Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[The Cadet]

Right because nobody is financially invested in perpetuating the Evolutionary narrative. After all, it's not like these institutions draw worldwide public support from being seen as the keepers of the truth about the origins of everything in the universe.

So the claim here is that Evolution is propped up by universities because changing their minds on the subject would lead to a loss of credibility? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You don't think you could gain a lot more funding by proving the current explanation wrong, providing a viable alternative, and providing evidence for said alternative?

That is a resounding no. First of all, evolution as defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations is the base of "Evolution" which is unquestioned and without doubt. It is the philosophical areas that are not as unquestioned nor without doubt. It is what is meant by evolution and what drive is behind it that is in question for some. Natural selection has always been the main driving force behind those changes and that is being questioned by some scientists and some are being ridiculed due to that.

 

[RickG]

Strawman. Demineralizing solutions are used to clean silkworm silk from cocoons. Doesn't affect the biological matter at all.

Yes, a technique borrowed from Archeologists and Paleontologists; and what solutions are used makes a big difference. Many decalcifaciation solutions do in fact affect biological matter depending upon what they are as well as the concentration and pH of the solutions.

Oh I agree the preservation is excellent - which is why we can discount claims of billions of years and quit pretending luck of the draw did it.

Oh! You agree preservation is excellent? Then why did you previously say it wasn't? Furthermore, the preservation has absolutely nothing to do with the age of it. The T-rex and other similar fossils possessing those characteristics were contained in Cretaceous strata. Would you care to engage me in a formal debate concerning dating methods? Hmmmm?

 

[RickG]

I wasn't referring to Schweitzer's work. There has been more than one discovery you know.

Then provide a specific citation.

 

[crjmurray]

That is a resounding no. First of all, evolution as defined as any genetic change in a population that is inherited over several generations is the base of "Evolution" which is unquestioned and without doubt. It is the philosophical areas that are not as unquestioned nor without doubt. It is what is meant by evolution and what drive is behind it that is in question for some. Natural selection has always been the main driving force behind those changes and that is being questioned by some scientists and some are being ridiculed due to that.

How would someone who disproved modern evolutionary theory, came up with an alternative, and provided actual evidence not receive every grant we currently have? He'll, they'd probably name a new grant after the scientist!

 

[bhsmte]

How would someone who disproved modern evolutionary theory, came up with an alternative, and provided actual evidence not receive every grant we currently have? He'll, they'd probably name a new grant after the scientist!

Anyone who knows anything about the culture and history of science, would know the above to be a driving force.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How would someone who disproved modern evolutionary theory, came up with an alternative, and provided actual evidence not receive every grant we currently have? He'll, they'd probably name a new grant after the scientist!

You would have been correct in days past. However, now with the head to head war between "Creationists" and "evolutionists" that is no longer true. New ideas that might be something "creationists" might use to support their position are strongly avoided and in some cases those who bring them are ridiculed as ID supporters even if they are not.

 

[dad]

dad, you are of course being a hypocrite by using the very science that you deny. And your claims are not even biblical.

If you want to claim the future is the same in the future told in the bible, when we live forever, and need no light of the sun, and animals change to eating grass, and we have spiritual bodies, and etc etc etc etc ...well you can make a fool of yourself by trying to make a case it is the same. Since all the stars fall and the very universe rolls up and is no more before that, and there are new heavens and earth also, I think lurkers should know you are not a serious debater. The past where Adam was to live forever, animals ate grass, spirits were among men, and all the things described in Genesis also cannot be waved away even if you hold your breath till you turn blue.

So, rather than waste our time with insane denial of what Scripture is all about, you must prove that this nature will be the same in the future and was at the dawn of time using fact and knowledge and actual science. You can't so you lose. Obviously. Be gracious about it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Right because nobody is financially invested in perpetuating the Evolutionary narrative. After all, it's not like these institutions draw worldwide public support from being seen as the keepers of the truth about the origins of everything in the universe.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You would have been correct in days past. However, now with the head to head war between "Creationists" and "evolutionists" that is no longer true. New ideas that might be something "creationists" might use to support their position are strongly avoided and in some cases those who bring them are ridiculed as ID supporters even if they are not.

