Creationists vs "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists"

[Stuu]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Stripe]

Opinion counts for nothing in science.

That's right! :thumb:

Now, when you have something sensible and useful to contribute, let us know. :thumb:

 

[Right Divider]

By all means get back to us when you know what you are talking about.

Stuart

Hilarious

 

[Stuu]

Now, when you have something sensible and useful to contribute, let us know.

You must have missed it then.

Stuart

 

[Clete]

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]

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]

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.

 

[chair]

What do scientists know, anyhow?

 

[Right Divider]

What do scientists know, anyhow?

Fun stuff

 

[marke]

Below is an image of Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3:
.

This supernova is located ~27,000 light years away from Earth, meaning that it takes at least 27,000 years for the light from this supernova to reach Earth. Try making any kind of scientific sense out of that with the assumption of a 6,000 year old universe.

But wait! It gets worse. This is a supernova, meaning that it is the remnants of an exploded star. Stars have very long lifespans. The largest stars have the shortest lifespans--as little as 10 million years, while smaller stars can last for around 10 billion years. So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old?

How old was the sun on day five after God created it on day 4? Billions of years old? That is what foolish quack wannabe scientist speculators must think.

 

[marke]

We have observational evidence that Supernova remnant G1.9+0.3 is ~27,000 light years away, meaning that it takes at least 27,000 light years for the light from that supernova to reach Earth so we can see it. So how did we get a supernova remnant from a dead star whose light takes over 27,000 years to reach us in a universe that is only 6,000 years old? Remember, a star doesn't just form one day and blow up the next. Stars have lifespans. So we have to factor in the lifespan of the star before it blew up, and then factor in the time it takes for the light from that supernova to reach Earth so we can see it. The challenge for you is to account for all of that time while still maintaining that the universe is 6,000 years old.

Or you can just believe whatever you want to believe and forget about the science.

Secularists and assorted atheists assume God must be lying about creating the universe because they see signs in the heavens they think prove beyond doubt that God did not create the heavens. Fools who reject God are not as smart as they think they are and their conclusions are not irrefutable in spite of their total commitment to the flawed interpretations of data.

 

[marke]

Read all about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Scientific consensus is a myth when it comes to speculative science which is contradicted by facts and data, such as global warming and evolution. The appearance of scientific consensus is the result of massive numbers of people going along with the popular narrative without doing their own study and research. Going along with the popular narratives creates fewer problems for the compliant due to the emotional insistence of mob supporters that everyone agrees with the generally accepted mob narrative for reasons not related to scientific excellence.

 

[chair]

Secularists and assorted atheists assume God must be lying about creating the universe because they see signs in the heavens they think prove beyond doubt that God did not create the heavens. Fools who reject God are not as smart as they think they are and their conclusions are not irrefutable in spite of their total commitment to the flawed interpretations of data.

The problem isn't in what God says. The problem is in what the Bible says, or in what people interpret the Bible as saying.

Can you prove that the Bible is God's word? Can you prove that it is meant to be accurate by scientific standards? You can't- not without invoking the Bible itself.

 

[Stripe]

The problem isn't in what God says. The problem is in what the Bible says, or in what people interpret the Bible as saying. Can you prove that the Bible is God's word? Can you prove that it is meant to be accurate by scientific standards? You can't- not without invoking the Bible itself.

Science is the process of throwing out ideas that are proven to be impossible. Why do people who declare a strict adherence to the scientific method refuse to allow others the same?

 

[marke]

The problem isn't in what God says. The problem is in what the Bible says, or in what people interpret the Bible as saying.

Can you prove that the Bible is God's word? Can you prove that it is meant to be accurate by scientific standards? You can't- not without invoking the Bible itself.

Nobody has to prove the Bible true. The Bible proves itself true, as demonic opponents have found out so tragically so many thousands of times throughout history.

 

[Right Divider]

The problem isn't in what God says. The problem is in what the Bible says, or in what people interpret the Bible as saying.

What does God say?

What is the "problem in what the Bible says"?

Can you prove that the Bible is God's word?

That's what all atheists say.

Can you prove that it is meant to be accurate by scientific standards?

Why would GOD's WORD not be "accurate by scientific standards"?

You can't- not without invoking the Bible itself.

You really do hate God's Word, don't you?

 

[ok doser]

Can you prove that the Bible is God's word?

Of course