Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Stuu]

Nope... you're wrong. Consensus proves nothing with regard to truth. Consensus simply means lots of people believe it.

I believe you to be a christian fundamentalist, if I may suggest that, and so you and I have a point of contention in the meaning and intent behind the use of the word truth. It's pretty clear that the creationist/christian fundamentalist approach to truth is that truth is already laid out in the Judeo-christian scriptures for anyone to read, and that whatever we observe will necessarily conform to that truth. If observations or theories don't match, then the only option is to dismiss those contradicting things as false, or in some way impossible.

The difficulty here is that you believe there is some ideal to be discovered in nature, and that it cannot be anything other than what is written. Stripe on the other hand only wants to talk about evidence because at that level you can often make interpretations that agree with truth, provided you only take the evidence one piece at a time.

So if you were to take that view to knowledge generally, of course consensus would mean nothing with regard to truth. For a religious fundamentalist the scriptures are not up for agreed interpretation, no matter how many agree or disagree.

Unlike religious fundamentalism, science doesn't have a predestined conclusion. Unlike creationism, evidence is taken collectively: the more evidence you have together the better the theory you can infer from it. Consensus, as I explained, is nothing more than a cross-checking exercise in which all possible evidence-based objections (not just opinion) are taken into account in everyone else's work and therefore resolved, with the important point that all researchers are still looking for further reasons for why they could be wrong.

If you want to understand the importance of consensus, I suggest that you need to stop thinking the way a religious fundamentalist thinks about truth, and think instead in terms of following the path the accumulating evidence takes you, and not abducting the evidence against its will and taking it for a ride to a predetermined destination as Mr. Brown does.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Then talk about the evidence.

Ice cores, dendrochronology, isochron radioisotope dating, fossil morphology seqences, endogenous retroviruses, differences in DNA base spelling, Widmanstatten patterns, intertstellar asteroids or comets and spectroscopy are nine examples of evidence discussed in this thread.

What evidence would you like to talk about?

Under Baz, they played like champions even when they lost.

I was a doubter at the start, perhaps even a sympathiser with the Ross Taylor camp when McCullum was given the captaincy. But what he brought was the attitude they needed to be world beaters, the fearless part and also the determination to enjoy the experience of playing cricket. It was even a lesson to Australia about how cricket should be played. So how do they recreate that with the loss of his force of personality?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

I believe you to be a christian fundamentalist, if I may suggest that, and so you and I have a point of contention in the meaning and intent behind the use of the word truth. It's pretty clear that the creationist/christian fundamentalist approach to truth is that truth is already laid out in the Judeo-christian scriptures for anyone to read, and that whatever we observe will necessarily conform to that truth. If observations or theories don't match, then the only option is to dismiss those contradicting things as false, or in some way impossible.

I believe you to be an atheist materialist, may I suggest that you go ahead and learn what truth means.

The difficulty here is that you believe there is some ideal to be discovered in nature, and that it cannot be anything other than what is written. Stripe on the other hand only wants to talk about evidence because at that level you can often make interpretations that agree with truth, provided you only take the evidence one piece at a time.

This is just more babbling not really knowing anything. The evidence is highly on the side of the creationist regarding the creation of the solar system. It does NOT conform to any materialists explanation....so believe what you want. You are on the losing side.

 

[Stuu]

I believe you to be an atheist materialist, may I suggest that you go ahead and learn what truth means. This is just more babbling not really knowing anything. The evidence is highly on the side of the creationist regarding the creation of the solar system. It does NOT conform to any materialists explanation....so believe what you want. You are on the losing side.

So I was right then.

Stuart

 

[Jonahdog]

The idea of a heliocentric solar system is not proven true because most people believe it. Consensus is not proof of anything but consensus.

You did not answer my question. Do you have a problem with the current consensus re: the heliocentric solar system? If not then it is not the fact of consensus that might be your problem in other areas but a simple lack of understanding of the science and/or an over reliance on ancient religious texts.

 

[Right Divider]

You did not answer my question. Do you have a problem with the current consensus re: the heliocentric solar system? If not then it is not the fact of consensus that might be your problem in other areas but a simple lack of understanding of the science and/or an over reliance on ancient religious texts.