I'm afraid this is all fantasy. Ceationism isn't even a consideration. It's a nothing. Outside of a few communities in america no one even thinks about that creationism thing from one year to the next. Seriously. It's about as big a consideration in science and the outside world as morris dancing is for you.

 

[lifepsyop]

Yes, you could say it is the Church of Evolution and its priesthood guards the Evolutionary Creation mythos.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm afraid this is all fantasy. Ceationism isn't even a consideration. It's a nothing. Outside of a few communities in america no one even thinks about that creationism thing from one year to the next. Seriously. It's about as big a consideration in science and the outside world as morris dancing is for you.

You are quite mistaken. Scientists are very aware of the "creationists" and are very careful not to write in public documents anything that might support their positions.

 

[Goonie]

You are quite mistaken. Scientists are very aware of the "creationists" and are very careful not to write in public documents anything that might support their positions.

Evidence please?

 

[bhsmte]

Evidence please?

Yea, I am sure scientists are shaking in their boots and expending a lot of energy in regards to thinking about creationism in their work.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, you could say it is the Church of Evolution and its priesthood guards the Evolutionary Creation mythos.

Which explains why certain Christians are always up in arms over it -- they never could handle competition.


...or is it trademark infringement?

 

[RickG]

You are quite mistaken. Scientists are very aware of the "creationists" and are very careful not to write in public documents anything that might support their positions.

Perhaps you might ask those creationists who actually have scientific credentials why none of the science they have had published in the mainstream scientific journals support creationism; rather, the only support for creationism is in the creationist literature. For example, Andrew Snelling, a geologist who has no problem with an old earth in the mainstream peer review literature, but does have a problem with it in the creationist literature.

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm afraid this is all fantasy. Ceationism isn't even a consideration. It's a nothing. Outside of a few communities in america no one even thinks about that creationism thing from one year to the next. Seriously. It's about as big a consideration in science and the outside world as morris dancing is for you.

And the powers that be want it to stay that way. Soon as you talk about something that hints at creation having some validity, you will be centered out, tarred, feathered, drawn and quartered, intellectually of course.

 

[Goonie]

And the powers that be want it to stay that way. Soon as you talk about something that hints at creation having some validity, you will be centered out, tarred, feathered, drawn and quartered, intellectually of course.

Once again evidence?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, a technique borrowed from Archeologists and Paleontologists; and what solutions are used makes a big difference. Many decalcifaciation solutions do in fact affect biological matter depending upon what they are as well as the concentration and pH of the solutions.

And since she didn't dissolve them away when finding them by accident - we can pretty well assume she wasn't using too strong a solution to begin with.

[quore]Oh! You agree preservation is excellent? Then why did you previously say it wasn't?[/quote]

Excuse me? I believe you have the wrong person addressed. You might go back and re-read who said what.

Furthermore, the preservation has absolutely nothing to do with the age of it. The T-rex and other similar fossils possessing those characteristics were contained in Cretaceous strata. Would you care to engage me in a formal debate concerning dating methods? Hmmmm?

Sure, since you have never once dated that Cretaceous sedimentary rock the fossils were found in, nor the fossils. Because when we do they all give a consistent dating of around 45,000 years. And I also think you keep forgetting what I actually believe - which is not a young earth scenario to begin with.

Before we can discuss dating methods, we first need to discuss Relativity in your accelerating universe and its effect on decay rates, and Fermi's Interaction which was found to violate parity - of which radiometric dating is based thereon. So how about you first show radiometric dating is reliable beyond 60,000 years max? And yes, that also includes the other dating methods which use the same formula's found to violate parity long ago - and was just never revised when the electroweak theory was.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Perhaps you might ask those creationists who actually have scientific credentials why none of the science they have had published in the mainstream scientific journals support creationism; rather, the only support for creationism is in the creationist literature. For example, Andrew Snelling, a geologist who has no problem with an old earth in the mainstream peer review literature, but does have a problem with it in the creationist literature.

I guess that would depend on what you mean by support of creationism. What do you define as creationism?