Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[lifepsyop]

You are projecting again.

That doesn't even make sense. How could I be projecting about others concealing their biases when I have no problem admitting my own bias?

Maybe try thinking for a moment before you toss out that silly one-liner.

 

[Loudmouth]

That doesn't even make sense. How could I be projecting about others concealing their biases when I have no problem admitting my own bias?

You are projecting your own biases on to science. You hope that dragging science into the mud with you through false accusations will somehow balance the table.

 

[JasonClark]

But that's what I was talking about, an atheistic scientific approach where a belief about the universe has already been established as opposed to following the truth in all realms no matter where it leads.

The only thing scientists have established before they do anything is this, there are no such things as magic, demons, gods, ghosts or angels,
beyond that I should image their minds are open to anything.
The only thing scientists love as much as discovering something is proving another scientist wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only thing scientists have established before they do anything is this, there are no such things as magic, demons, gods, ghosts or angels,
beyond that I should image their minds are open to anything.

Those scientists can take a hike.

(Thanks for leaving "miracles" off the list though.)

 

[lifepsyop]

You are projecting your own biases on to science. You hope that dragging science into the mud with you through false accusations will somehow balance the table.

Actually I'd say I'm following the evidence. One myth I mentioned has already been exposed in this thread - the myth that the academic peer-review process is a highly effective system that weeds out most error and bias. That is clearly untrue.

 

[lifepsyop]

The only thing scientists have established before they do anything is this, there are no such things as magic, demons, gods, ghosts or angels,
beyond that I should image their minds are open to anything.

Yes, they are more in line with pantheism.

 

[The Cadet]

The only thing scientists have established before they do anything is this, there are no such things as magic, demons, gods, ghosts or angels,
beyond that I should image their minds are open to anything.
The only thing scientists love as much as discovering something is proving another scientist wrong.

But that's just straight-up not true. Science no more establishes the non-existence of the supernatural as it establishes its existence. You are yet another confused by the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.

 

[Loudmouth]

The only thing scientists have established before they do anything is this, there are no such things as magic, demons, gods, ghosts or angels,

Sciences does not use any universal negatives. If there were empirical evidence of angels et al. being involved in a natural process then it would be part of the scientific explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, they are more in line with pantheism.

More like Sadducees, actually.

Acts 23:8a For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit:

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually I'd say I'm following the evidence.

As already shown, you aren't following the evidence. When it is shown that there is no bony fish at all in any of the earliest fossil bearing sediments you come up with excuses as to why they are not there.

One myth I mentioned has already been exposed in this thread - the myth that the academic peer-review process is a highly effective system that weeds out most error and bias. That is clearly untrue.

We are saying that it is the MOST effective method. You have not been able to show otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there were empirical evidence of angels et al. being involved in a natural process then it would be part of the scientific explanation.

I take it guardian angels are off your list of approved entities?

 

[lifepsyop]

Please, feel free to explain to me what ideological influence could have caused evolution to spring to the forefront of biological understanding and stay there for some 150 years.

Evolution existed as an ideology amongst the institutional hegemony before Charles Darwin was even born. Do you think that might be a clue that some people had an interest in seeing it promoted?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution existed as an ideology amongst the institutional hegemony before Charles Darwin was even born. Do you think that might be a clue that some people had an interest in seeing it promoted?

Then why wasn't Lamark promoted?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why wasn't Lamark promoted?

Darwin grew up hearing his father and grandfather discussing evolution.

But no one in his time could explain how it worked, and evolution was shunned as a viable process.

It wasn't until Darwin proposed the breakthrough technology -- natural selection -- that evolution took off like a bat out of Hell, which is where it came from.

 

[Colter]

Just to make sure we are on the same page . . .

Are you agreeing that science is not dogmatic?

"Scientist" can be dogmatic, not true science as a discipline. True science deals only with materials and facts.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It's basically an admission that, regardless of the strength and weaknesses of Evolution theory, it will still be enshrined as unquestionable dogma on philosophical grounds.

This automatically makes the theory suspect because there is so much clearly ideological investment in it.
. . . . .

