1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Argumentum ad populum

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by nPeace, Aug 14, 2019.

  1. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,255
    Ratings:
    +3,981
    Religion:
    atheist
    No. Not many facets of a precious stone. Many different cubic zirconias with many different people all proclaiming: "Mine is the real diamond!"
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,255
    Ratings:
    +3,981
    Religion:
    atheist
    Without commenting on your "two generations" assertion, I'd still like to see your definition of "species". No Google cut and pastes.
     
  3. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    As I said, there's really not such a thing as "species" and there are merely collections of similar individuals. No two individuals have exactly the same genes. It is this individuality of life and consciousness which leads to change in "species". The concept of origin of species is an absurdity since individuals have origins and are never exactly like their parents and can be so different as to not even really constitute the same "species". New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior.

    I seriously doubt that any "definition" of "species" can account for the complexity of the reality of the groupings of life that exist.

    I define a "generation" as the length of time required from conception to the average age of reproduction of an individual for that specific "species". Changes require more than a single generation because mating naturally occurs between younger and older individuals. ie- survivors of bottlenecks will typically be of various generations and they'll continue to reproduce for a couple of generations.

    "Species" is just a word because every member of a "species" is an individual and has a different (though similar) consciousness. Each has distinctive patterns of behavior which is based on its genes and knowledge.
     
  4. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,808
    Ratings:
    +1,326
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I told you that was not true.
    Can you prove that to be true? Where did you get it from?

    If that were true, then science would never have to change, adjust, or discard anything, in order to catch up, or meet with anything - any knowledge.
    Unless, you agree that before the term science was coined, there was knowledge in advance.

    You keep saying, "As you know", but I have no idea what you are saying.
    I know that much of what scientists agree on, are merely opinions, and not reality.
    Do you think the best opinion is somehow reality? Not I.

    I know science is an ongoing study, which does not end. I am not going to say something is not wrong, when scientists themselves say, it could be.

    Provided you are willing to consider argument and questions presented to you, and not ignore them, as you are constantly doing, I don't see how else that is possible.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,808
    Ratings:
    +1,326
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Okay. Thanks.
    You are smart. :D
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  6. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,808
    Ratings:
    +1,326
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Not trying to drag you into anything... honestly. :innocent:

    So as long as a "scientist" submits papers, that person is a "real" scientist... even if his/her/its papers never ever produces any fruitful results, are always wrong, or are often fraudulent...

    Now that you are here - not dragging you into any fight or anything... :innocent: Just would like your opinion.
    Why do you suppose particular persons opposed nPeace's posts where he says, 'There is bad science.' Yet said persons say that they are "scientists", and then they are "REAL scientists"? :shrug:

    Really, I shouldn't be asking you, because you are not said person. ;)
    Gotta get something to eat. Be right back.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  7. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    4,808
    Ratings:
    +1,326
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    No. This is very much not true.

    I can live with "some". That's true. In the same way that some of the ideas now has changed, and will continue to.

    I don't understand what you are saying here.
    By old views, do you mean those that existed before the scientists came along, or at the time of the scientists?

    Anyone studying something, and not making advancement in understanding... something must be wrong.

    What scientists discovered, in some cases, was already known.
    What scientists think is right, is not necessarily right, in many cases.
    In fact, imagine being incredibly accurate, only to realize you were incredibly wrong.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  8. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,759
    Ratings:
    +2,828
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    But again you failed to state clearly what you mean by 'truth', what test will tell us whether any statement about reality is true or not.

    Are you actually proceeding here without clear ideas on the subject?
    The demonstration is easy. Truth is not absolute, merely retrospective. Thus if you place yourself in, say, Babylon at the time of the captivity, and you ask the leading sages of the day whether the earth is flat, they'll reply, Yes, of course it is ─ use your eyes! So the statement 'The earth is flat' was true back then (and a flat earth, shaped either like a rectangle or a circle, is the only model used in the bible). Or go back to 1887 when Michelson and Morley are about to conduct their experiment, and ask the leading physicists of the day, 'Does light propagate in the lumeniferous ether?' and they'd reply, Yes.