Do you actually have a point? Besides just bashing the Bible?

 

[Jonahdog]

Do you actually have a point? Besides just bashing the Bible?

You still have not answered the question, Do you have a problem with the current consensus re: the heliocentric solar system? if so why?
I will try not to bash the bible, but will question your reliance on it to resolve scientific questions where information and facts gleaned over the past few thousand years provide a better understanding of the real world.

 

[Stripe]

I believe you to be a christian fundamentalist, if I may suggest that, and so you and I have a point of contention in the meaning and intent behind the use of the word truth. It's pretty clear that the creationist/christian fundamentalist approach to truth is that truth is already laid out in the Judeo-christian scriptures for anyone to read, and that whatever we observe will necessarily conform to that truth. If observations or theories don't match, then the only option is to dismiss those contradicting things as false, or in some way impossible.

This is called a presupposition. If our presuppositions are declared and open to falsification, we can be a useful part of a scientific discussion. Trying to parse what each of us means by "truth" is silly semantics. If you can't understand what is meant when a person says he believes something to be true and deal with it from a scientific perspective as appropriate, you're not going to be much use in a discussion over the evidence.

The difficulty here is that you believe there is some ideal to be discovered in nature, and that it cannot be anything other than what is written.

Not true in the slightest. Those who hold to the Bible should hold to its dictate that things be tested, not accepted blindly.

Stripe on the other hand only wants to talk about evidence because at that level you can often make interpretations that agree with truth, provided you only take the evidence one piece at a time.

:yawn:

So if you were to take that view to knowledge generally, of course consensus would mean nothing with regard to truth. For a religious fundamentalist the scriptures are not up for agreed interpretation, no matter how many agree or disagree.

Exactly. Neither is a scientific discussion in any way advanced my counting how many people agree with an idea.

[In] science ... evidence is taken collectively: the more evidence you have together the better the theory you can infer from it. Consensus, as I explained, is nothing more than a cross-checking exercise in which all possible evidence-based objections (not just opinion) are taken into account in everyone else's work and therefore resolved, with the important point that all researchers are still looking for further reasons for why they could be wrong.

You can remove all the babble about "consensus" from that and get to something like what science actually is.

If you want to understand the importance of consensus, I suggest that you need to stop thinking the way a religious fundamentalist thinks about truth, and think instead in terms of following the path the accumulating evidence takes you, and not abducting the evidence against its will and taking it for a ride to a predetermined destination as Mr. Brown does.

:yawn:

Ice cores, dendrochronology, isochron radioisotope dating, fossil morphology seqences, endogenous retroviruses, differences in DNA base spelling, Widmanstatten patterns, intertstellar asteroids or comets and spectroscopy are nine examples of evidence discussed in this thread.

What evidence would you like to talk about?

Pick one and start a new thread. This one is about something.

I was a doubter at the start, perhaps even a sympathiser with the Ross Taylor camp when McCullum was given the captaincy. But what he brought was the attitude they needed to be world beaters, the fearless part and also the determination to enjoy the experience of playing cricket.

I think the media played a large role in how badly that transition went, although it clearly wasn't done in the smartest fashion.

However, Taylor was never a good pick for captain.

It was even a lesson to Australia about how cricket should be played.

And then some!

How do they recreate that with the loss of his force of personality?

They don't need to recreate what McCullum did — he was probably a oncer. What they need to do is start performing under pressure and churning out champions from domestic cricket. Watched any Super Smash matches? They're laughable.

I can't really comment on concrete policies to put in place that would help turn things around. I've got my own headaches with Taiwan Cricket. Ha ha ha ha.

 

[Right Divider]

You still have not answered the question, Do you have a problem with the current consensus re: the heliocentric solar system? if so why?

Yes, I believe that the heliocentric solar system is the way that God created it. Unequivocal observations confirm it.

I will try not to bash the bible, but will question your reliance on it to resolve scientific questions where information and facts gleaned over the past few thousand years provide a better understanding of the real world.

Nothing "gleaned over the past few thousand years provide a better understanding of the real world" provides any problem for the Bible. Every observation confirms what the Bible says.

