• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Creationists vs "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists"

Stuu

New member
Such a cute story.... there are ALL kinds of problems with the "big bang" and YET many here present it as the only solution. They do so based on "consensus" and NOT on the scientific evidence. That's where the fallacy comes in.
By all means get back to us when you know what you are talking about.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
There is no such thing as a scientific consensus. It is a contradiction in terms. Science is the process of eliminating ideas because of evidence, reason or logic. Consensus has no part to play, regardless of how many experts are involved.
Well if science is under such an illusion that it has not realised the consensus they reach or attempt to reach on just about every modern point of research has no credibility, you should write a letter to Nature and explain it to the world's scientists. I am sure they will be swayed by the power of your detailed argument. Do get back to us when you have done that.

On the other hand it could be that your opinion has absolutely no validity whatever.

Stuart
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well if science is under such an illusion that it has not realised the consensus they reach or attempt to reach on just about every modern point of research has no credibility, you should write a letter to Nature and explain it to the world's scientists. I am sure they will be swayed by the power of your detailed argument. Do get back to us when you have done that.

On the other hand it could be that your opinion has absolutely no validity whatever.

Stuart

All you're doing is counting the number of people who are on your side and declaring yourself the winner because you think there are more with you than are with me.

Wake us up when you're ready for a rational discussion.
 

Stuu

New member
All you're doing is counting the number of people who are on your side and declaring yourself the winner because you think there are more with you than are with me.
Yes, that would be a second reason why your opinion on this topic carries little importance.

But that too is irrelevant because, as you are still failing to grasp, opinion counts for nothing in science.

Stuart
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You're an intelligent person with an interest in science. I think it is not fitting of your abilities that you accuse others of argumentum ad populum when actually you are committing the logical fallacy of equivocation.

Scientific consensus is not appealing to the majority. It is a discussion by experts working in interrelated fields that seeks to take account of the sum total of evidence brought to the conversation by all participants. That could be via conferences or discussions via the literature, for example. A consensus could arise if a model is developed and none of the participants can provide evidence to disprove it. That doesn't mean the consensus is the last word on a question, it just means they all go back to work to learn more and try to find flaws in that consensus model, which is the day job of a scientist.

I would be interested to know how this same process has been applied to your views of what has happened in the past. Do they carry the robustness of scientific consensus?

Stuart
How is it even possible for people say such contradictory things in the same breath?! I really, honestly, just cannot wrap my head around it.

You state that consensus is not appealing to the majority and then go on to describe how it is precisely that. Is it that you are thinking that "the majority" refers to the majority of everyone instead of the majority of those forming the consensus? That's the only way that what you said here can make any sense whatsoever.

Have you ever asked yourself who gets to decide what the consensus opinion is and how it is determined? Is there a vote that they take? If so, where and when was this vote taken and who administered it (i.e. to whom where the votes submitted and who counted them)? If not that, then by what means was the consensus position determined and by whom?

And you're so wrong about the declared consensus not being the last word, it so totally is. Or at least it is on issues such as evolution and climate change. Any sufficiently loud opposition to the consensus is the end of a career for the one who voices it. That's because the consensus isn't about science it's about politics. It's about money and its about power. If you think otherwise then you're just naive.

I should point out that there is a place for scientific consensus, by the way. When the evidence is less than conclusive, there needs to be discussion about which direction to take the research and a consensus among those doing the work about which avenue of research to go down next makes perfectly valid sense. Otherwise, resources are quickly spread too thin and progress is bogged down in a quagmire of disparate activities that are all pointing is different directions. This kind of consensus would only apply to rather small groups of scientists who are working together trying to achieve a particular goal or to answer a particular question. Bell Laboratories, for example, only has so many researchers and so many lab technicians and they have a board of directors and investors to answer to for the results they achieve (or the lack thereof) and so it doesn't make sense to go down every rabbit trail that presents itself. Consensus is one way to manage the decision making process about which questions are worth getting the answer for and which are better left for someone else to answer.

Consensus in this sense cannot apply to either evolution nor climate change because neither of them are even science any longer. Not only is the "consensus" simply declared to be what it is arbitrarily by those in positions of political power but there is literally no actual evidence for either evolution nor man-caused climate change.

Clete
 

Stuu

New member
How is it even possible for people say such contradictory things in the same breath?! I really, honestly, just cannot wrap my head around it.

You state that consensus is not appealing to the majority and then go on to describe how it is precisely that. Is it that you are thinking that "the majority" refers to the majority of everyone instead of the majority of those forming the consensus? That's the only way that what you said here can make any sense whatsoever.

Have you ever asked yourself who gets to decide what the consensus opinion is and how it is determined? Is there a vote that they take? If so, where and when was this vote taken and who administered it (i.e. to whom where the votes submitted and who counted them)? If not that, then by what means was the consensus position determined and by whom?

And you're so wrong about the declared consensus not being the last word, it so totally is. Or at least it is on issues such as evolution and climate change. Any sufficiently loud opposition to the consensus is the end of a career for the one who voices it. That's because the consensus isn't about science it's about politics. It's about money and its about power. If you think otherwise then you're just naive.

I should point out that there is a place for scientific consensus, by the way. When the evidence is less than conclusive, there needs to be discussion about which direction to take the research and a consensus among those doing the work about which avenue of research to go down next makes perfectly valid sense. Otherwise, resources are quickly spread too thin and progress is bogged down in a quagmire of disparate activities that are all pointing is different directions. This kind of consensus would only apply to rather small groups of scientists who are working together trying to achieve a particular goal or to answer a particular question. Bell Laboratories, for example, only has so many researchers and so many lab technicians and they have a board of directors and investors to answer to for the results they achieve (or the lack thereof) and so it doesn't make sense to go down every rabbit trail that presents itself. Consensus is one way to manage the decision making process about which questions are worth getting the answer for and which are better left for someone else to answer.

Consensus in this sense cannot apply to either evolution nor climate change because neither of them are even science any longer. Not only is the "consensus" simply declared to be what it is arbitrarily by those in positions of political power but there is literally no actual evidence for either evolution nor man-caused climate change.

Clete

Stuart
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

This is not "scientific" consensus. There is no such thing as a scientific consensus. That phrase is a contradiction in terms. Science is the process of throwing out ideas based on evidence, reason and logic.

What you're presenting is "consensus among scientists," which has very little scientific value.
 
Top