Argumentum ad populum

[blü 2]

so.....someone listed quotes
and you dismiss the effort

because you have greater quotes?
or a litmus test that is infallible

If you don't have an objective test for truth ─ and there can't be such a test for supernatural claims ─ then every purportedly factual supernatural claim is as true or as false as any other.

Which is why in Christianity, let alone other religions, there are thousands of sects, with no limit.

It's not hard to show that supernatural claims are imaginary. But the concept of a supernatural claim about reality is incoherent.

 

[Thief]

If you don't have an objective test for truth ─ and there can't be such a test for supernatural claims ─ then every purportedly factual supernatural claim is as true or as false as any other.

Which is why in Christianity, let alone other religions, there are thousands of sects, with no limit.

It's not hard to show that supernatural claims are imaginary. But the concept of a supernatural claim about reality is incoherent.

the term for God is Spirit

no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

many people say....God is truth

you would test God?

I think it's the other way around

 

[blü 2]

the term for God is Spirit

What objective test will tell us whether something real is 'spirit' in this sense, or not?

no photo, no fingerprint, no equation and no repeatable experiment

Like the unicorn. Except that if we found a real unicorn, we'd be able to tell it was a unicorn ─ equine, white, single straight horn from center of forehead, humanly approachable only by virgin females &c. Whereas there's no description of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it was God or not.

many people say....God is truth

In my view a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality. What definition of 'truth' do you use?

you would test God?

Why not? The trick is to find a real one.

I think it's the other way around

Perhaps you're confusing God with women?

 

[Thief]

Whereas there's no description of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it was God or not.

bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced

if your God fails anyone of these attributes.....then
Someone else is God

and the god before you is a false god

unless you believe in hierarchy.....I do

and it is written of us.....ye ARE gods

 

[Thief]

Perhaps you're confusing God with women?

I don't dream about his world anymore
and in one vision I saw...

many people moving through a narrowed Doorway
I was moving with them

as I came passing by …..I saw someone in black
only her eyes could be seen

beautiful eyes

as I passed by she noticed me
and her eyes spoke as if to say
What are YOU doing here?

no restraint...I continued
but that look …..in her eyes
I will not forget

what?......no feminine greater than you?
I suspect otherwise

 

[blü 2]

bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced

if your God fails anyone of these attributes.....then
Someone else is God

Or no one.

it is written of us.....ye ARE gods

Well once you rule out no gods, I guess that's the default position, if only for want of options.

 

[blü 2]

I don't dream about his world anymore
and in one vision I saw...

many people moving through a narrowed Doorway
I was moving with them

as I came passing by …..I saw someone in black
only her eyes could be seen

beautiful eyes

as I passed by she noticed me
and her eyes spoke as if to say
What are YOU doing here?

no restraint...I continued
but that look …..in her eyes
I will not forget

what?......no feminine greater than you?
I suspect otherwise

As Sam Coleridge once put it:

A damsel with a dulcimer

In a vision once I saw:
It was an Abyssinian maid
And on her dulcimer she played,
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight ’twould win me,​

That with music loud and long,
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They have added the vote of Peers to the scientific method.

It's not a "vote". It's rather quality control.
It's other experts double cheking your results, reviewing your methods, evaluating your acknowledgements and assumptions, etc.

Science is not a democracy.
Hypothesis aren't promoted to theory by popular vote.

Much science has become nonsense.

Sure. It's called learning.
It's finding out that you are incorrect and then replacing your incorrect views with more accurate ones.
It's a good thing and the actual strength of science.

This is why science makes progress while religions stay stuck in the bronze age.
Because all of science, even (or perhaps even especially) those theories that are accepted by consensus.

Every big breakthrough in science is accomplished by someone or some team going against the mainstream and questioning / challenging the status quo.

Which is something that most religions will label as "herecy" or "blasphemy".

Take a hint.

I see a sign up page and no experimental support at all for gradual change and survival of the fittest.
Would you like to try again?

This web-app can only exist, because species share ancestry.
If species didn't share ancestry, their collective DNA wouldn't plot into a family tree.

You asked for something that necessarily shows that evolution is accurate.
That's what I gave you. Our (=all of life) collective DNA demonstrate our genetic relationships and our common ancestry.

