Argumentum ad populum

[nPeace]

Well the scientific consensus also says the earth is round, we are held down by gravity and the laws of thermodynamics are a thing.
Lol you going to argue against those too?

The scientific consensus says and said a lot of things - many wrong, a few maybe right.
What's your point? Or perhaps you missed the OP's. I suggest you did.

 

[sooda]

You need to study history.

LUTHER AND HITLER
Martin Luther (1483-1546) has long been famous for founding the Protestant Reformation and the Lutheran church. For his defiance of Catholic supremacy, Luther is often upheld as a defender of free speech and religious tolerance. Few ideas could be further from the truth.

What Luther advocated was the replacement of Catholic religious persecution and oppression with Protestant religious persecution and oppression.

He demanded strict obedience to temporal authorities, and he preached that heretics be executed. These views very specifically included other Christians, such as Baptists.

Luther was also consumed by a hatred for the Jews, as many of the quotes below make clear. Indeed, prior to the horror of Kristallnacht in 1938 it could be said that Hitler's views on the Jews were actually more moderate than Luther's. In fact Kristallnacht took place on Luther's birthday. Hitler and the Nazis repeatedly presented Luther as a role model.

It was Luther, not Hitler, who first called for burning down all the synagogues of Germany and herding the Jews into slave labor concentration camps.

Evangelicals don't study history or science.

 

[cladking]

What's your point? Or perhaps you missed the OP's. I suggest you did.

The problem here is that words like "skeptic" and "consensus" have changed their meanings over the last fifty years.

"Skeptic" used to mean someone who doubted claims of all sorts until they were established by cold hard fact. Now it means any individual who latches on to and parrots the latest soup of the day science.

"Consensus" used to mean the state of the art in terms of theory and best guesses about the nature of something. Now it means "Reality" as determined by the opinion of "Peers".

 

[nPeace]

I'm saying that REAL scientists follow the scientific method. If you have family and friends who are REAL scientists then they follow the scientific method. Do your friends and family who are scientists accept that evolution scientists also use the scientific method?

"REAL scientists follow the scientific method"
Let me ask the poster below you what they think. @sayak83 is that true?
In regard to your question @sayak83, I didn't see you respond to my last post, so I thought you had nothing more to say.
I didn't bother pushing anything else, since I wanted to be sure we were going to be "on even keel".

 

[QuestioningMind]

"REAL scientists follow the scientific method"
Let me ask the poster below you what they think. @sayak83 is that true?
In regard to your question @sayak83, I didn't see you respond to my last post, so I thought you had nothing more to say.
I didn't bother pushing anything else, since I wanted to be sure we were going to be "on even keel".

Are you not capable of answering the question yourself? Do you believe that there are REAL scientists out there who do NOT employ the scientific method? If so, what makes them scientists?

 

[nPeace]

LOL If you wrote it and you're confused... no wonder everyone else is. You appear to be claiming that relying on experts in a field of study for information on that field of study is somehow a foolish thing to do. When there is nearly universal consensus among experts it seems reasonable to me to accept that it is probably true. And when there is near universal consensus among scientist in every field of scientific study that the ToE is a valid scientific theory it seems reasonable to accept that they are probably right. Then add to that the fact that I can actually study the mountains of evidence that clearly supports the theory myself and accepting that evolution is a very teal process becomes a no-brainer.

Oh. So you admit that you are confused.
Please, why try to squeeze everyone in your boat. You need company to make you comfortable?
Yup. YOU, not everyone else, including myself, are the one that clearly is confused.
Read the OP again... if you did, and look at your post again.
Why is it we always have this problem... ?

Besides that, did you bother to read the short record of scientific consensus, in the OP? it's the spoiler, in case you didn't bother with it.
Also here is another...

Spoiler

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (of reproducible results by others), scholarly debate, and peer review.

 

[nPeace]

Your argument suffers from a major deficiency which I invite you to remedy.

What definition of 'truth' are you using here? What test will tell us whether a statement is true or not, do you say?

