Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 9, 2015

lifepsyop said:
You guys really have to stop spreading these myths of non-function....

The coccyx... is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments—which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx. Additionally, it is also a part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which acts as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

There's a pretty simple answer to this. Mammal anatomy was well studied long before evolution theory. If mammals had shown a pattern of bird-like traits, such as a stage of feather development, then mammals would have been "nested" closer to birds in the evolutionary narrative of the emerging theory. Your "nested hierarchy" could have been arranged many different ways to fit with the data.

It's one more illusion in the evolutionists' smoke and mirror magic show...

A coccyx is so useful, so essential, this poster claims, and perhaps he exaggerates the need for a coccyx. One clue to the fact that its importance is exaggerated . . . . not one animal with a true tail ever has one. Monkeys, lions, tigers, turtles, whatever . . . if they have a tail, they have no coccyx, they manage without one for all its alleged importance in attaching muscles, tendons and whatever.

Consider the elephant trunk. Often more than a yard long, if ever a need for support within were there, the trunk would have it. But the trunk does quite well without a bone inside for support. Humans could do without a coccyx at least as well. And if it is used somewhat for those things, the fact remains it is clearly a remnant of an actual tail. The shape betrays it.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 9, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
I answered. Birds and mammals are not the same kind.

The bible declares that common descent with descendants sharing characteristics as per evolution prediction is true. Its right there . . . where it says life was created "according to its kind". Creationists mistake that for opposing evolution when really its is describing evolution.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 9, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
Any part of the body must be functional during development. During development explain how this would be a better design if done differently. Specifically please.

I'm sorry, but the womb has no function during development. Lungs have no function during development. Lots of things have no function during development but are prepared for their future use. You are merely throwing words at a concept you disagree with.

Oncedeceived · Jun 9, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
The bible declares that common descent with descendants sharing characteristics as per evolution prediction is true. Its right there . . . where it says life was created "according to its kind". Creationists mistake that for opposing evolution when really its is describing evolution.

I don't think that it declares common descent. It might but that is not clear, but otherwise I completely agree that according to its kind is referring to the evolutionary processes that allow life forms to adapt. It also doesn't mean blind, unplanned without purpose processes. It says that God created. ID.

Oncedeceived · Jun 9, 2015

Paul of Eugene OR said:
I'm sorry, but the womb has no function during development. Lungs have no function during development. Lots of things have no function during development but are prepared for their future use. You are merely throwing words at a concept you disagree with.

What?

lifepsyop · Jun 10, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Why are you ignoring the fossils?

I pointed out the fossils while you were still showing cartoons. (Now you're showing a close-up of Neil Shubin's face for some reason)

I have no problem with the fossils because I know how ambiguous they are to your beliefs. This is why you favor cartoons.

Loudmouth said:
What are the discordant observations you are referring to, and how do they compare to the concordant observations?

The overwhelming percentage of the data is concordant.

You have a very strange attitude for someone claiming to represent the scientific position.

Pointing to concordance does not make discordance go away. It is usually the discordance that is telling you something important, that your assumptions about what the concordance indicates, may be in error. If you ignore the evidence you don't like, then you're not doing science, you're protecting a belief system.

Renowned astronomer, Halton Arp, compiled an entire catalog of discordant redshift data.
https://keychests.com/media/bigdisk/pdf/14855.pdf

Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations - Arp 2003
"Empirical evidence which is repeatable forms the indispensable basis of science. The following Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations applies this principle to the problem of extragalactic redshifts. The Catalogue entries establish unequivocally that high redshift objects are often at the same distance as, and physically associated with, galaxies of much lower redshift."

And redshift is not the only problem for the Big-Bang.

The Big-Bang is not a strong model. It has to ignore all data that contradict it, and invent imaginary objects to protect itself from falsification. For this reason it is questionable whether the BB even amounts to the level of a scientific theory.

BB is a cosmological apple-cart. It provides a simple, nifty sounding materialistic creation story for the average Joe, is practically non-falsifiable, and generates funding for those that protect it from question.