Maybe you should learn about how biological reproduction works and how DNA is past on to off spring and how that inevitably results in a pattern of genetic nested hierarchies.... That's in the end what this web-app models: the nested hierarchies in the DNA dataset backing the web-app.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't need your advice, as apparently you don't even seem to be responding to anything I said, including the OP.

As far as advice goes, I have none for people who use the kind of approach in this post. It seems to convey arrogance, one usually gets from a person 'puffed up with pride'

You do with it what you want off course.
It just seems to me that if you are going to make arguments concerning the idea of scientific consensus, it would be wise to inform you properly on what that is exactly - something you clearly didn't do.

Upto you off course.... If you don't mind making arguments based on strawmen, honest misunderstandings and ignorance, that is off course your choice.

Many times. Too often, actually. It began to sound like a clanging bell, that just goes on, and does not stop.

Then why are you complaining that people are giving you a diverse set of examples of such evidence?
If there is that much evidence, wouldn't you in fact expect multiple people to mention more then just one piece of evidence?

What are you complaining about the, really?

The thing about the mountains of evidence, is that whenever one "piece" is presented, it is shown to be based on speculation, and assumptions.

Is it?

Tell me... what is speculative about a chromosome with telomeres in the middle (instead of at the ends) and when that chromosome is split at the fusion site (= the middle telomeres), we get exact matches with the chimp chromosome that we seem to be "missing"?

Sorry, but no.... established theories like evolution aren't based on "speculation and assumptions". They are based on facts and verifiable and testable evidence, matching the predictions of the theory.

Just like all other scientific theories......

This is why persons on these forums see the need to bring up another, with the same results.

No. The reason multiple people will bring up multiple different examples of evidence, is because there is a ginormous mountain of examples to choose from.

Simply because they cannot refute that fact, for two reasons... 1. It's right there in the journals - staring everyone in the face, and 2. if it could not be refuted, every scientist would accept it... without question.
That isn't the case.

It is the case. No reasonable scientist rejects evolution theory.
The only ones who reject evolution theory are fundamentalist creationists belonging to an organization that makes them sign a "statement of faith".

The mountain becomes a mudslide, every time someone pulls a piece of the "evidence" from it.

No, it doesn't.
Multiple independent lines of evidence all converge on the same answer.
Genetics, paleontology, comparative genetics, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, the fossil record, etc etc.

You can remove every fossil from existance and still all other lines of evidence would be MORE THEN ENOUGH to demonstrate evolution theory beyond any reasonable doubt.

I never said that. Once again your arrogance is showing.
As to the implication, please, your pride is making it hard for you to understand simple statements in one little OP. That's terrible. don't you think?

Speaking of opinion, "scientific consensus" is often just that, even though it is claimed to be scientific truth.
It isn't. Not by a long stretch.
Again... it is written in the journals.
Scientific consensus - Wikipedia

It is EXACTLY what you said in the OP, since you claimed that pointing to scientific consensus is engaging in an "argumentum ad populum" - which is a fallacy which literally refers to popular opinion / beliefs.

The argumentum ad populum, literally means "this is true because many people believe it". That's literally appealing to "popular opinion".


So, when you state that pointing out scientific consensus is engaging in the ad populum fallacy, you are LITERALLY stating that scientific consensus is no more or less then popular opinion.

So yes, it is exactly what you said.

 

[cladking]

This web-app can only exist, because species share ancestry.
If species didn't share ancestry, their collective DNA wouldn't plot into a family tree.

You asked for something that necessarily shows that evolution is accurate.
That's what I gave you. Our (=all of life) collective DNA demonstrate our genetic relationships and our common ancestry.

I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior not genes and that adaptability or the ability to survive is irrelevant as a basis for change in species because species don't evolve they change.

No matter what fancy words you use "peer review" is irrelevant to truth, observation, logic, and experiment. It is irrelevant to scientific theory. Fact and reason always apply despite the prejudices of any group no matter how learned. People have always been wrong individually and in groups. We have not really entered a brave new world where reality is determined by committee.

