Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Colter]

Scientific consensus: the belief the Milky-way was the entire universe, despite the fact the scientific consensus was wrong.

But shall we call that scientific consensus what it is? Belief and opinion?

If God had hoped to eradicate wickedness from the earth by way of a world wide flood, the consequence has been the unearthing of a flood of doubt about his earlier creation narrative.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God had hoped to eradicate wickedness from the earth by way of a world wide flood, the consequence has been the unearthing of a flood of doubt about his earlier creation narrative.

I'm sure scientists don't need the Flood to doubt the creation narrative.

They have plenty of other things to keep them in denial.

From G1/G2 being contradictory to deep time to cosmic evolution.

After all, what does the Flood have to do with the creation week?

 

[lifepsyop]

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

I didn't even bring the flood model up. See, when the weakness of Evolution theory is exposed, its believers want to change the subject as quickly as possible. It goes like this every time.

 

[Colter]

I'm sure scientists don't need the Flood to doubt the creation narrative.

They have plenty of other things to keep them in denial.

From G1/G2 being contradictory to deep time to cosmic evolution.

After all, what does the Flood have to do with the creation week?

The layers of fossils from multiple epochs that were purported to have been caused by the Hebrews genealogy flood.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

The fossil record matches exactly what we observe today. The breed English Mastiff mates with the breed Hu sky 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.

Yes, you've already exposed me to your pet argument (see what I did there?) . Let's continue where we left off then:

Please justify your assertion that T. prorsus appears suddenly despite the gradual appearance of its suite of characters from the bottom to the top of the HCF?

Your last response on the matter was to present this quote mine

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-insights-evolving-triceratops-montana-hell.html

"The Hell Creek Formation contains lower, middle and upper subdivisions. When the team studied Triceratops skulls' morphology and position in the strata, they found that skulls showing only features of T. horridus appeared only in the lower section, while skulls exhibiting only T. prorsus featuresappeared only in the upper section."

Then I posted the very next sentence to expose your quote mining:

"Skulls found in the middle contained a combination of features of both species. The fossil record shows that T. horridusprobably evolved into T. prorsus over one to two million years".

And that was as far as we got. So please address the point made at the top of this post.

 

[Zosimus]

Would a pool of non-HIV infected cohorts have the same death rate or see the same frequency of AIDS?

Probably the same, though I can't say for sure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't even bring the flood model up. See, when the weakness of Evolution theory is exposed, its believers want to change the subject as quickly as possible. It goes like this every time.

What weaknesses of the theory of evolution? You have yet to show even one here. I do see you struggling to understand even the basics of that theory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-ca...-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747

If you do it right, you can peer-review your own paper.

So, your argument against the concept of peer review is...... pointing to an instance of corruption? People who break the rules?

Really?

That's like arguing against a free society because criminals exist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then you wouldn't have a problem being injected with HIV virus?

I would not.

It's hard to take people seriously when they say such things.
Not to say that it is impossible to take them seriously...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually that is claimed all the time.

Can you quote a couple of examples?
That shouldn't be to hard, considering that it is claimed here "all the time", right?

Consensus may also indicate that it is tentatively accepted as the most ideologically preferable explanation and/or the most potentially lucrative model available.

It does not.
Scientific consensus, as I said, means that it is currently tentatively seen/accepted as the best model.

 

[Cearbhall]

One of the evolutionist's favorite tactics is to immediately appeal to a "scientific consensus" that Evolution theory is beyond all reasonable doubt.

It really is, though. There's endless evidence and no compelling evidence to the contrary, making it unreasonable to doubt it. Is there anyone who disagrees with evolution who isn't just acting on religious confirmation bias? Would it even occur to you to fight against the vast majority of scientists on this if you didn't view it as a threat to your religion?

Also, an evolutionist is someone who believes in much more than just biological evolution, so I'd be careful with that term.

 

[JasonClark]

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.

Perhaps it might be a good idea if you checked out creationism and the people pushing creationism before attacking something you know nothing about, evolution,
but of course you won't just in case it's all rubbish, what would happen to your life if you found out creationism was false? just be prepared for the worst to happen.

 

[Colter]

As a life long student of the Uranta Book I have found so many helpful teachings around this issue of the material world and the spiritual world, they are two different yet parallel entities.

Philosophic Co-ordination

"Theology is the study of the actions and reactions of the human spirit; it can never become a science since it must always be combined more or less with psychology in its personal expression and with philosophy in its systematic portrayal. Theology is always the study of your religion; the study of another’s religion is psychology.

When man approaches the study and examination of his universe from the outside, he brings into being the various physical sciences; when he approaches the research of himself and the universe from the inside, he gives origin to theology and metaphysics. The later art of philosophy develops in an effort to harmonize the many discrepancies which are destined at first to appear between the findings and teachings of these two diametrically opposite avenues of approaching the universe of things and beings.

Religion has to do with the spiritual viewpoint, the awareness of the insideness of human experience. Man’s spiritual nature affords him the opportunity of turning the universe outside in. It is therefore true that, viewed exclusively from the insideness of personality experience, all creation appears to be spiritual in nature.

When man analytically inspects the universe through the material endowments of his physical senses and associated mind perception, the cosmos appears to be mechanical and energy-material. Such a technique of studying reality consists in turning the universe inside out.