RickG · Jun 10, 2015

lifepsyop said:
I pointed out the fossils while you were still showing cartoons.

So, do pictures of Jesus make him a fictional cartoon as well? Perhaps you might take the time to explain to me why we don't find all fossilized forms of life, both fauna and flora, in all layers of sedimentary strata.

Atheos canadensis · Jun 10, 2015

lifepsyop said:
You guys really have to stop spreading these myths of non-function....

The coccyx... is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments—which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx. Additionally, it is also a part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which acts as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

There's a pretty simple answer to this. Mammal anatomy was well studied long before evolution theory. If mammals had shown a pattern of bird-like traits, such as a stage of feather development, then mammals would have been "nested" closer to birds in the evolutionary narrative of the emerging theory. Your "nested hierarchy" could have been arranged many different ways to fit with the data.

It's one more illusion in the evolutionists' smoke and mirror magic show...

You keep not bringing up thus argument without actually supporting it in the line of discussion we've been having. Here's my post that you have missed responding to:

Atheos canadensis said:
You're describing what you think would happen in a situation that is different from reality. That's the very definition of a hypothetical. In any case this doesn't address the argument being made. Why should the similarly of human and nonhuman ear muscles despite our minimal ability to use them not be evidence for descent from a nonhuman ancestor? Perhaps this might have to wait until we resolve the point below.

You've missed the point of the analogy though. Remember that you contend that because the specific pattern of the fossil record could be different (e.g.birds are most closely related to ceratosaurs rather than to maniraptorans) and still fit within the evolutionary framework, no specific pattern can be considered evidence for evolution. But this is like saying that because assemblage X could show that Australia was attached to North America instead of Antarctica, we can't consider the fact that there is any relationship apparent at all to be evidence that the continents have shifted greatly.

So what would be your response to this example in the context of this latter definition? Arguing that the muscles may perform some subtle, unidentified function does suffice in this context.

On a side note, I notice that you have not disputed the fact that your model of how the rock record formed can only work if you ignore all observations ops where animals live in favour of no observations.

Justatruthseeker · Jun 10, 2015

RickG said:
So, do pictures of Jesus make him a fictional cartoon as well? Perhaps you might take the time to explain to me why we don't find all fossilized forms of life, both fauna and flora, in all layers of sedimentary strata.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by sedimentary strata, then figure it out for yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentation

Then you got to understand what we actually have.

The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.

~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)

So in a marine catastrophe, why should I expect them to be anything but mostly marine life, 95% in a world mostly water to begin with? Just don't confuse prior creations and destruction's like most Christians do with this creation.

"And the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste."

And hence you find no human bones with dinosaurs. But this does not mean one or two species may not have survived afterwards for a time - just as one or two species from each of the prior 5 creation's have survived into the sixth, of which man and the animals with him are.

There have been six prior creations - sudden appearances of life - and 5 destruction's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

I don't blame you because they (those in charge) haven't corrected their interpretation that Darwin's Finches are separate species, even if it was found after being named, all are interbreeding and producing offspring. It's not your fault they never correct their mistakes - so you are led down the wrong path following a theory built one uncorrected mistake upon another uncorrected mistake.

Nor do I blame YEC because they (those in charge) haven't corrected their interpretation the earth is only 6,000+ years old.

But I do expect any follower of evolution to stop insisting I have the same incorrect interpretation of species - as I do any follower of YEC to stop insisting I have the same incorrect interpretation of the events in Genesis. His works declare His glory, so why one would ignore those 6 works is beyond me. And the 7th I am certainly looking forward to - although not the destruction before it.

RickG · Jun 10, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by sedimentary strata, then figure it out for yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentation
I said sedimentary strata, not sedimentation. Do you not know the difference.

The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.

~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.

~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.

~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.

The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)

So in a marine catastrophe, why should I expect them to be anything but mostly marine life, 95% in a world mostly water to begin with? Just don't confuse prior creations and destruction's like most Christians do with this creation.

That is completely irrelevant to the question I asked.