Much of what "science" believes today is mere hogwash. Most of it is only true in specific applications or from limited perspectives. We have simply lost touch with the meaning of human knowledge and are applying it inappropriately.

 

[cladking]

It is EXACTLY what you said in the OP, since you claimed that pointing to scientific consensus is engaging in an "argumentum ad populum" - which is a fallacy which literally refers to popular opinion / beliefs.

The argumentum ad populum, literally means "this is true because many people believe it". That's literally appealing to "popular opinion".


So, when you state that pointing out scientific consensus is engaging in the ad populum fallacy, you are LITERALLY stating that scientific consensus is no more or less then popular opinion.

So yes, it is exactly what you said.

This is a semantical argument.

Now days only Peers get a vote and the general public and every individual in it are ignored.

Then we get appeals to the "consensus" of the Peers.

 

[Thief]

Or no one.
Well once you rule out no gods, I guess that's the default position, if only for want of options.

Someone had to be First

no choice in the matter

 

[Thief]

As Sam Coleridge once put it:

A damsel with a dulcimer

In a vision once I saw:
It was an Abyssinian maid
And on her dulcimer she played,
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight ’twould win me,​

That with music loud and long,
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.​

more like the book of Job

with a feminine in the lead role

or maybe you can't see that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution.

This statement makes no sense. It is like saying "I don't doubt that objects with mass are drawn to each other - I doubt that it is caused by gravity".

Evolution is the name we give to the process of changes in living populations themselves. Whatever causes the changes can be considered "evolution".

All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden.

What does this even mean? Please define the distinction between a "sudden" and "non-sudden" change.

There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals.

This is a mis-statement on many levels.

Firstly, as said before, whether you believe changes happen gradually or suddenly, the change is still "evolution".

Secondly, Darwin never said that populations are stable over the long term - just that they CAN be stable. We have since discovered such things as punctuated equilibrium which indicate that dramatic changes can and do occur over shorter periods of time rather than gradually, but that doesn't mean that gradual changes can't or don't occur.

Thirdly, evolution is not driven by "random chance" and Darwin never said that. Natural selection is a selective, not random, process.

The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior not genes and that adaptability or the ability to survive is irrelevant as a basis for change in species because species don't evolve they change.

Again, this makes no sense. Change IS evolution and evolution is the process which RESULTS in change. What's more, a change in genes CAN result in a change of behaviour, but it is not just behaviour but appearance and function that influence the survival of an organism or population of organisms. Colouration can improve camouflage or attract mates, for example.

No matter what fancy words you use "peer review" is irrelevant to truth, observation, logic, and experiment. It is irrelevant to scientific theory. Fact and reason always apply despite the prejudices of any group no matter how learned. People have always been wrong individually and in groups. We have not really entered a brave new world where reality is determined by committee.

No, reality is determined by the facts. Facts that unanimously support evolutionary theory. This is why it went from a fringe idea largely derided by the public and many scientists to becoming the single most successful and influential theory in modern biology. The facts don't care that people initially thought the idea was laughable or that many religions view the theory as contrary to their theology and tried desperately to suppress it; the facts win out.

 

[ecco]

many people say....God is truth

Yep, many people say....God is truth. The problem is that all these people believe in different versions of God or even different gods. So, they can't all be truth, can they?

 

[Thief]

Yep, many people say....God is truth. The problem is that all these people believe in different versions of God or even different gods. So, they can't all be truth, can they?

many facets to a precious stone

many facets to life on this planet

but I any case....
bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced

If the Greater than you fails any of these
what do you think you are chasing after?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is a semantical argument.

No. It's just reading the OP and being honest about its implications.

An argument ad populum is the fallacy of insinuating that mere popular opinion has truth value because x-number of people believe it. It is a fallacy that concerns personal opinions and mere beliefs.

If one states that appealing to scientific consensus is engaging in an argument ad populum then one is in effect absolutely stating that scientific consensus concerns just mere opinion or personal beliefs.

That is, in fact, what the whole OP is about.

Now days only Peers get a vote and the general public and every individual in it are ignored.

Then we get appeals to the "consensus" of the Peers.

Science is not a democracy nore is scientific consensus decided by popular vote.
You make the same mistake as the OP.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't doubt that there is Change in Species.