    Or take 2019. We walk through the physics department of our local university, and we say, 'Is the Higgs boson real?' and they say, 'Yes' ─ and they might add that we know it's real because in 2012 it satisfied the test used by scientists that the odds were less than a million to one that the LHC results on which the conclusion was based were instead due to chance. (That is, it wasn't true till 2012.)

    Truth is the best opinion of the best informed people from time to time.

    And when I say a statement is true, I mean it accurately corresponds with / reflects reality.
    On the exact contrary, science is always a work in progress; or as Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified. Since science examines reality using empiricism and induction, nothing protects its conclusions from new information we may discover tomorrow ─ or never discover.
    We're talking about the best informed opinions.
    No, the map is not the territory, but the best opinion available to us from time to time is the standard for truth. We're not talking about 'mere' opinions, and there are no absolute statements, so what's the option?

    Do you say we can instead make absolute statements about reality? I don't. Science doesn't. If you do, give me an example of an absolute statement relevant to what we're talking about.
    What argument did you present that I ignored? What question of yours did I ignore?

    Please don't forget to provide the test you use to determine whether statements about reality are true or not.
     
    #248 blü 2, Aug 19, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  9. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    41,516
    Ratings:
    +3,348
    but you caught that one liner......wherein God draws down on the devil....

    What are YOU doing here?
     
  10. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    41,516
    Ratings:
    +3,348
    seems you have a gem of your own

    and you think no one else has a better one
     
  11. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,759
    Ratings:
    +2,828
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Wondering about your interpretations, amongst other things.

    Here's another one, from Jack Keats:

    They glide, like phantoms, into the wide hall;
    Like phantoms, to the iron porch, they glide;
    Where lay the Porter, in uneasy sprawl,
    With a huge empty flaggon by his side:
    The wakeful bloodhound rose, and shook his hide,
    But his sagacious eye an inmate owns:
    By one, and one, the bolts full easy slide:—
    The chains lie silent on the footworn stones;—​
    The key turns, and the door upon its hinges groans.

    And they are gone: ay, ages long ago
    These lovers fled away into the storm.
    That night the Baron dreamt of many a woe,
    And all his warrior-guests, with shade and form
    Of witch, and demon, and large coffin-worm,
    Were long be-nightmar'd. Angela the old
    Died palsy-twitch'd, with meagre face deform;
    The Beadsman, after thousand aves told,​
    For aye unsought for slept among his ashes cold.
     
    #251 blü 2, Aug 19, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2019
  12. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,757
    Ratings:
    +4,325
    You seem very confused. Do you or do you not understand that "evolution" is the word we give to the process of allele frequency changes over time in living populations, and that this is an observed, proven phenomenon?

    Okay. So can you provide evidence that dramatic evolutionary changes only occur over periods of less than two generations?

    Again, you seem confused. Evolution simply refers to "change in allele frequency over time in living populations". What you are referring to is natural selection, which is one of the driving forces OF evolution. To use my earlier metaphor, it's like you're confusing gravity and mass.

    Care to provide a quote?

    That's how punctuated equilibrium occurs, but can you give any evidence that this is the ONLY circumstance under which evolution occurs?

    True, but this process also occurs in nature - just not normally as quickly. A natural, selective process results in less favourable (for survival) traits being gradually removed from the gene pool, and more favourable traits pervading.

    Yes. For example, we now know that genes exist - Darwin didn't. We are also aware of punctuated equilibrium and horizontal gene transfer - both things that Darwin couldn't have known. But that doesn't mean his theory of gradual change doesn't apply or can be thrown out entirely. Gradual changes DO occur. Evolution is not exclusively driven by punctuated equilibrium.

    Now you're just rambling. Do you or do you not accept that there are aspects of our biology that don't affect behaviour but may affect our likelihood to survive and/or pass on our genes?

    We're not talking about anomalies. The theory of evolution is universally supported by the facts.

    Ring species - Wikipedia
    Natural selection at work
    Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    12,110
    Ratings:
    +11,748
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Yes, of course. But that doens't mean we will suddenly discover that the Sun orbits the Earth.

    I am certainly NOT talking about the views before the scientists came along. For the most part, those were just completely wrong. Folk ideas tend to be a bizarre mix of imagination, a few insights, and mythology.

    I am talking about how scientific ideas are changed over time. So, we have an initial scientific thoery A and it gets changed to a new scientific theory B.

