Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Consensus

rnjs
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.
VirBinarus
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 9:53:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

Nothing in science is 100%, but it seems to work well enough for us to base electronics and medicine on, and still be fine. The theory of evolution is bound to change slightly soon, even if it is just a small change.

Currently, there are two types of evolution.
1. Micro-Evolution
Evolution within a species, i.e. humans living in hot countries develop brown skin
2. Macro-Evolution
Evolution between species i.e. humans and apes descending from a common ancestor.

I am yet to have found any evidence for Macro-Evolution, and would love if someone could point me to it.
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 9:58:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

The theory of evolution is based on a pure assumption, that mutations are random, which has never been proven, and for which there is zero evidence.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 10:20:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
That fact that a particular way of knowing isn't infallible shouldn't undermine the general trustworthiness of that method of knowing. Sometimes people see things that aren't really there (e.g. illusion, mirage, hallucination), but that doesn't mean we're justified in doubting everything our sensory perception tell us.

In the same way, scientific consensus can't give us certainty, but we are on better epistemological footing with scientific consensus than we would be without it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 10:56:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine )
Actually, it's easy. You just have a reputable survey agency survey them using standard survey techniques, such as those reported by the Pew Centre:
Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time
-- [http://www.people-press.org...], 2009, p87.

Even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth.
Actually, the job of science isn't to prognosticate on truth. It's to make increasingly accurate physical predictions by systematically eliminating ignorance and error in our understanding of how things occur.

This distinction is important, because it acknowledges what error means in science, and the importance of diligent expert testing in challenging and evaluating the accuracy of scientific models.

More on that shortly.

There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong
Yes; this happens routinely when revolutionary scientific ideas are introduced in response to new methods or new data. Famous examples include the introduction of general relativity, the big bang theory, and evolution itself. However, the examples you cited are not examples of scientists being wrong, but rather of natural philosophers being wrong, and to understand the difference you need to understand the critical difference between philosophy and science, which is the difference between logical conjecture from casual observation, and using observation systematically to validate and falsify logical conjecture.

it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.
Actually, it's not only conceivable but routine that philosophers given the right information, come to the wrong conclusions. The high rate of error among philosophers is partly why science is no longer a branch of philosophy. However, science proceeds by using data to identify ignorance and eliminate error. Working collectively, but in contention, scientists produce the best predictions available given the data, because they use data to contest every prediction made.

So evolution is the product of biologists and earth scientists spending 150 years trying to falsify every reasonable conjecture about the origin of species using all the data they can find: evolution is the only model that has both survived and successfully predicted the observations that continue to emerge. It enjoys the level of support it does not because of hope or ideology, but because a century and a half of diligence and have eliminated everything else.

Consequently, universal common ancestry is upheld by an overwhelming majority of biologists and earth scientists because there is no better prediction available by methods as good or better than those provided by science. To argue that there is, you must show constructively that either:
1) some other methods are more specific, accurate and predictive than those presently used by biologists and earth-scientists, and lead to different conclusions; or that
2) there is a non-UCA prediction which predicts everything evolution does with the same scope and accuracy, which nevertheless predicts something specific and significant evolution does not predict, and that this prediction is confirmed by independent, repeatable observation.

Should either of these things happen, you'll find that biologists and earth scientists will change their minds, because this happens in all the sciences from time to time.

Yet it hasn't happened in a century and a half, and all the noisemaking from Intelligent Design has not been able to make it happen. In fact, the few scientists supporting the ID movement have produced no specific, significant, peer-reviewed ID results at all.
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 11:20:24 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 9:53:21 PM, VirBinarus wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

Nothing in science is 100%, but it seems to work well enough for us to base electronics and medicine on, and still be fine. The theory of evolution is bound to change slightly soon, even if it is just a small change.

Currently, there are two types of evolution.
1. Micro-Evolution
Evolution within a species, i.e. humans living in hot countries develop brown skin
2. Macro-Evolution
Evolution between species i.e. humans and apes descending from a common ancestor.

I am yet to have found any evidence for Macro-Evolution, and would love if someone could point me to it.

Macroevolution is just cumulative microevolution over long periods of time. It's really just another way of saying common descent. It's odd that you have never seen any evidence, since it's easy to locate. See http://www.talkorigins.org... for starters. Note that each line of evidence there lists potential evidence that, if found, would falsify the theory of common descent.