 

[7djengo7]

Would you say I am obligated to call some things, "gods that are fictional"?

​

I suppose it depends on what impression you wish to leave, and whom you wish to leave it upon.

Stuart

• Would you say I am obligated to you to call some things, "gods that are fictional"?
• What impression would you say I'm leaving upon you by my lack of calling things, "gods that are fictional"?

 

[Stuu]

What impression would you say I'm leaving upon you by my lack of calling things, "gods that are fictional"?

That you are pagan?

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

I believe you to be a christian fundamentalist, if I may suggest that, and so you and I have a point of contention in the meaning and intent behind the use of the word truth.

Do you use the word, 'truth'?

Originally posted by Stuu >>
I don't think there is any such thing as "actual truth". There are some things that could be said to be true, but that's different.

Would you seriously be willing to say of something, "That is true, but it is not truth"?

Ice cores, dendrochronology, isochron radioisotope dating, fossil morphology seqences, endogenous retroviruses, differences in DNA base spelling, Widmanstatten patterns, intertstellar asteroids or comets and spectroscopy are nine examples of evidence discussed in this thread.​

What evidence would you like to talk about?​

Would you seriously be willing to say of something, "That is evidence, but it is not true?"
Would you seriously be willing to say of something, "That is evidence, but it is not truth?"​

It's pretty clear that the creationist/christian fundamentalist approach to truth is that truth is already laid out in the Judeo-christian scriptures for anyone to read, and that whatever we observe will necessarily conform to that truth.

Please try to explain your use of the word, 'truth', here. In your phrase, "the creationist/christian fundamentalist approach to truth", to what (if anything) are you referring by your word, "truth"?

If observations or theories don't match, then the only option is to dismiss those contradicting things as false, or in some way impossible.

By your phrase, "observations or theories", here, are you referring to truths, or are you referring to falsehoods? (If you're referring to Darwinism, of course, then you're referring neither to truths nor to falsehoods, but solely to nonsense.)

Now, if you consider X to be true, and you consider ~X to be contradictory to X, then why would you not "dismiss"~X"as false"? Why do you so despise logic? What do you have against the truth that all truth is systematically coherent?

Unlike yourself, we Christians take truth coherence very seriously. Thinking logically, we understand that

~X must of necessity be false, since, according to the Bible, X, its contradictory, is true. But you are an enemy of logic; you refuse to think logically.​

The difficulty here is that you believe there is some ideal to be discovered in nature, and that it cannot be anything other than what is written. Stripe on the other hand only wants to talk about evidence because at that level you can often make interpretations that agree with truth, provided you only take the evidence one piece at a time.

So, according to you, whatever you would call "evidence" you would refuse to call "truth". Somehow, whatever you would call "evidence" can "agree with truth", but you would not call it "truth".

Consensus, as I explained, is nothing more than a cross-checking exercise

Can't you ever take a break from your pomposity? Consensus is simply agreement between two or more persons.

in which all possible evidence-based objections (not just opinion)

It is always, and unavoidably, opinion to claim that something is evidence. It is always, and unavoidably, opinion to claim that something is evidence-based. Claiming is opining--opining is claiming. Of course, shallow, hypocritical folk like yourself have been conditioned into irrationally booing against the word, 'opinion'. A person is right in his/her opinion when he/she opines what is true; he/she is wrong in his/her opinion when he/she opines what is false.

Whenever you claim that something is evidence-based, you are opining.

Oh, also, since you claim that evidence is not truth, notice that, by "evidence-based", you do not mean truth-based.

the important point that all researchers are still looking for further reasons for why they could be wrong.

If you think that one can be wrong by having "followed the evidence", then you're especially a fool for thinking that "still looking for further reasons" or "further evidence" can somehow help matters. One of the fundamental stupidities of your worldview is your irrational claim that evidence can be incoherent with evidence. Your own worldview annihilates your own worldview.