A logical and consistent philosophic concept of the universe cannot be built up on the postulations of either materialism or spiritism, for both of these systems of thinking, when universally applied, are compelled to view the cosmos in distortion, the former contacting with a universe turned inside out, the latter realizing the nature of a universe turned outside in. Never, then, can either science or religion, in and of themselves, standing alone, hope to gain an adequate understanding of universal truths and relationships without the guidance of human philosophy and the illumination of divine revelation.

Always must man’s inner spirit depend for its expression and self-realization upon the mechanism and technique of the mind. Likewise must man’s outer experience of material reality be predicated on the mind consciousness of the experiencing personality. Therefore are the spiritual and the material, the inner and the outer, human experiences always correlated with the mind function and conditioned, as to their conscious realization, by the mind activity. Man experiences matter in his mind; he experiences spiritual reality in the soul but becomes conscious of this experience in his mind. The intellect is the harmonizer and the ever-present conditioner and qualifier of the sum total of mortal experience. Both energy-things and spirit values are colored by their interpretation through the mind media of consciousness.

Your difficulty in arriving at a more harmonious co-ordination between science and religion is due to your utter ignorance of the intervening domain of the morontia world of things and beings. The local universe consists of three degrees, or stages, of reality manifestation: matter, morontia, and spirit. The morontia angle of approach erases all divergence between the findings of the physical sciences and the functioning of the spirit of religion. Reason is the understanding technique of the sciences; faith is the insight technique of religion; mota is the technique of the morontia level. Mota is a supermaterial reality sensitivity which is beginning to compensate incomplete growth, having for its substance knowledge-reason and for its essence faith-insight. Mota is a superphilosophical reconciliation of divergent reality perception which is nonattainable by material personalities; it is predicated, in part, on the experience of having survived the material life of the flesh. But many mortals have recognized the desirability of having some method of reconciling the interplay between the widely separated domains of science and religion; and metaphysics is the result of man’s unavailing attempt to span this well-recognized chasm. But human metaphysics has proved more confusing than illuminating. Metaphysics stands for man’s well-meant but futile effort to compensate for the absence of the mota of morontia." UB 1955

 

[lifepsyop]

There's endless evidence and no compelling evidence to the contrary, making it unreasonable to doubt it.

Not at all. The theory of evolution/universal common ancestry is tenuous at best.

 

[JasonClark]

Not at all. The theory of evolution/universal common ancestry is tenuous at best.

Only for the uneducated creationist.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Not at all. The theory of evolution/universal common ancestry is tenuous at best.

Perhaps instead of you two bickering you could address the discussion about biogeography and the flood.
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?

 

[RickG]

Not at all. The theory of evolution/universal common ancestry is tenuous at best.

And being a person who has no academic understanding of what the theory of evolution actually describes, with religious convictions and beliefs, that perception is quite understandable and I see nothing wrong with it. The thing I caution is, not to blindly expound ones reasons for rejection of ToE based on non-scholarly or misrepresented science. The fact is, all fields of physical science have contributed to ToE completely outside the realm of biological science with not intention at all of directly supporting ToE.

 

[The Cadet]

Not at all. The theory of evolution/universal common ancestry is tenuous at best.

And yet, coming back to the topic of the thread, this is not what scientists say. There's a massive interdisciplinary consensus among practicing biologists that the theory of evolution is both true in its broad strokes and useful as a predictive and explanatory model. We see this in the peer-reviewed literature, where evolution is not merely asserted but used as a tool to further understand reality; we see this in petitions, where a petition of scientists contesting evolution (which lied about its purpose and refused to remove people from the list after they made it clear that they disagreed with the purpose of the petition) was trounced by a petition of scientists with the name "Steve" confirming it; we see this in universities, with places like Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, Baylor, Princeton, and virtually every other noteworthy college and university in the western world teaching the theory; we even see this in documentaries like "Expelled! No Intelligence Allowed", where Ben Stein tried to dredge up evidence of academic corruption and got nothing (didn't stop him from lying about it, though).

 

[Colter]

Religion and scienc

And yet, coming back to the topic of the thread, this is not what scientists say. There's a massive interdisciplinary consensus among practicing biologists that the theory of evolution is both true in its broad strokes and useful as a predictive and explanatory model. We see this in the peer-reviewed literature, where evolution is not merely asserted but used as a tool to further understand reality; we see this in petitions, where a petition of scientists contesting evolution (which lied about its purpose and refused to remove people from the list after they made it clear that they disagreed with the purpose of the petition) was trounced by a petition of scientists with the name "Steve" confirming it; we see this in universities, with places like Harvard, Berkeley, Yale, Baylor, Princeton, and virtually every other noteworthy college and university in the western world teaching the theory; we even see this in documentaries like "Expelled! No Intelligence Allowed", where Ben Stein tried to dredge up evidence of academic corruption and got nothing (didn't stop him from lying about it, though).

Religion and science are both altogether too dogmatic. To my observation scientist are simply uncovering the evidence of the technique of Gods cosmic evolution. Why can't we of faith in first cause concede that the cultural narratives of one of many creation stories from Mesopotamia, simply was not produced by historians? But then note the presence of "purposive potential" in the evolution that science is discovering?

 

[JasonClark]

we even see this in documentaries like "Expelled! No Intelligence Allowed", where Ben Stein tried to dredge up evidence of academic corruption and got nothing (didn't stop him from lying about it, though).

Which is one of the reasons why anyone who is not a creationist when they hear the word "creationists" immediately think "lies, liars, deluded misguided people".