Some people dismiss macroevolution by saying that no one has observed it directly. Not only is that intellectually lazy (no one has observed Pluto making a complete revolution around the Sun, after all, yet we know that it has), but it is untrue besides. A list of observed speciation events is given at http://www.talkorigins.org...
Stronn
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 11:28:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 9:58:39 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

The theory of evolution is based on a pure assumption, that mutations are random, which has never been proven, and for which there is zero evidence.

Darwin did not even know about DNA or mutations.

Anyway, for your edification, here is an article that describes recent findings that mutations may not actually occur at random locations on the genome, but preferentially in certain locations, most notably near site of previous mutations.
http://www.the-scientist.com...-/ Note that this in no way invalidates the theory of evolution.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2016 11:34:33 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 9:53:21 PM, VirBinarus wrote:
Currently, there are two types of evolution.
1. Micro-Evolution
Evolution within a species, i.e. humans living in hot countries develop brown skin
2. Macro-Evolution
Evolution between species i.e. humans and apes descending from a common ancestor.
It's more studying the effects of the same mechanisms over different time-scales and population-scales, VB. [http://evolution.berkeley.edu...] It's quite easy for a species to split irreversibly on time-scales that can be studied directly by humans, and we have documented examples of this, but gross changes in cladistics may require multiple species to appear and disappear sequentially, which takes vastly more time. It's hard to study that time-scale directly by present methods, which means scientists need to correlate an extensive array of indirect evidence.

I am yet to have found any evidence for Macro-Evolution, and would love if someone could point me to it.

The indirect evidence for gross cladistic shifts arising from cumulative speciative changes is abundant, and a referenced list has been correlated in this handy essay by biochemist Dr Douglas L Theobald: [http://www.talkorigins.org...]

I say 'handy' because it's thorough and extensively referenced. However, evolutionary biology is a big field, VB, and this is not a small essay. If there's any subtopic you'd like to discuss in detail, I'd suggest posting a question in Science. We have members who know this stuff pretty well and will be glad to help. While I'm not a biologist or earth scientist, I'd be glad to help too if I can, and I'm also happy to talk about how science covers the question of validation and verification, since it's different to the way many people think scientists do it.

I hope that may be useful.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 12:37:58 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

OK, and which theory of creation do think is true?

Are you proposing that story of Xenu, the evil overlord sent souls to earth as described in Scientology? Is it the Christian story where for some reason an all-powerful god took 6 days (as opposed to 1 second) to create everything and then was so exhausted he had to rest? Or how about Brahma creating the world after he came out of a lotus flower that protruded from Vishnu's navel as the Hindus believed?

Which one of those stories makes a lot of sense to you?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 12:43:54 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 9:58:39 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

The theory of evolution is based on a pure assumption, that mutations are random, which has never been proven, and for which there is zero evidence.

What evidence do you have that Eve was made from Adam's rib?

Have you ever wondered why god had to take one of Adam's rib? After all, he is God and supposedly could have made her without taking a body part from someone else.

Did you ever wonder why Eve acted as though she talked to snakes every day and actually held a conversation with it? Any women Ive ever met would run away if a snake tried to have a conversation with her.

I don't know....Is it just me or does that sound a little fishy? Does this sound far more reasonable than evolution to you?
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 12:55:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 12:43:54 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:58:39 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

The theory of evolution is based on a pure assumption, that mutations are random, which has never been proven, and for which there is zero evidence.

What evidence do you have that Eve was made from Adam's rib?

Have you ever wondered why god had to take one of Adam's rib? After all, he is God and supposedly could have made her without taking a body part from someone else.

Did you ever wonder why Eve acted as though she talked to snakes every day and actually held a conversation with it? Any women Ive ever met would run away if a snake tried to have a conversation with her.

I don't know....Is it just me or does that sound a little fishy? Does this sound far more reasonable than evolution to you?

I don't know what made you think I'm a Christian.

I also didn't deny evolution. I merely said there is no evidence that mutations are random.

Where is your evidence that mutations that drive evolution are random?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 1:19:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 12:55:15 AM, janesix wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:43:54 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:58:39 PM, janesix wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

The theory of evolution is based on a pure assumption, that mutations are random, which has never been proven, and for which there is zero evidence.

What evidence do you have that Eve was made from Adam's rib?

Have you ever wondered why god had to take one of Adam's rib? After all, he is God and supposedly could have made her without taking a body part from someone else.

