Vadasaurus and the assumption phenomena

[pshun2404]

Awesome - setting up your usual 'poor me pity me' strategy.

Odd that you engage in the very things you accuse me of doing, albeit less directly (more cowardly).

Simply defining everything as assumptions to justify your unwarranted rejection of things is a non-starter among adults.

As is nearly always the case, we see attacks on evolution, never any actual support for your own actual position.

There is a good reason that creationists almost never provide 'support' for creationism - the same general reason that conservatives almost never run on their record of helping the middle class and instead engage in the usual 'the libs are coming for your guns! They hate Jesus! America #1!' rhetoric.

Awesome - setting up your usual 'poor me pity me' strategy.

Not at all, just many cases of actual experience (oh that's right that does not count as acceptable evidence) yet here it is again.

 

[Speedwell]

Here is a question I hope you will answer?

Why speak the untrue or possible as if it is THE true (certainly you have been convinced this sci fi addition is accurate) and then criticize others who do the same thing though disagrees or makes people reason logically away from the pre-supposed conclusion?

Seriously!

Why make the masses (especially children and students) make the narrative appear to be THE fact? Don’t they realize this causes a certain cognitive dissonance and is a tool used to “shape” (engineer) public opinion? For many years now so many walk around believing the untrue or merely one possibility as actually an established reality!

IF it is true THEN why do this over and over, generation after generation, in presentations and textbooks? Shouldn’t the truth that it is suggested to some scientists or might have indicated be emphasized instead (for the sake of objectivity and intellectual integrity)?

Why not then blame the popularizers, textbook authors, teachers, producers of TV documentaries? Anyone who really understands science understands the provisional (and sometimes outright speculaltive) nature of scientific statements. Why not blame creationists, who complain that evolution is being presented as a "proven fact" when the only fact being presented is that creationism is fatuous nonsense? That's where the cognitive dissonance comes from.

 

[pshun2404]

Why not then blame the popularizers, textbook authors, teachers, producers of TV documentaries? Anyone who really understands science understands the provisional (and sometimes outright speculaltive) nature of scientific statements. Why not blame creationists, who complain that evolution is being presented as a "proven fact" when the only fact being presented is that creationism is fatuous nonsense? That's where the cognitive dissonance comes from.

I see it there as well! I just gave an example above. Not saying you are a "creationist" as a TAS or Orph might define it, but do YOU believe in a creator?

When Michael Turner was with FNAL I remember he had calculated that in the Big Bang all the matter and energy of this Universe sprang into existence in (if my memory serves me) 10 to the minus 36 seconds...why would it not be an "In the beginning" or "let there be light and there was light" interpretation for non-scientific ancients? Kovac and others later postulating on inflation theory (though never presenting their speculations as truth) proposed that in less than a second the universe went from sub-atomic to cosmic...(ideation/creation or bara and formation/making or yatzar are two pre-science aspects of this phenomena as the Bible describes the process but remember this information originally was being given to vary ancient and likely uneducated people long before Moses compiled these more ancient thoughts)...

So we have two perspectives at odds. One is that it all existed already (matter was, is, and always shall be, matter without end, Amen) and evolved into "Universe" over a long period of time, and then the other that said the original creation happened at an instant.

My position is that both are true...the original reality (all matter/energy, space and time, etc.) came into existence in a fraction of a second and then according to laws and principles in place already (to govern the behavior of matter/energy) began to evolve and become more. But admittedly I believe that which was when Universe was not from which Universe became is God.

 

[tas8831]

Why make the masses (especially children and students) make the narrative appear to be THE fact? Don’t they realize this causes a certain cognitive dissonance and is a tool used to “shape” (engineer) public opinion? For many years now so many walk around believing the untrue or merely one possibility as actually an established reality!

Are you referring to things like the birth of Jesus in a manger? The the USA was founded on Christian principles?

Things like that? Those things are portrayed as facts by large numbers of people, when they are, at best, assumptions or mere beliefs, engineered by those with a vested interest in making the masses manageable.

 

[Ophiolite]

You attack science, by equivocating science with sub-standard popularisations.