    When this happens theory A gives a good approximation to what we observe for a certain range of phenomena. But, we have found a situation where A doesn't give an accurate description. The theory B is proposed and adopted because it explains everything that A got right and *also* explains what A got wrong. Furthermore, B typically even explains what A got right to a better approximation.

    OK, and science does this in every area it studies.

    Usually false.

    Well, in those things where you were incredibly accurate, that accuracy won't change. If we have 5 decimal places of accuracy, then any new thoery will be expected to have at least 6 decimal places of accuracy. That is an improvement.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    3,155
    Ratings:
    +2,255
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You mean, in the first public incarnation of the idea of evolution, centuries ago?
    Owkay. Even if he did, or even if he did in the 25th version - it doesn't really matter as it's a teeny weeny outdated by now.

    No.
    For example, the e-colli in lenski's experiment that evolved the ability to metabolize citrate, most definatly weren't under threat of extinction. At all.

    Ha. That's called artificial selection and it is why in breeding programs, accomplishing evolutionary changes goes (or can go) much faster then in nature. Nature doesn't care about change. Nature cares about reproduction and survival. In artificial selection, we focus on a single trait, or a handfull of traits, and we completely zoom in on that - regardless of consequences.

    This is why plenty of fruits and dogs are actually no longer able of natural reproduction - because of our selection for specific traits with no regards to other things which in nature wouldn't happen.

    And the exact same happens when selection is done on the basis of survival and reproduction - which includes behavior and anatomical traits. You seem to forget that the environment in which species must survive is also ever-changing. Today it's for example, on average, cold in places where it used to be hot and vice versa.

    Species living in those area's must necessarily adapt to such environmental changes. Another option for them is to migrate to places with similar climate - but at that point, they'll STILL be confronted with a change in environment... they'll move into territories with new natural enemies (or lack of them!), new pathogens, new insects, new diets,........

    I have no clue how you can understand that (artificial) selection drives changes, but (natural) selection for some reason doesn't?

    Why does it matter what the parameters of selection are? As long as there is selection, there is selection.... regardless of humans deciding the parameters of the "fitness test", or if it is the environment that does it.


    There's a lot that Darwin didn't know, sure. There are things he got wrong, sure.
    But to say that what we know today is "much different" - that is just wrong.

    The core of the matter is still pretty much identical: reproduction with modification followed by natural selection. Pretty much the entire field of inquiry can be summed up and simplified to those 7 words.

    Darwin realised the core of the idea, smack on.

    That made no sense to me at all.

    What anomaly is there in evolution theory, in your opinion?

    [/QUOTE]

    :rolleyes:


    Denial. Not just a river in egypt.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    3,155
    Ratings:
    +2,255
    Religion:
    Atheist
    So..... what is a species?

    Try to make sense this time.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  16. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    3,155
    Ratings:
    +2,255
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No. If you work according to the scientific method. And that work, includes publishing your work in appropriate channels. That is to say, peer reviewed scientific journals.

    :rolleyes:
     
  17. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,539
    Ratings:
    +2,066
    Says the fellow that thinks "mutations" are like birth defects and "survival of the fittest" means "might makes right" and that a creature can just grow a "broccas area" if they need it and that carbonated water geysers were used to transport the blocks used to make the pyramids.
     
  18. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,539
    Ratings:
    +2,066
    Why lie like this?

    Surely you are not referring to your feeble attempt to rebut molecular phylogenetics?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,539
    Ratings:
    +2,066
    Right - but fantasy and 'make it up as needed' science - the sort you engage in - is totally awesome!


    I mean, you seem to think just making things up as needed is Okie Dokie - like when you wrote that the phrase "survival of the fittest" was invented to poke fun at Darwin, though you have been using it all along to mean "might makes right" with your dopey little slogans about how this was used to oppress people throughout history (inquisition-like, I suppose?).

    Or when you wrote about neuroanatomy and it came across like a 5th grader, complete with incorrect spellings and the notion that creatures can just up and decide to grow a part of their brain. Or when you are asked for evidence and you write 5 paragraphs of unsupported assertions.

    But sure - you tell us all about what "science" really is...:rolleyes:
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,539
    Ratings:
    +2,066
    Sounds like....

    .....

    Special
    Pleading...

    to me....
     
Loading...