Did you ever wonder why Eve acted as though she talked to snakes every day and actually held a conversation with it? Any women Ive ever met would run away if a snake tried to have a conversation with her.

I don't know....Is it just me or does that sound a little fishy? Does this sound far more reasonable than evolution to you?

I don't know what made you think I'm a Christian.

I also didn't deny evolution. I merely said there is no evidence that mutations are random.

Where is your evidence that mutations that drive evolution are random?

If you have ever grown a lot of plants from seeds, such as in a garden, you will notice a lot of phenotypical variances. Some of those are beneficial and some are not so we can observe genetic drift.

Whether we know the precise mechanism that fuels beneficial mutations are not is almost moot for the sake of argument because we have observed animals evolving beneficial adaptations whether we know exactly how or not. In a recent debate, I pointed out a couple of those examples with the Stickleback fish, a lizard species that was moved to a new island with a different environment and also an experiment in which E. Coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate. http://www.debate.org...

There is tons of evidence that support evolution, no evidence that contradicts evolution and no evidence for any other alternative theory.

The reason why I assumed you were a Christian is because the only way someone could dismiss evolution is either they don't understand it or they have a strong bias because their religion told them otherwise.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 7:08:00 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 9:53:21 PM, VirBinarus wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

Nothing in science is 100%, but it seems to work well enough for us to base electronics and medicine on, and still be fine. The theory of evolution is bound to change slightly soon, even if it is just a small change.

Currently, there are two types of evolution.
1. Micro-Evolution
Evolution within a species, i.e. humans living in hot countries develop brown skin
2. Macro-Evolution
Evolution between species i.e. humans and apes descending from a common ancestor.

I am yet to have found any evidence for Macro-Evolution, and would love if someone could point me to it.

Micro and Macro are distinctions created by creationists and as such are not scientific at all. You'll find many doctrines have changed in order that the delusional beliefs can accommodate the scientific evidence that proves the original impossible.
eg. six days.
rnjs
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 2:57:56 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 10:56:25 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine )
Actually, it's easy. You just have a reputable survey agency survey them using standard survey techniques, such as those reported by the Pew Centre:
Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time
-- [http://www.people-press.org...], 2009, p87.

What people say and what they think can be very different and for a lot of scientists evolution is not part of their everyday practice so they may just have confidence in thier fellow scientists findings.

Even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth.
Actually, the job of science isn't to prognosticate on truth. It's to make increasingly accurate physical predictions by systematically eliminating ignorance and error in our understanding of how things occur.

But scientists continually make truth claims.

This distinction is important, because it acknowledges what error means in science, and the importance of diligent expert testing in challenging and evaluating the accuracy of scientific models.

More on that shortly.

There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong
Yes; this happens routinely when revolutionary scientific ideas are introduced in response to new methods or new data. Famous examples include the introduction of general relativity, the big bang theory, and evolution itself. However, the examples you cited are not examples of scientists being wrong, but rather of natural philosophers being wrong, and to understand the difference you need to understand the critical difference between philosophy and science, which is the difference between logical conjecture from casual observation, and using observation systematically to validate and falsify logical conjecture.

it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.
Actually, it's not only conceivable but routine that philosophers given the right information, come to the wrong conclusions. The high rate of error among philosophers is partly why science is no longer a branch of philosophy. However, science proceeds by using data to identify ignorance and eliminate error. Working collectively, but in contention, scientists produce the best predictions available given the data, because they use data to contest every prediction made.

of course philosophers can be wrong, anybody can be wrong.

So evolution is the product of biologists and earth scientists spending 150 years trying to falsify every reasonable conjecture about the origin of species using all the data they can find: evolution is the only model that has both survived and successfully predicted the observations that continue to emerge. It enjoys the level of support it does not because of hope or ideology, but because a century and a half of diligence and have eliminated everything else.

Origins have never been explained by evolution, only adaptive change within a species.

Consequently, universal common ancestry is upheld by an overwhelming majority of biologists and earth scientists because there is no better prediction available by methods as good or better than those provided by science. To argue that there is, you must show constructively that either:
1) some other methods are more specific, accurate and predictive than those presently used by biologists and earth-scientists, and lead to different conclusions; or that
2) there is a non-UCA prediction which predicts everything evolution does with the same scope and accuracy, which nevertheless predicts something specific and significant evolution does not predict, and that this prediction is confirmed by independent, repeatable observation.