(My own definition is that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms to / accurately reflects objective reality. You obviously disagree, so what do you say instead?)

The problem with this is that objective reality is apparently subjective.
For example...
Can we objectively tell design or not?
Does objective reality dictate that, design requires a designer?
Does objective reality dictate that for us to have a system which is designed to carry out specific instructions, based on a "blueprint", or a "structure" of precisely coded instructions needed to be communicated... that an intelligent 'mind' must be involved?
What objective reality is opposed to these?

I believe objective reality can be, and often is seen as such, based on subjectivity. So there is really perhaps a minuscule amount of objective reality where man is concerned.
However, I believe there is objective reality to the one(s) in the absolute position to know and determine it.
So objective reality is, but man knows very little about those realities.

For me, the reason I believe with 99.99% certainty that I have the truth, is based on many reasons, but one is mentioned here...
1 Timothy 4:7-10, 15, 16 7 But reject irreverent false stories, like those told by old women. On the other hand, train yourself with godly devotion as your aim. 8 For physical training is beneficial for a little, but godly devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life now and the life that is to come. 9 That statement is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance. 10 This is why we are working hard and exerting ourselves, because we have rested our hope on a living God, who is a Savior of all sorts of men, especially of faithful ones.
15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.

In case you don't understand what the above is saying...
The statement, "For physical training is beneficial for a little, but godly devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life now and the life that is to come." is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Why?
Because we have rested our hope on a living God.
How do we know there is a living God?
Two reasons. 1. The "objective reality" that we see in the creative works of an intelligent designer, and 2. The information handed down by observers of "objective realities"... which has proven to be both reliable, and trustworthy.
We also have living proof of these realities.
Those I am not about to get into with you again. Concrete is a very hard substance. If it is well mixed, it takes a great deal of work and much energy to crack it, but steel... that needs a lot of time, and chemicals, to erode it. Or, we need a furnace.

 

[nPeace]

It's just a generalization, not a fallacy.

Why use it when debating, and arguing the point that something is true, unless it's the case they are saying, "This is true because look at this (statistic / agreement etc.)".
Many times I have responded with... Look at gay marriage (in the US). Because the majority accept it, it does not mean it is right.
This is the argument of the OP.
It's a fallacy based on how it is used.

 

[nPeace]

Scientific consensus is not the same as popular opinion.


I'm sorry if you can't comprehend that.
My advice is to learn about the scientific process and what is actually meant by "scientific consensus".

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't need your advice, as apparently you don't even seem to be responding to anything I said, including the OP.

As far as advice goes, I have none for people who use the kind of approach in this post. It seems to convey arrogance, one usually gets from a person 'puffed up with pride'.

Have you ever heared the phrase that the evidence for evolution is "overwhelming"? That there are "mountains of evidence"?

Many times. Too often, actually. It began to sound like a clanging bell, that just goes on, and does not stop.

This is why you encounter such diverse points in support of evolution.
Yes, all of these things support evolution by natural selection and common ancestry.

It's actually the strenght of the theory that there are SO MANY independent lines of evidence that ALL converge on the exact same answer.

ERV's, phylogenetics, comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, ring species, fused chromosomes, homologies, transitional fossils, the fossil record as a whole, artificial selection in breeding programs, geographic distribution of species........ ALL these things are consistent with evolution and falls in line with the testable predictions it makes.

So, yes, it certainly IS interesting that the evidence for this theory is so diverse and present everywhere we look. What is even more interesting, is how you apparantly see this as some kind counter argument for evolution?

You see, usually, when an idea has so many independent lines of evidence, it only strengthens the idea................................



There is need, because it illustrates just how well demonstrated / supported this theory is. Another way it is needed, is because sticking to just one thing will make people like pretend as if it is the "only" thing AND you'll handwave it away anyhow.



No scientific theory is.
However, evolution IS supported beyond any reasonable doubt.
By multiple independent lines of evidence, all converging on the same answer - as demonstrated by your own statements above.