And hence you find no human bones with dinosaurs. But this does not mean one or two species may not have survived afterwards for a time - just as one or two species from each of the prior 5 creation's have survived into the sixth, of which man and the animals with him are.

The point is there are no human fossils in Cretaceous strata, nor are there any dinosaur fossils in Devonian strata, etc., etc., etc..

There have been six prior creations - sudden appearances of life - and 5 destruction's.

In geologic time sudden means millions of years. And if you are referring to extinction events, there were 6 MAJOR extinction events, and at least 20 MINOR extinction events known to have occurred.

lifepsyop · Jun 10, 2015

Atheos canadensis said:
You keep not bringing up thus argument without actually supporting it in the line of discussion we've been having. Here's my post that you have missed responding to:

When I say "evolutionists would accommodate the data like this", it is only following the natural ad-hoc pattern of reasoning and explanatory devices that evolutionists have displayed thus far so there is no reason why they wouldn't. The only alternative would be for them to reject evolution, so it's pretty much guaranteed they would follow said reasoning to maintain evolution theory. If you have a specific problem with what I've suggested an evolutionist would do then feel free to dispute it.

Also I've responded to your plate tectonics analogy a couple times now.

Atheos canadensis said:
On a side note, I notice that you have not disputed the fact that your model of how the rock record formed can only work if you ignore all observations ops where animals live in favour of no observations.

I remember you mentioning this earlier but I don't remember you providing an argument so I ignored it. I'm not here to defend YEC anyways. I am always willing to defend the YEC model, but the problem is that evolutionists always want to deflect to this subject to get focus off their own theory's weaknesses. I am here to expose Evolution theory before anything else.

Evolution theory is claimed to be scientifically beyond dispute, so it should be able to stand on its own without its proponents having to change the subject to Young-Earth Creation as soon as their theory starts being criticized. But interestingly this is not what we tend to see.

lifepsyop · Jun 10, 2015

RickG said:
The point is there are no human fossils in Cretaceous strata, nor are there any dinosaur fossils in Devonian strata, etc., etc., etc..

This doesn't really help you too much, as Evolution does not predict that dinosaurs couldn't have "evolved" by the Devonian, nor that humans couldn't have "evolved" by the Cretaceous. Evolution doesn't even predict that humans couldn't have "evolved" before dinosaurs. For all you know, the ecological niches for dinosaurs may not have manifested until millions of years after humans walked the earth. In principle, Evolution is not capable of predicting any of these things. Like an amorphous fog settling over a varied landscape, Evolution accommodates the data and forms an evolutionary narrative around it.

RickG · Jun 10, 2015

lifepsyop said:
This doesn't really help you too much, as Evolution does not predict that dinosaurs couldn't have "evolved" by the Devonian, nor that humans couldn't have "evolved" by the Cretaceous. Evolution doesn't even predict that humans couldn't have "evolved" before dinosaurs. For all you know, the ecological niches for dinosaurs may not have manifested until millions of years after humans walked the earth. In principle, Evolution is not capable of predicting any of these things. Like an amorphous fog settling over a varied landscape, Evolution accommodates the data and forms an evolutionary narrative around it.

So I have asked you a simple question and all I get is irreverent obfuscation. Why do we find dinosaurs only in Mesozoic strata and no where else in the geologic column? Why we not find any rabbits in Cambrian strata? How did the fossils get into the strata where we find them and no where else. This has nothing to do with evolution predicting anything. Just answer the question.

lifepsyop · Jun 10, 2015

RickG said:
So I have asked you a simple question and all I get is irreverent obfuscation. Why do we find dinosaurs only in Mesozoic strata and no where else in the geologic column? Why we not find any rabbits in Cambrian strata? How did the fossils get into the strata where we find them and no where else. This has nothing to do with evolution predicting anything. Just answer the question.

Sorry, I assumed you were implying that these observations are evidence for Evolution. If you're not implying that then disregard my last post.