I see a number of truth claims here, but aside from that, how do scientists observe and repeat something that is alleged to have happened billions of years ago.

Should either of these things happen, you'll find that biologists and earth scientists will change their minds, because this happens in all the sciences from time to time.

Yet it hasn't happened in a century and a half, and all the noisemaking from Intelligent Design has not been able to make it happen. In fact, the few scientists supporting the ID movement have produced no specific, significant, peer-reviewed ID results at all.

I've seen many peer reviewed findings from creationists.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 3:00:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 2:57:56 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 3/1/2016 10:56:25 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine )
Actually, it's easy. You just have a reputable survey agency survey them using standard survey techniques, such as those reported by the Pew Centre:
Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time
-- [http://www.people-press.org...], 2009, p87.

What people say and what they think can be very different and for a lot of scientists evolution is not part of their everyday practice so they may just have confidence in thier fellow scientists findings.

Even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth.
Actually, the job of science isn't to prognosticate on truth. It's to make increasingly accurate physical predictions by systematically eliminating ignorance and error in our understanding of how things occur.

But scientists continually make truth claims.

This distinction is important, because it acknowledges what error means in science, and the importance of diligent expert testing in challenging and evaluating the accuracy of scientific models.

More on that shortly.

There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong
Yes; this happens routinely when revolutionary scientific ideas are introduced in response to new methods or new data. Famous examples include the introduction of general relativity, the big bang theory, and evolution itself. However, the examples you cited are not examples of scientists being wrong, but rather of natural philosophers being wrong, and to understand the difference you need to understand the critical difference between philosophy and science, which is the difference between logical conjecture from casual observation, and using observation systematically to validate and falsify logical conjecture.

it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.
Actually, it's not only conceivable but routine that philosophers given the right information, come to the wrong conclusions. The high rate of error among philosophers is partly why science is no longer a branch of philosophy. However, science proceeds by using data to identify ignorance and eliminate error. Working collectively, but in contention, scientists produce the best predictions available given the data, because they use data to contest every prediction made.

of course philosophers can be wrong, anybody can be wrong.

So evolution is the product of biologists and earth scientists spending 150 years trying to falsify every reasonable conjecture about the origin of species using all the data they can find: evolution is the only model that has both survived and successfully predicted the observations that continue to emerge. It enjoys the level of support it does not because of hope or ideology, but because a century and a half of diligence and have eliminated everything else.

Origins have never been explained by evolution, only adaptive change within a species.

Consequently, universal common ancestry is upheld by an overwhelming majority of biologists and earth scientists because there is no better prediction available by methods as good or better than those provided by science. To argue that there is, you must show constructively that either:
1) some other methods are more specific, accurate and predictive than those presently used by biologists and earth-scientists, and lead to different conclusions; or that
2) there is a non-UCA prediction which predicts everything evolution does with the same scope and accuracy, which nevertheless predicts something specific and significant evolution does not predict, and that this prediction is confirmed by independent, repeatable observation.

I see a number of truth claims here, but aside from that, how do scientists observe and repeat something that is alleged to have happened billions of years ago.

Should either of these things happen, you'll find that biologists and earth scientists will change their minds, because this happens in all the sciences from time to time.

Yet it hasn't happened in a century and a half, and all the noisemaking from Intelligent Design has not been able to make it happen. In fact, the few scientists supporting the ID movement have produced no specific, significant, peer-reviewed ID results at all.

I've seen many peer reviewed findings from creationists.

Here's your big chance, be the first person to provide those papers. Oh please?
rnjs
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 3:13:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/1/2016 11:20:24 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:53:21 PM, VirBinarus wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

Nothing in science is 100%, but it seems to work well enough for us to base electronics and medicine on, and still be fine. The theory of evolution is bound to change slightly soon, even if it is just a small change.

Currently, there are two types of evolution.
1. Micro-Evolution
Evolution within a species, i.e. humans living in hot countries develop brown skin
2. Macro-Evolution
Evolution between species i.e. humans and apes descending from a common ancestor.

I am yet to have found any evidence for Macro-Evolution, and would love if someone could point me to it.

Macroevolution is just cumulative microevolution over long periods of time. It's really just another way of saying common descent. It's odd that you have never seen any evidence, since it's easy to locate. See http://www.talkorigins.org... for starters. Note that each line of evidence there lists potential evidence that, if found, would falsify the theory of common descent.