If you want to understand the importance of consensus, I suggest that you need to stop thinking the way a religious fundamentalist thinks about truth, and think instead in terms of following the path the accumulating evidence takes you

Your two-faced-ness is built right into your worldview. You just got done telling us that, by "following the path the accumulating evidence takes you", someone "still...could be wrong". What stupidity! What unabashed irrationality you bring to TOL.

the more evidence you have together the better the theory you can infer from it.​

By your having told us that, "following the path the accumulating evidence takes you", one "still....could be wrong", you have irredeemably shot down your own "more evidence" shtick.​

 

[7djengo7]

​

That you are pagan?​

Stuart​

​

What (if anything) do you imagine you mean by that?​

Why would you say something that patently idiotic in reaction to the question I asked you?​

What impression would you say I'm leaving upon you by my lack of calling things, "gods that are fictional", AND by my lack of calling things "gods that are not fictional"?​

 

[Stuu]

This is called a presupposition. If our presuppositions are declared and open to falsification, we can be a useful part of a scientific discussion.

Well, the supposed global flood of a few thousand years ago is already disproved beyond doubt. So how can someone like RD, already committed to such a presupposition be of any use as part of a scientific discussion, as you put it? Is the flood open to falsification or not? If it is then it's falsified already.

Trying to parse what each of us means by "truth" is silly semantics. If you can't understand what is meant when a person says he believes something to be true and deal with it from a scientific perspective as appropriate, you're not going to be much use in a discussion over the evidence.

Science doesn't think it is silly semantics. It is really important to understand the nature of the body of knowledge that science accumulates. I think RD perhaps might not have thought much about the type of claim that a scientific theory, or the scientific consensus is, compared with the nature of the knowledge claimed to be written in scripture. In terms of epistemology, they are not equivalent, and are barely comparable. Perhaps he doesn't know, and that's understandable, but I hope you would be one who would tell him to keep an open mind and learn about such things.

Stuu: The difficulty here is that you believe there is some ideal to be discovered in nature, and that it cannot be anything other than what is written.

Not true in the slightest. Those who hold to the Bible should hold to its dictate that things be tested, not accepted blindly.

I think you should tell RD that.

I guess you would disagree with Ted Haggard (who?) on a range of matters. But it is interesting to see Richard Dawkins's 'doorstep' interview with him and his response in hindsight. Here is a man who, at the time of the second video had been through the wringer with his own church over his apparent hypocrisy in regards to his sexuality. And the first video itself has a certain notoriety. So, in the time between the two videos he will have done a lot of thinking on quite a range of issues. He has had time to look into the ideas presented to him in the first, and learn, as presumably has Richard Dawkins. What is striking to me is that exposure to the Dawkins experience has not resulted in any significant change in his views. The gulf between a scientific view of the universe and his is essentially as huge as it was earlier.

My point with these videos is not about theology or brand of creationist view or arrogance, it's about a relationship with science:

Neither is a scientific discussion in any way advanced my counting how many people agree with an idea.

I never claimed there was head counting involved. There isn't.

You can remove all the babble about "consensus" from that and get to something like what science actually is.

Do you need to hear a second scientist talking about consensus, or a third?

Stuu: What evidence would you like to talk about?

Pick one and start a new thread. This one is about something.

Well the great thing about this thread is it's quite difficult to be off-topic.

They don't need to recreate what McCullum did — he was probably a oncer. What they need to do is start performing under pressure and churning out champions from domestic cricket. Watched any Super Smash matches? They're laughable.

Yes, they will spin some money for NZC but they must give the wrong idea about test cricket.

I can't really comment on concrete policies to put in place that would help turn things around. I've got my own headaches with Taiwan Cricket. Ha ha ha ha.

Did a quick lookup of Taiwan Cricket. Looks like the Japanese inserted baseball at a critical moment in history, but you still have the expats from the subcontinent (and other former colonies of the British Empire) keen to play. Must be a bit of a pain for them not necessarily being able to walk into a sports shop and try out a bat.

It looks to me like club cricket in New Zealand is increasingly reliant on subcontinental expats too. The New Zealand team probably doesn't represent the nature of the grassroots as much as it used to. I guess the international players are mostly fast-tracked from school teams by the side-alley.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Would you seriously be willing to say of something, "That is true, but it is not truth"?

Yes. I think I have here already, haven't I?

