Why Evolution Is Accepted.

[popoi 1,081]

6 hours ago, Yorzhik said:

Since you've learned from what was already presented, you could only fail to perceive the bias because you choose to remain ignorant of it.

It's not about me, you're the one trying to assert that the scientists actually doing the work are being significantly biased without being aware of it.

Quote

All the things that, for instance, global warming policies can get you. Like policies that shift a country's entire energy industry toward solar and wind. Consensus wins a great deal; like in the case of global warming, the truth of the science is against the consensus.

Ok but as I said, it doesn't seem like consensus is necessary or sufficient to get those things, as evidenced by the cases where consensus was there but didn't successfully influence policy, or where policy was successfully influenced despite it being opposed by consensus.

Quote

Barely. Not enough to matter which party wins. That you think there is a big enough difference to matter is a poor mark on your ability to reason. At least see this: the bureaucrats remain the same, and their ideas on what and how to regulate also remain largely the same no matter who wins a particular election.

There's policy being proposed by one side to purge or outright do away with those positions though, as well as pushing back against many of the things you mentioned as the product of consensus with respect to climate change.  The notion that the parties aren't meaningfully distinguishable on this doesn't seem at all well supported.

Quote

Profits can only be maintained by serving your fellow man. They can only be maintained hurting your fellow man by government involvement.

That may be true in a long enough run, but we're not always looking at long run situations.  It may be the case that something like PFAS (or cigarettes, or maybe oil) aren't going to be profitable long term once it's known that they're ultimately harmful, but that doesn't mean they will immediately become unprofitable or that the period of profitability can't be extended.

In a situation where the industry are the ones primarily funding science, if they find out something like PFAS is harmful, what motivation is there to shut down their highly valuable product line, as opposed to losing the report or otherwise trying to muddy the waters, reminding the scientists who pays them, and continuing to make money while they can?

The idea that government shouldn't fund research also doesn't necessarily require that they abandon all involvement with industry, so we can't just assume that it's total Libertarian fantasy world here either.

Quote

Thanks for making my point.

How does consensus failing to overcome industry lobbying with respect to establishing policy make your point at all?

Quote

Precisely. That is why your reliance on blind faith in materialism fails you.

It seems like it's working fine in finding that not-a-global-flood is a better explanation for the evidence.   Hashing out that kind of conflict is the point of doing science.  If you're just deciding which conclusion you like and dismissing evidence that points away from it (even though you declared it to be equally valid), you are not actually doing science, but that doesn't seem like what the mainstream theory is doing at all.  It doesn't seem like some vast and convincing body of evidence on the yes-a-global-flood side is just being dismissed out of hand, it just doesn't work as well as the alternative at explaining the evidence. 

 If you want to say that you never actually intended to be doing science with that worldview that's fine, but it seems pretty obvious that at least some people are trying to pretend that they are.

Quote

Only if that is where the money is. But if the up-and-coming scientists know that isn't where the money is, they will take experiments over theories and the consensus will die out. So what you say here is just wrong.

How is this distinguishable from a consensus dying out due to failing to convince new scientists who are honestly evaluating the evidence?

Quote

I don't think you understand the context of "foundation". It means the consensus takes precedence over evidence as a reason-to-believe the story. That's the situation we have with the list I provided.

I don't think that's how consensus actually works in any of those situations.  I think you're just drawing a line between theories you want to reject and theories you still accept, and there's not actually any significant difference in the practice of science between the two categories.  All of those theories are subject to falsification if the evidence demonstrates it, the reason they haven't been falsified is just that the evidence just doesn't.

[Blitzking 1,998]

On 10/9/2023 at 11:11 AM, mike the wiz said:

First of all I make a disclaimer; I am not saying that presently biological evolutionists are not conducting science, I simply believe all of the science of evolution is basically ALL micro-evolution, and has nothing to do with Darwin's

Hello Mike..

Allow me to do it for you so you don't have to..

I AM saying that biological evolutionists

are NOT conducting "Science"!!!.. 

HERE IS WHY..

There is no such thing as Biological Evolution!!!..It is a complete Fairytale

Great name for a website BTW.

NOTHING IS E-VOLVING!!!

EVERYTHING IS DE-VOLVING!!!

Time is your ENEMY!!!! Genetic load is increasing, Creatures a re going extinct, Every generation has 100 more genetic mutations than their parents!!!

Name ONE THING that has been shown to IMPROVE over time!!

GOOD LUCK.

ALL living organisms were created in the beginning, fully complete, dressed up and ready to go with ALL of their interlocked interconnected interdependent VITAL organs (And their support systems) fully intact working perfectly together in tandem..

That is the ONLY explanation that makes ANY sense SCIENTIFICALLY!!!

There were several thousand prototypes of Creatures that were ALREADY FRONT LOADED with all of the genetic information that allowed for Variation Adaptation and Speciation that allowed them to weed out the misfits, infirm and weak (Natural Selection) to stave off their INEVITABLE extinction (Due to DE-VOLUTION) for as long as possible...

Think....Created Heterozygosity!!!

Now.. We can make up a fantastic AND SLOW Planet of the apes, Frog to Prince, Microbe to Microbiologist Science FICTION novel about "long ago and far away" where the SAME microbial common ancestor SLOWLY evolved into (For Example) Dogs Hogs and Frogs... But that is Not part of Science!!!!!

Here are some Scientific Facts!!!

Dogs produce Dogs

Hogs produce Hogs

Frogs produce Frogs..

That is Observable Experimental testable repeatable verifiable falsifiable SCIENCE that has NEVER been falisfied during the course of 5000 years of written human history. EVER ..

We KNOW that Dogs Frogs and Hogs are ALL made of SPECIFIED and IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX Genetic information that determines their Morphological Characteristics which includes their Interlocked, interconnected, interdependent VITAL organs and all of their support systems... EVERYTHING!!

We KNOW that if just ONE of those VITAL organs are removed, the creature DIES and Very Quickly....

So far and away the most PARSIMONIOUS Scientifc Explanation is that Dogs Hogs and Frogs, ARE, HAVE ALWAYS BEEN and ALWAYS WILL BE,... Dogs Hogs and Frogs!!!

Now let's look at the Fairytale of SLOW Universal Common Ancestry for Dogs Hogs and Frogs (ToE) shall we?

IS IT...

Observable? NOPE

Experimental? NOPE

Testable? NOPE

Repeatable? NOPE

Verifiable? NOPE

Falsifiable? NEVER....

WHERE IS THE SCIENCE???

 

"I think in fifty years, Darwinian evolution will be gone from the science curriculum...I think people will look back on it and ask how anyone could, in their right mind, have believed this, because it's so implausible when you look at the evidence."

(Dr. Johnathan Wells, Molecular Biochemist and author of the book, "Icons of Evolution")

 

 

[popoi 1,081]

On 8/14/2024 at 9:25 PM, popoi said:

Ok but as I said, it doesn't seem like consensus is necessary or sufficient to get those things, as evidenced by the cases where consensus was there but didn't successfully influence policy, or where policy was successfully influenced despite it being opposed by consensus.

It seems like we're seeing now what it actually looks like when government puts its thumb on the scale with things like with RFK Jr and others cancelling MRNA vaccine research and promoting beef tallow instead of seed oils for frying.  So far it doesn't seem like the scientific consensus has followed the money but I guess we'll see in the coming years if scientists change their mind and declare that MRNA vaccines never worked and it was actually the type of oil that was making french fries unhealthy all along.