Macro evolution suggests that living things have changed in to a different kind than it was originally but this has never been observed.Although common features can indicate common descent it can also indicate a common designer.

Some people dismiss macro evolution by saying that no one has observed it directly. Not only is that intellectually lazy (no one has observed Pluto making a complete revolution around the Sun, after all, yet we know that it has), but it is untrue besides. A list of observed speciation events is given at http://www.talkorigins.org...

Pluto is observable, living things have only been observed changing within their own kind.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 3:19:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I've seen many peer reviewed findings from creationists.

Yea, this is 100% wrong. Unless you are counting the bible?
rnjs
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 3:20:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 12:37:58 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

OK, and which theory of creation do think is true?

Are you proposing that story of Xenu, the evil overlord sent souls to earth as described in Scientology? Is it the Christian story where for some reason an all-powerful god took 6 days (as opposed to 1 second) to create everything and then was so exhausted he had to rest? Or how about Brahma creating the world after he came out of a lotus flower that protruded from Vishnu's navel as the Hindus believed?

Which one of those stories makes a lot of sense to you?

I only suggested that scientists conclusions can be wrong, or do you think science is infallible?
The only method of creation i believe in is the one communicated to me in the Bible by the only one to observe it happening.., the Creator.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 3:51:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 3:20:18 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 3/2/2016 12:37:58 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine ) but even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth. There has been a number of times when the majority of scientists have been wrong, like when medical personal believed that bloodletting was a good thing until someone read 'the life of the flesh is in the blood' Lev.17:11 or when doctors would do autopsies then head immediately without washing to the birthing room to deliver babies, resulting in a high mortality rate among mothers and children. A doctor pointed out that scripture says that' those who touch any dead thing will be unclean for seven days' was ridiculed when he insisted that doctors wash their hands before delivering babies.
The majority of scientists also believed in spontaneous generation at one time, such as the belief that mice came from piles of dirty rags.
So it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.

OK, and which theory of creation do think is true?

Are you proposing that story of Xenu, the evil overlord sent souls to earth as described in Scientology? Is it the Christian story where for some reason an all-powerful god took 6 days (as opposed to 1 second) to create everything and then was so exhausted he had to rest? Or how about Brahma creating the world after he came out of a lotus flower that protruded from Vishnu's navel as the Hindus believed?

Which one of those stories makes a lot of sense to you?

I only suggested that scientists conclusions can be wrong, or do you think science is infallible?

No, it isn't infallible, it corrects it's mistakes as more data and evidence is produced.

The only method of creation i believe in is the one communicated to me in the Bible by the only one to observe it happening.., the Creator.

So, you believe in a book of myths, good for you. Of course, your book of myths has nothing to do with what science has discovered about reality. You can choose to ignore reality, which is what you appear to want to do, but that doesn't mean reality agrees with your myths. And, you are free to ignore reality in favor of your myths, no problem, living a life in a fantasy is a good thing, right?

The problem with that is the fact that you have to deal with reality whether you like it or not, it will face you each and every day, despite what your book of myths states. You can either grow up and start facing reality for what it is or continue to wallow in myth and superstition.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2016 5:35:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/2/2016 2:57:56 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 3/1/2016 10:56:25 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/1/2016 9:47:40 PM, rnjs wrote:
It is often said that the majority of scientists believe evolution is true ( not really possible to determine )
Actually, it's easy. You just have a reputable survey agency survey them using standard survey techniques, such as those reported by the Pew Centre:
Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time
-- [http://www.people-press.org...], 2009, p87.
What people say and what they think can be very different
Why would scientists be afraid to tell the truth to a poll? And what evidence have you that they did, when poll after poll reports the same results?

for a lot of scientists evolution is not part of their everyday practice so they may just have confidence in their fellow scientists findings.
Actually, it's confidence in the processes that produce the findings, but it's true: what really matters are the reviewed results of biologists and earth scientists, and they also overwhelmingly support evolution. (Consider for example, 'Project Steve', which includes more biologists and earth scientists called 'Steve' supporting evolution than creationists have ever been able to supply in total opposing it. [http://ncse.com...])