Your doubt is religiously based and irrelevant. Especially in the face of actual observation of speciation.

I doubt that it is caused by Evolution

Same as above.

All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden.

In reality, no empirical evidence shows that and in fact shows the opposite: that change is gradual.

Wolves don't give birth to poodles or chiwawa's. Instead these breeds are evolved over many generations involving artificial selection.

There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals.

And he was basically bang on correct about that.
Reproduction with random variation, followed by natural selection. Repeat.

The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior not genes and that adaptability or the ability to survive is irrelevant as a basis for change in species because species don't evolve they change.

lol!

Ya, you're "informed".....

Seriously dude, go read up on some high school level evolutionary biology. You don't even seem to be up to speed with the basics of evolution 101.

No matter what fancy words you use "peer review" is irrelevant to truth, observation, logic, and experiment. It is irrelevant to scientific theory

Peer review is science's "quality control".
The alternative is to simply believe whatever a scientist claims and just assume his methods and premises are valid, his conclusions sound and his data not tampered with.

Fact and reason always apply despite the prejudices of any group no matter how learned. People have always been wrong individually and in groups. We have not really entered a brave new world where reality is determined by committee.

Peers aren't a "committee" that determine what reality is like. Peer review is just the first step in the scientific process where initial quality control takes place of any submitted science paper.

A paper passing peer review and getting published doesn't mean its contents are "The Truth", nore does it mean that this is now "set in stone accurate".

Seems like next to not knowing the basics of evolution, you also have no clue on how science in general is done. Which is not surprising.

Much of what "science" believes today is mere hogwash. Most of it is only true in specific applications or from limited perspectives. We have simply lost touch with the meaning of human knowledge and are applying it inappropriately.

Uhu, uhu....


How is that computer working out for ya?

 

[blü 2]

more like the book of Job

with a feminine in the lead role

or maybe you can't see that?

I confess the book of Job didn't spring to mind, no. I must have missed the bit in Job about the caves of ice and a few other things.

 

[cladking]

This statement makes no sense. It is like saying "I don't doubt that objects with mass are drawn to each other - I doubt that it is caused by gravity".

Evolution is the name we give to the process of changes in living populations themselves. Whatever causes the changes can be considered "evolution".

We don't know what causes "gravity" so the statement is devoid of meaning. So long as you remember that "gravity" is merely a word for the attraction rather than the cause you'll be OK.

What does this even mean? Please define the distinction between a "sudden" and "non-sudden" change.

"Sudden" simply means in a brief period of time. Of course this depends on perspective. From the perspective of the individual it occurs in moments or seconds and from that of species it means less than two generations.

[quotye]Firstly, as said before, whether you believe changes happen gradually or suddenly, the change is still "evolution".[/quote]

No. "Evolution" is a word with only connotations and no definitions. Change in Species is not driven by "survival of the fittest".

Secondly, Darwin never said that populations are stable over the long term - just that they CAN be stable.

He did in the first edition.

It's not stability in the number of individuals that lead to change. It is near extinctions where few individuals survive.

This is exactly how we breed plants and animals; selection of a few individuals. When we select on the basis of behavior then the species changes.

We have since discovered such things as punctuated equilibrium which indicate that dramatic changes can and do occur over shorter periods of time rather than gradually, but that doesn't mean that gradual changes can't or don't occur.

The "theory" of evolution is approaching the reality and it is much different than Darwin already.

What's more, a change in genes CAN result in a change of behaviour, but it is not just behaviour but appearance and function that influence the survival of an organism or population of organisms.

Genes drive behavior just like everything else in the individual. Life is conscious and individual just like change in species. Yet we can't even define consciousness and now days reality is determined by committee.

Facts that unanimously support evolutionary theory.

No theory is without anomalies.

This is why it went from a fringe idea largely derided by the public and many scientists to becoming the single most successful and influential theory in modern biology. The facts don't care that people initially thought the idea was laughable or that many religions view the theory as contrary to their theology and tried desperately to suppress it; the facts win out.

The fact is that except in the lowest species no experiment has ever shown a gradual change in species as a result of "survival of the fittest".[/quote]