"That is evidence, but it is not truth?"

Yes. You and I might have the same piece of evidence but hold different truths about it. Although we might agree the evidence is true, there would not be agreement about 'truth'.

If I present myself as evidence, then it is true that I exist. Is the truth of my existence that I am a divinely created being, or that I am the product of an unbroken chain of reproduction with modification going back billions of years?

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

Yes. I think I have here already, haven't I?

Why would you be willing to say of something, "That is true, but it is not truth"? How can something be true without being truth? Would you really wish to say that (for instance) the proposition, 'Florida is south of New York', is true, but not truth?

Is it true that Florida is south of New York? Yes or No?
Is it truth that Florida is south of New York? Yes or No?

​

Yes.

Well, you've somehow had your mind fried. That you can say that something is evidence, but not truth, is a function of your mental disorder.

​

You and I might have the same piece of evidence but hold different truths about it.

"piece of evidence"? Since you've consistently failed (on TOL, at least) to speak rationally regarding your use of the word, "evidence", why do you think that somehow, magically, you'll be able to do any better regarding your phrase, "piece of evidence"?

What (if anything) do you mean, here, by "different"? You do not mean mutually-contradictory, do you? You are not trying to say, "hold [mutually-contradictory] truths", are you? Because only mental degenerates, despisers of truth and logic, could hold that truths are contradictory, one to another.

​

Although we might agree the evidence is true, there would not be agreement about 'truth'.

I definitely do not agree with the stupidity you exhibit, that of saying that something can somehow be true without being truth. Would you also wish to say--which would be equally stupid--that something can be false without being falsehood?

​

If I present myself as evidence, then it is true that I exist.

True propositions about yourself (for instance, 'Stuu writes posts on TOL', 'Stuu says he's a cricket fan') could be evidence, but Stuu, himself is not evidence.

At least you are sane enough, though, to admit that it is true that you exist.

​

Is the truth of my existence that I am a divinely created being, or that I am the product of an unbroken chain of reproduction with modification going back billions of years?

Stuart

What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "the truth of my existence"? Are you referring to the truth that you exist--the true proposition, 'Stuu exists'? If not, then to what (if anything) are you referring by your phrase? And, why would you call anything other than the true proposition ('Stuu exists') "the truth of my existence"?

 

[Right Divider]

Well, the supposed global flood of a few thousand years ago is already disproved beyond doubt.

Repeating yourself ad nauseam is no substitute for facts.

So how can someone like RD, already committed to such a presupposition be of any use as part of a scientific discussion, as you put it?

RD is quite happy to follow the facts. You, on the other hand, are the one with a commitment to your philosophy over the facts.

Is the flood open to falsification or not? If it is then it's falsified already.

Your consistent use of fallacious logic is a testament to your commitment to your philosophy over the facts.

Science doesn't think it is silly semantics. It is really important to understand the nature of the body of knowledge that science accumulates. I think RD perhaps might not have thought much about the type of claim that a scientific theory, or the scientific consensus is, compared with the nature of the knowledge claimed to be written in scripture. In terms of epistemology, they are not equivalent, and are barely comparable. Perhaps he doesn't know, and that's understandable, but I hope you would be one who would tell him to keep an open mind and learn about such things.

Your constant insults do not move me or impress anyone.

 

[Stuu]

What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "the truth of my existence"?

Well, I would have thought you were able to work out which of the two options given was my one.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

RD is quite happy to follow the facts.

Your facts are the alt-facts. They are not the science facts.

Your consistent use a fallacious logic is a testament to your commitment to your philosophy over the facts.

What, you mean that because there is no shred of empirical evidence whatever that supports the story of a global flood within the past few thousand years, I should conclude something other than the fact no such thing ever happened?

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Your facts are the alt-facts. They are not the science facts.

Those two sentences are lies. But thanks for your consistency.

What, you mean that because there is no shred of empirical evidence whatever that supports the story of a global flood within the past few thousand years, I should conclude something other than the fact no such thing ever happened?

Dr. Walt Brown's book is full of facts that describe in scientific details that caused the flood and its effects.

That you continue to ignore everything that you don't like is your own problem.