Even if true, consensus doesn't determine truth.
Actually, the job of science isn't to prognosticate on truth. It's to make increasingly accurate physical predictions by systematically eliminating ignorance and error in our understanding of how things occur.
But scientists continually make truth claims.
Yet you couldn't supply an example for us to review and explore?

it is quite conceivable that modern scientists, even if they have all the data right and the facts/evidence interpreted in what seems logical and coherent could still come to the wrong conclusions.
Actually, it's not only conceivable but routine that philosophers given the right information, come to the wrong conclusions. The high rate of error among philosophers is partly why science is no longer a branch of philosophy. However, science proceeds by using data to identify ignorance and eliminate error. Working collectively, but in contention, scientists produce the best predictions available given the data, because they use data to contest every prediction made.
of course philosophers can be wrong, anybody can be wrong.
You've missed the point, RNJS. The job of science isn't to be prescient. It's to find useful, predictive models consistent with all the data observed. Science does this by eliminating models that aren't consistent with the data. But the important part is this: once those models are eliminated, they never return. This elimination of ignorance and error is key to the way science continually achieves consensus from new data, and exposes a key issue with philosophy: that dissenting philosophers generally don't reach consensus, except through science.

Why is this relevant to evolution?

The models of creation offered by Genesis were the ones scientists started with, because at the time, most naturalists were raised Christian, and they just assumed that nature would be consistent with the traditions they were taught. Yet written by ancient authors ignorant of geography, geology, astrophysics, and biology, the Genesis accounts were riddled with problems in those very domains.

Those models have been eliminated by evidence, RNJS. So a literal Genesis account of creation will never again be generally embraced by science or scientists.

So evolution is the product of biologists and earth scientists spending 150 years trying to falsify every reasonable conjecture about the origin of species using all the data they can find: evolution is the only model that has both survived and successfully predicted the observations that continue to emerge. It enjoys the level of support it does not because of hope or ideology, but because a century and a half of diligence and have eliminated everything else.
Origins have never been explained by evolution, only adaptive change within a species.
What do you mean by 'explained'?

After 150 years, there are valid and viable evolutionary models for pretty much everything in biology. The attempts of the ID movement to argue that models have key bits missing, or that they're not predictive, have been repudiated scientifically, are largely ridiculed in the science community, and have failed under independent court scrutiny. Peak scientific bodies such as the US National Academies of Science have stated unequivocally that evolution is both theory (it predicts accurately) and fact (it is observed.) [http://www.nas.edu...]. Moreover, the NAS has also taken the unusual step of singling out Intelligent Design as being unsupported by scientific evidence. [http://www.nas.edu...]. Such commentary doesn't happen lightly.

Consequently, universal common ancestry is upheld by an overwhelming majority of biologists and earth scientists because there is no better prediction available by methods as good or better than those provided by science.
I see a number of truth claims here
Feel free to offer refuting data if you have any.

how do scientists observe and repeat something that is alleged to have happened billions of years ago.
The scope and scale of evolution is vast, RNJS. Scientists do both natural and lab experiments on evolution in the scales available, and rely on systematically correlating observed data on scales where experiment is impossible. The practice of correlating observed data is commonplace: it occurs in geology and hydrology (we have only one earth), astrophysics (ditto the universe), epidemiology (you can't expose people to HIV or SARS-like viruses to see how the first patient might have caught HIV or SARS), and so on.

Like science itself, correlation eliminates alternative hypotheses, and narrows down the viable models for what must have occurred. But moreover, the more independent data you have to correlate, the more confidence you have statistically that your model is correct.

There is a lot of independent data on evolution. It's not just the fossils of dead creatures; it's the minerals in which they occur; what the atomic structures of those minerals tell us about their age; what their chemical structures tell us about conditions at the time; and then there's what the structures and varieties of fossils themselves tell us about what was alive when. If you believe species were created to survive long-term on the planet, then it should concern you that over 99.9% of species that ever existed on the planet are now extinct, and died out before the first human fossils appeared.

But in addition to the fossil data there's also genetic data among living species, and those extinct species whose DNA is preserved in the fossil record. When scientists can show that the progression of forms past and present strongly suppport common ancestry, and that the genes of all living creatures today also strongly support common ancestry, then that's overwhelming independent evidence for common ancestry.

I've seen many peer reviewed findings from creationists.
I don't think you have. Mostly, creation 'scientists' publish monographs, blogs and pamphlets, which are not peer-reviewed. The number of peer-reviewed Creationist papers is small; and they lack two key qualities of impactful science:
1) They are not specific -- they lack new observations and detailed mechanisms;
2) They are not significant -- they don't falsify any viable hypotheses, or make falsifiable predictions.

I hope that may be useful.