Yea, "so many"..... Like, the full few dozen (creationists) out of thousands, if not millions, of active publishing scientists.



If your bible would say that the sun burns candle oil, fundamentalists such as yourself would question the sun burning oxygon.

The thing about the mountains of evidence, is that whenever one "piece" is presented, it is shown to be based on speculation, and assumptions.
This is why persons on these forums see the need to bring up another, with the same results.
Simply because they cannot refute that fact, for two reasons... 1. It's right there in the journals - staring everyone in the face, and 2. if it could not be refuted, every scientist would accept it... without question.
That isn't the case.

The mountain becomes a mudslide, every time someone pulls a piece of the "evidence" from it.

It's about you showing your ignorance by implying that "popular opinion" is somehow the same as "scientific consensus".

I never said that. Once again your arrogance is showing.
As to the implication, please, your pride is making it hard for you to understand simple statements in one little OP. That's terrible. don't you think?

Speaking of opinion, "scientific consensus" is often just that, even though it is claimed to be scientific truth.
It isn't. Not by a long stretch.
Again... it is written in the journals.
Scientific consensus - Wikipedia

 

[nPeace]

And was what the rationale that led you to this lucky outcome?
Or unlucky, depending on your hurry to meet Jesus.

Ciao

- viole

I'm surprised.
Why do you associate luck with science and medicine?
So you think millions of people get lucky, because they don't do things according to your world view?
It seems like you are saying, something is good, only when it is in agreement with what you believe.

 

[nPeace]

It's not argued that sound scientific proclamations come from consensus except perhaps by some of the anti-science contingent.

That may be your experience. Mine is different.

Sound science comes from the scientific method. Scientific consensus is merely a poll of what each qualified scientist active in the field has come to believe independently by examining the evidence.

Thanks.

Evolutionary theory has been confirmed by it's empirical adequacy. It works. It can be used to make successful predictions about what might and what cannot be found reality and has been applied to improve the human condition.



If you assume that God did it a priori, it is not science. It becomes pseudoscience as with the ID movement. Your evidence needs to point to a supernatural explanation more than a natural one to constitute evidence for a god.



Look and see is what science is. Think about what evidence is. It is that which is evident and is interpreted for significance. Contrast that with religion.



Did you have children. Are they different from you? If so, there was transgenerational genotypic and phenotypic change.

Are your children radically different from you? Are they also human. Are they male or female? Do they also have four limbs, two eyes, hair, etc.? If so, the change was modest - gradual.



Yes, look and see is often sufficient. Sometimes an experiment precedes the look and see part. We look and see the results. Sometimes the experiment has been done by nature and one merely looks and sees the result, as through a telescope.

Okay.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Oh. So you admit that you are confused.
Please, why try to squeeze everyone in your boat. You need company to make you comfortable?
Yup. YOU, not everyone else, including myself, are the one that clearly is confused.
Read the OP again... if you did, and look at your post again.
Why is it we always have this problem... ?

Besides that, did you bother to read the short record of scientific consensus, in the OP? it's the spoiler, in case you didn't bother with it.
Also here is another...

Spoiler

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (of reproducible results by others), scholarly debate, and peer review.

Sorry but rereading your confusing post doesn't make it any less confusing. If you're incapable of clarifying what you mean, then I'm pretty sure it wasn't a point worth hearing in the first place.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The problem with this is that objective reality is apparently subjective.
For example...
Can we objectively tell design or not?
Does objective reality dictate that, design requires a designer?
Does objective reality dictate that for us to have a system which is designed to carry out specific instructions, based on a "blueprint", or a "structure" of precisely coded instructions needed to be communicated... that an intelligent 'mind' must be involved?
What objective reality is opposed to these?

I believe objective reality can be, and often is seen as such, based on subjectivity. So there is really perhaps a minuscule amount of objective reality where man is concerned.
However, I believe there is objective reality to the one(s) in the absolute position to know and determine it.
So objective reality is, but man knows very little about those realities.

