This is all simply a myth that is perpetuated to give the scientific community an aura of righteousness and selfless pursuit of truth. It is simply not true.

So, while I know this clarification will bounce off most consensus-worshipers like rubber, I hope it will contribute at least a little bit to chipping away that silly myth that is promoted all over the internet.

....

Now, some additional thoughts... think about the Theory of Evolution for a moment in this light... think about how many parties and institutions are invested in it. Think about what they stand to lose if Evolution theory is, not even disproven, but simply allowed to be openly questioned in a scientific setting. Think about how disastrous that would be for so many invested parties that have been telling the public for the last century that the theory is simply beyond question.

Evolution is their ultimate Creation Story - think about how much ideological power is in that.. being able to tell all of society where they originated from. Think of the culture that is been built around that ideology. The entire "science vs. religion" narrative.

It makes the ideological stakes for the Big Bang theory look paltry in comparison.

With this in mind, only the most blind and naive would believe that Evolution theory is maintained based strictly on its scientific merit. What utter nonsense.

Do you really think this level of ideological investment is not playing a role in maintaining the "consensus" and protecting the theory from question?

Do you really think the average young scientist trying to make a living feels comfortable openly questioning the theory, or even voicing the slightest hint of doubt?

Do you really think they're being honest and upfront with you about Evolution theory's weaknesses?

I couldn't have put it better myself. There also seems to be a mentality that just because the majority of scientists believe (or say they do) in the evolution/big bang myths, that it MUST be correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I couldn't have put it better myself. There also seems to be a mentality that just because the majority of scientists believe (or say they do) in the evolution/big bang myths, that it MUST be correct.

Consensus is only part of the reason that we laugh at the so called creation "scientists". Peer review is one of the "put up or shut up's" of science. If a person is sure of his idea he writes a paper and lets other scientists check it out. At first all that happens is that experts in that field will look and see if there are no gross errors, and it is an interesting new idea it will very likely be published. Then other scientists will check the idea. Many of them will rerun the tests or experiments. If the idea holds up it will be eventually accepted as part of the paradigm.

The problem is that creationist "scientists" will not even submit their ideas for peer review. That indicates that they know that they are wrong. They have even gone so far as to make up their own pretend "peer review". This is done even by creationists that actually have published in other topics.

You should ask yourself why do creationists run from peer review like a vampire runs away from holy water?

 

[RickG]

I couldn't have put it better myself. There also seems to be a mentality that just because the majority of scientists believe (or say they do) in the evolution/big bang myths, that it MUST be correct.

It's not what the majority of scientists say, its what the majority of published research shows.

 

[RickG]

You should ask yourself why do creationists run from peer review like a vampire runs away from holy water?

Or why creationists can't see themselves in a mirror.

 

[The Cadet]

The problem is that creationist "scientists" will not even submit their ideas for peer review. That indicates that they know that they are wrong. They have even gone so far as to make up their own pretend "peer review". This is done even by creationists that actually have published in other topics.

And never mind that many of them have downright insane ideas. Hydroplate theory. The water canopy hypothesis. Ice comets delivering the necessary water and forming the polar ice caps. Every species on the planet coming together into a giant boat, being at sea for an entire year, then migrating back to their home continents and repopulating from two or fourteen individuals. I literally cannot believe that it's the 21st century and there are still competent adults capable of using a computer who believe something like that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And never mind that many of them have downright insane ideas. Hydroplate theory. The water canopy hypothesis. Ice comets delivering the necessary water and forming the polar ice caps. Every species on the planet coming together into a giant boat, being at sea for an entire year, then migrating back to their home continents and repopulating from two or fourteen individuals. I literally cannot believe that it's the 21st century and there are still competent adults capable of using a computer who believe something like that.

What most Flood supporters do not understand is that each and every one of their ad hoc explanations would have consequences that we could test for if they were actually true. Their explanations are always debunked by these consequences.

 

[sfs]

And never mind that many of them have downright insane ideas. Hydroplate theory. The water canopy hypothesis. Ice comets delivering the necessary water and forming the polar ice caps. Every species on the planet coming together into a giant boat, being at sea for an entire year, then migrating back to their home continents and repopulating from two or fourteen individuals. I literally cannot believe that it's the 21st century and there are still competent adults capable of using a computer who believe something like that.

I find the idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS much more disturbing than any of these. That particular idea has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[Loudmouth]

I couldn't have put it better myself. There also seems to be a mentality that just because the majority of scientists believe (or say they do) in the evolution/big bang myths, that it MUST be correct.

We aren't saying that it must be correct. We are saying that a consensus holds a lot of weight and can't be dismissed by a sarcastic, "So what?".

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Obviously because we don't know what zones they occupied or what their geographical distribution was before catastrophe. For all you know they could have been restricted to inland seas.

In other words you're rejecting all observations of where these animals live in favour of no observations whatsoever. That is Dad's argument for anything; conditions were different in whatever way required to ignore the evidence that your model doesn't work.

 

[lasthero]

In other words you're rejecting all observations of where these animals live in favour of no observations whatsoever. That is Dad's argument for anything; conditions were different in whatever way required to ignore the evidence that your model doesn't work.

I think it's also worth noting that this is coming from a guy who constantly complains about unfalsifiable models.

 

[lifepsyop]

In other words you're rejecting all observations of where these animals live in favour of no observations whatsoever. That is Dad's argument for anything; conditions were different in whatever way required to ignore the evidence that your model doesn't work.

Sounds a lot like your belief in the mystical animal-building powers of natural selection.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sounds a lot like your belief in the mystical animal-building powers of natural selection.

No, it doesn't. The fossil record matches what we would expect. We don't have to make up stories about tens of thousands of bony fish species somehow not showing up in any marine sediments while tens of thousands of trilobites do.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Sounds a lot like your belief in the mystical animal-building powers of natural selection.

Heh, I knew you were going to say that. But it doesn't actually address the point. Do you disagree with how I characterize your position? Do you dispute that you are rejecting all observations of where animals live in favor of no observations?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Heh, I knew you were going to say that. But it doesn't actually address the point. Do you disagree with how I characterize your position? Do you dispute that you are rejecting all observations of where animals live in favor of no observations?

The fossil record matches exactly what we observe today. The breed English Mastiff mates with the breed Husky and produces another breed the Chinook. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff "evolved" into the Chinook. There are no missing links because it happened in a single generation. Now I know evolutionists like to pretend it happened differently in the past and constantly classify incorrectly breeds in the fossil record as new species. And hence they have missing links and gaps, because they won't accept what we observe today - also happened in the past. Breed mates with breed and produces another breed.

Just as the Chinook appears suddenly in the paper record, so breeds of dinosaur appeared suddenly in the fossil record, because a new breed was born overnight - not evolved slowly over time. So I ask you to accept nothing we do not observe - while evolutionists ask me to accept something never observed and then to pretend missing links exist because they choose to ignore how reproduction works. Those missing links are missing because they never existed in the first place. They have just incorrectly classified an animal they have never observed in life as a separate species, instead of accepting that they are merely different breeds of the same Kind as observed in the real world.

 

[The Cadet]

The fossil record matches exactly what we observe today. The breed English Mastiff mates with the breed Husky and produces another breed the Chinook.

At this point this is just blatant dishonesty. You've had it explained to you numerous times why this example is so horribly flawed, and at this point, I think anyone with any intellectual honesty or integrity should distance themselves from your argument.