Atheos canadensis · Jun 10, 2015

lifepsyop said:
When I say "evolutionists would accommodate the data like this", it is only following the natural ad-hoc pattern of reasoning and explanatory devices that evolutionists have displayed thus far so there is no reason why they wouldn't. The only alternative would be for them to reject evolution, so it's pretty much guaranteed they would follow said reasoning to maintain evolution theory. If you have a specific problem with what I've suggested an evolutionist would do then feel free to dispute it.

I guess my main dispute is that it is a misleading argument. Obviously if one is working in an evolutionary framework one will assume that these different outcomes are the result of evolution. But it is misleading to imply that these outcomes would all be considered evidence for evolution. This is what you are doing when you use this argument every time a certain pattern is pointed out.

Also I've responded to your plate tectonics analogy a couple times now.

You have responded but not really addressed it. You haven't actually explained your reasoning. Why would assemblage X, which suggests that Australia and Antarctica were connected, not be considered evidence that the continents have shifted just because the assemblage could have shown a different relationship? Note that I'm looking for more than a reiteration of your disagreement.

I remember you mentioning this earlier but I don't remember you providing an argument so I ignored it. I'm not here to defend YEC anyways. I am always willing to defend the YEC model, but the problem is that evolutionists always want to deflect to this subject to get focus off their own theory's weaknesses. I am here to expose Evolution theory before anything else.

Evolution theory is claimed to be scientifically beyond dispute, so it should be able to stand on its own without its proponents having to change the subject to Young-Earth Creation as soon as their theory starts being criticized. But interestingly this is not what we tend to see.

I would agree that it was a deflection if it wasn't already under discussion in this thread. If you recall the context, you were arguing that the reason that the flood had not preserved any fish at the very lowest layers was because they all lived in inland seas. I pointed out that this was contrary to all available observations of where animals live. You are therefore ignoring all observations of where animals live in favor of no observations. You have not directly addressed this.

As for the rest, it seems pretty natural for people to point out flaws with the YEC model when debating YECs. It is undisciplined argumentation, but that's what you get on an online, unarbitrated debate, and YECs do the same thing. You please yourself to interpret this as weakness with the theory, but it's just people being people.

Edited for typos

RickG · Jun 10, 2015

lifepsyop said:
Sorry, I assumed you were implying that these observations are evidence for Evolution. If you're not implying that then disregard my last post.

I am implying neither. How did they get where they are in the sedimentary strata and no where else?

You see, I have this book.....Paleontology: The Record Of Life ....and it shows a sequence of life throughout geologic time....where specific types of life appear only in certain areas of that time and no where else in that time. How is that?

lifepsyop · Jun 11, 2015

RickG said:
I am implying neither. How did they get where they are in the sedimentary strata and no where else?

Because that's where they were deposited in sediment. If they weren't deposited there, then they'd be deposited somewhere else.

RickG said:
You see, I have this book.....Paleontology: The Record Of Life ....and it shows a sequence of life throughout geologic time....where specific types of life appear only in certain areas of that time and no where else in that time. How is that?

For one thing, you are assuming "geologic time".

TLK Valentine · Jun 11, 2015

RickG said:
So, do pictures of Jesus make him a fictional cartoon as well?

They might as well, since not one of them depicts him as he really looked... but I digress.

The Cadet · Jun 11, 2015

lifepsyop said:
For one thing, you are assuming "geologic time".

Do you reject radiometric dating? If so, why?

Mr Strawberry · Jun 11, 2015

The Cadet said:
Do you reject radiometric dating? If so, why?

The usual reason creationists reject it I guess. They start off with an uneasy feeling about science and what it is saying, or what they've heard it might be saying, but don't have the background to understand it, so they go on the internet and read lots and lots of creationist sites that reassure them that science doesn't know what it's talking about and that creationism has it right and always has had and that scientists are unable to see what is clearly evident to the clever, enlightened creationists, and by the way here is a quick list of superficially impressive sounding arguments to explain why the scientists have got it all wrong. And before you know it you have another creationist logging into a discussion forum to set everyone straight about all the problems with their silly old geology and evolution ideas.

Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

Finally Old Enough

Finally Old Enough

Finally Old Enough

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

SO COOL

Newbie

Similar threads