No I showed the difference (but I know you cannot admit this)

I can admit that your extensive use of rhetorical tricks and appearance of agenda driven expostulations, utterly conceals any hint that such is your intention.

If you chose to directly and honestly state that you are concerned about the misleading nature of some popularised science, you would find many members, currently opposing you, agreeing. Then we could move onto discuss how that could be tackled. Unfortunately you mix your oppposition to popular science media with your strong reservations about consensus views on evolution.

Edit: If you think the following is an ad hominem attack, please report this post. I'm not sure if it is ad hominem or not. I do know my intention is to move towards things we can agree on and clarify the things we don't. So, for what it's worth, here it is. Your writing style stinks. It obfuscates your intentions, derails serious discussion, creates 'ghost' strawmen and generally fails to deliver much of value. I recommend you change it.

 

[Speedwell]

I see it there as well! I just gave an example above. Not saying you are a "creationist" as a TAS or Orph might define it, but do YOU believe in a creator?

The trouble is, it is becoming very difficult to answer that question honestly without the risk of being branded a right-wing Evangelical Protestant, or being called a liar by them.

 

[pshun2404]

Are you referring to things like the birth of Jesus in a manger? The the USA was founded on Christian principles?

Things like that? Those things are portrayed as facts by large numbers of people, when they are, at best, assumptions or mere beliefs, engineered by those with a vested interest in making the masses manageable.

Nope, no and no!

 

[pshun2404]

I can admit that your extensive use of rhetorical tricks and appearance of agenda driven expostulations, utterly conceals any hint that such is your intention.

If you chose to directly and honestly state that you are concerned about the misleading nature of some popularised science, you would find many members, currently opposing you, agreeing. Then we could move onto discuss how that could be tackled. Unfortunately you mix your oppposition to popular science media with your strong reservations about consensus views on evolution.

Edit: If you think the following is an ad hominem attack, please report this post. I'm not sure if it is ad hominem or not. I do know my intention is to move towards things we can agree on and clarify the things we don't. So, for what it's worth, here it is. Your writing style stinks. It obfuscates your intentions, derails serious discussion, creates 'ghost' strawmen and generally fails to deliver much of value. I recommend you change it.

Great! Thanks for insults, now what about Vadasaurus and how it has been presented? What do YOU think?

 

[Ophiolite]

Great! Thanks for insults, now what about Vadasaurus and how it has been presented? What do YOU think?

I think there were no insults. If I lacked respect for you I wouldn't bother to engage with you.

I gave you a direct and honest expression of what I think. I hoped that it might encourage more directness and honesty from you. It was a faint hope, but I am an optimist. I've told you what I think.* You didn't like it. What more do you want?

*Executive Summary of my thoughts on this matter:

Since many of the media dealing with science popularisation are more concerned with entertainment (=revenue) than science their products can be replete with exaggeration, over-simplification and (because of inadequate knowledge) misinterpretation and gross errors. This is a serious problem for which there are several potential solutions.

You juxtapose your attacks on these popular media with comments about actual science. The distinction between your two arguments is obscure, so that it comes across as an attack on science. This viewpoint is substantiated by your rejection of many consensus views regarding evolution.

Apparently you do not acknowledge that this equivocation exists, or is a problem. I disagree.

 

[pshun2404]

I think there were no insults. If I lacked respect for you I wouldn't bother to engage with you.

I gave you a direct and honest expression of what I think. I hoped that it might encourage more directness and honesty from you. It was a faint hope, but I am an optimist. I've told you what I think.* You didn't like it. What more do you want?

*Executive Summary of my thoughts on this matter:

Since many of the media dealing with science popularisation are more concerned with entertainment (=revenue) than science their products can be replete with exaggeration, over-simplification and (because of inadequate knowledge) misinterpretation and gross errors. This is a serious problem for which there are several potential solutions.

You juxtapose your attacks on these popular media with comments about actual science. The distinction between your two arguments is obscure, so that it comes across as an attack on science. This viewpoint is substantiated by your rejection of many consensus views regarding evolution.

Apparently you do not acknowledge that this equivocation exists, or is a problem. I disagree.

Thanks.