No a theory that is so well established as to convince the vast majority of scientists is NOT automatically wrong just because of that.

You want a theory to be wrong, bring out some evidence.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

So instead of saying "they", someone should instead say "you", or me, in whatever subject the person supports? So when I say "they" as in evolutionists, you would prefer I blame "you" personally for "their" mistakes???? It's not your fault you were misled.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I have no intention of arguing grammar with you. Perhaps instead you could address this recent post of mine which you seem to have missed:

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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I have no intention of arguing grammar with you. Perhaps instead you could address this recent post of mine which you seem to have missed:

Why? You have never addressed mine in any reasonable manner except to ask that I "believe".

Tell me why I should accept that creatures evolve over time into other creatures when observations of nature show breed mates with breed and another new breed comes into being? That "they" misinterpret breeds in the fossil record as a new species, when clearly all breeds of dogs belong to the same species, sounds like a personal problem "they" have with accepting reality and letting go of a theory clearly flawed.

Those missing links that have led "them" down fruitless paths are not missing, they never existed. Just as transitional forms do not exist between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook. Explain to me why I must ignore empirical evidence in favor of a theory that was falsified long ago? Neither the T. Horridus nor the T. Prorsus are a separate species - just new breeds suddenly appearing in the fossil record, just as we observe in real life. No transitional forms are found between them, except the natural transition we see that occurs when a new breed begins mating predominantly within it's own breed, and the features peculiar to that breed become fixed.

This is why all T-Rex are T-Rex, from the first to the last. As all Husky remain Husky from the first to the last. Nothing evolved into the T-Rex, and nothing evolved into the Chinook. So "their" mere suppositions against what is observed, frankly falls entirely short of being even classified as a scientific theory.

You may have any "faith" you so choose, freedom of will and all that, just don't ask me to accept something clearly unreasonable and contrary to the data and what is observed.

 

[TheBear]

You think about that the next time I ask a simple question and get a five minute video to watch in response.

It's not like I posted a two hour lecture. 5 minutes. That's it. And if you really want to cut some more time, start at the 1:30 mark ... which brings it down to 3 1/2 minutes. Are you so impatient and OCD that a few minutes of video is too traumatic for you? Do ya bust a gasket???

Your video deserved it.

"My" video deserved at least a "Thank you for your time and effort in finding and posting this for me.". "My" video was intended to help you. I was intended to show you the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. And, my words don't come across as clear as hers. So, I thought it would be better that she speak.


So, watch the video. It won't kill ya. At worst, you may actually learn something new. (and yes I realize that it may cause you to change your mind about some things, but the pain doesn't last long and you'll be better in the long run)

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Why? You have never addressed mine in any reasonable manner except to ask that I "believe".

Tell me why I should accept that creatures evolve over time into other creatures when observations of nature show breed mates with breed and another new breed comes into being? That "they" misinterpret breeds in the fossil record as a new species, when clearly all breeds of dogs belong to the same species, sounds like a personal problem "they" have with accepting reality and letting go of a theory clearly flawed.

Those missing links that have led "them" down fruitless paths are not missing, they never existed. Just as transitional forms do not exist between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook. Explain to me why I must ignore empirical evidence in favor of a theory that was falsified long ago? Neither the T. Horridus nor the T. Prorsus are a separate species - just new breeds suddenly appearing in the fossil record, just as we observe in real life. No transitional forms are found between them, except the natural transition we see that occurs when a new breed begins mating predominantly within it's own breed, and the features peculiar to that breed become fixed.

This is why all T-Rex are T-Rex, from the first to the last. As all Husky remain Husky from the first to the last. Nothing evolved into the T-Rex, and nothing evolved into the Chinook. So "their" mere suppositions against what is observed, frankly falls entirely short of being even classified as a scientific theory.

You may have any "faith" you so choose, freedom of will and all that, just don't ask me to accept something clearly unreasonable and contrary to the data and what is observed.

So on fact you admit that there is a gradation of morphologies beyween T. horridus and T. prorsus, you just don't want to call it evolution. Correct?

And let's not forget that you are basing your claim on the existence of T.X, a hypothetical triceratops for which there is no evidence.