For me, the reason I believe with 99.99% certainty that I have the truth, is based on many reasons, but one is mentioned here...
1 Timothy 4:7-10, 15, 16 7 But reject irreverent false stories, like those told by old women. On the other hand, train yourself with godly devotion as your aim. 8 For physical training is beneficial for a little, but godly devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life now and the life that is to come. 9 That statement is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance. 10 This is why we are working hard and exerting ourselves, because we have rested our hope on a living God, who is a Savior of all sorts of men, especially of faithful ones.
15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.

In case you don't understand what the above is saying...
The statement, "For physical training is beneficial for a little, but godly devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life now and the life that is to come." is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance.
Why?
Because we have rested our hope on a living God.
How do we know there is a living God?
Two reasons. 1. The "objective reality" that we see in the creative works of an intelligent designer, and 2. The information handed down by observers of "objective realities"... which has proven to be both reliable, and trustworthy.
We also have living proof of these realities.
Those I am not about to get into with you again. Concrete is a very hard substance. If it is well mixed, it takes a great deal of work and much energy to crack it, but steel... that needs a lot of time, and chemicals, to erode it. Or, we need a furnace.

No, the problem appears to be that you are incapable of answering a simple question. Instead of just replying to the question: Do you believe that there are REAL scientists out there who do NOT employ the scientific method? If so, what makes them scientists? you feel compelled to dodge the question by asking a series of questions of your own that don't even apply to what I asked.

 

[nPeace]

No, the problem appears to be that you are incapable of answering a simple question. Instead of just replying to the question: Do you believe that there are REAL scientists out there who do NOT employ the scientific method? If so, what makes them scientists? you feel compelled to dodge the question by asking a series of questions of your own that don't even apply to what I asked.

Sorry. That was not in response to you.
I was going to respond to you, and then decided to forego a response until later.
Interestingly you did not pick up on that.
The automatic save feature on RF is a good feature, but can sometimes get in the way if not careful.

 

[nPeace]

@QuestioningMind I don't think you are trying to bully me. Are you?

 

[QuestioningMind]

@QuestioningMind I don't think you are trying to bully me. Are you?

Only if you consider me asking you questions that you apparently don't want to answer to be 'bullying'.

 

[ecco]

For me, the reason I believe with 99.99% certainty that I have the truth, is based on many reasons, but one is mentioned here...

The reason you believe with 99.99% certainty that you have the truth, is rooted primarily in your extensive indoctrination.

There are many "believers" who have come to different conclusions about "The Truth". You can't all be right.

 

[nPeace]

Only if you consider me asking you questions that you apparently don't want to answer to be 'bullying'.

Well yes I do.
I did not say I will not answer the question. So you apparently are demanding that I answer you now. Not to mention, claiming that I don't want to answer.
I have a reason for deferring the question to someone who is a practicing scientist.
Do you have a problem with that?

 

[ecco]

Those I am not about to get into with you again. Concrete is a very hard substance. If it is well mixed, it takes a great deal of work and much energy to crack it, but steel... that needs a lot of time, and chemicals, to erode it. Or, we need a furnace.

Water seeping into concrete can cause it to crack. The only chemical needed to erode steel is water. Don't you know that?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well yes I do.
I did not say I will not answer the question. So you apparently are demanding that I answer you now. Not to mention, claiming that I don't want to answer.
I have a reason for deferring the question to someone who is a practicing scientist.
Do you have a problem with that?

So sorry that you are so thin skinned that asking you questions constitutes 'bullying' in your mind. Perhaps a site like this where people ask questions isn't the best place for you.

And I DO have a problem with you dodging a simple question. I really don't care what this practicing scientist you know happens to think, because I asked YOU. Are YOU of the opinion that there are genuine scientists out there who do NOT use the scientific method? If not, what makes them scientists?

If you need to ask someone else what YOU think then attempting a conversation with YOU is apparently a worthless endeavor.