Argumentum ad populum

[blü 2]

How oft do people hear a response like...
There is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution.

There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...
There is a scientific consensus...


What has that got to do with anything?
Especially in a debate, why is that relevant? It's nothing but a fallacy.

Your argument suffers from a major deficiency which I invite you to remedy.

What definition of 'truth' are you using here? What test will tell us whether a statement is true or not, do you say?

(My own definition is that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms to / accurately reflects objective reality. You obviously disagree, so what do you say instead?)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Given your obvious distaste for appeals to authority - why have you posted quotes from Michael Crichton as a major element of your argument? Just wondering.

Because of a passionate love of irony?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are such things as known facts, but another known fact is that when your IQ is around 160, you can dispute known facts.

Mine is only short of that by a few points. Is that close enough?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the middle of the 20th century..."experiments" indicated almonds might be a cure for cancer

the FDA shut that down and law was passed......Steve McQueen went to Mexic to get treated...he died of cancer.

What is your point? Should we allow people to buy into every quack idea that someone wants to sell? If so, I will be glad to sell you my special compound for only $150 $100 per ounce (while supplies last).

I once met a man that claimed to have developed a cure for cancer in his garage. I am not sure what it was. Some sort of black salve with who knows what in it. He was very serious, but he was not letting that secret out. I just let it go. It wasn't worth bothering to explain anything.

 

[Sapiens]

I have brothers and friends who are scientists.
How did you arrive at that notion?
Do you disagree with Michael Crichton? He did science. I quoted him, and I do agree with him.

If your brothers and friends are any good at science and they have no corrected you then then they are dishonest ... take your pick, incompetent or disingenuous.

Yes ... I disagree with Crichton (who is no scientist) on many subjects including: astral projection, aura viewing, and clairvoyance.

 

[Willamena]

So why do persons continue with it?
Does it establish truth? No.

It's just a generalization, not a fallacy.

 

[cladking]

Yes, your posts indicate a lack of knowledge of the scientific method.

And there have been experiments that demonstrate that evolution is gradual.

Lastly computer modeling is ideally designed to reflect reality. Why would one do it if that were not the case.

If you understood the scientific method and were honest you would have to accept the fact of evolution. Denying it is on the order of denying gravity.

Some "sciences" have added "peer review" to the scientific method. This is especially prevalent in "sciences" that never did much experimentation anyway.

What observable change in life is not sudden? What experiment has shown a gradual change?

That species change is beyond dispute. The causes and rapidity of the change is what is in dispute.

GIGO. You can't program the future. You can't program what you can't understand. You can't program all the butterflies in China.

 

[Thief]

"experiments" indicated almonds might be a cure for cancer

that should have been BITTER almonds
alias
apricot seeds

and they are bitter

I don't have the vhs tape anymore
but the vitamin b17 was part of the American diet in the form of millet bread

not any more

 

[robocop (actually)]

One can have an IQ of 160 and still be unqualified to discuss subjects outside their realm of knowledge.

Right, I was referring to areas where your IQ is that high.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Mine is only short of that by a few points. Is that close enough?

Usually.

 

[tas8831]

How oft do people hear a response like...
There is a scientific consensus on the theory of evolution....
Well I am... laughing my head off.
Appealing to authority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, consensus gentium,... it's all useless, and irrelevant in any debate.

So why do persons continue with it?
Does it establish truth? No.

Remember that time I posted a bunch of molecular phylogenetics studies, and when you tried to rebut them, you made a complete fool of yourself?

I do. You thought you had made some serious points, but I handily demolished them, then you scampered off and put me on ignore - such is the intellectual power of the self-righteous, yet fragile, creationist ranter.
The Miracle of Water.
The Miracle of Water.

 

[tas8831]

that should have been BITTER almonds
alias
apricot seeds

and they are bitter

I don't have the vhs tape anymore
but the vitamin b17 was part of the American diet in the form of millet bread

not any more

With you science superiority and all, I am shocked that you do not seem to understand anything about 'B 17'...

It is......?

 

[cladking]

GIGO. You can't program the future. You can't program what you can't understand. You can't program all the butterflies in China.

LTCM thought they could predict the future;

There is no equation nor group of equations that can be used to make predictions about chaotic systems. "Global warming" is chiefly a snake oil product and an opportunity to use politics for personal gain. It is a bill of goods sold to the gullible and in an era of Look and see Science even most scientists are gullible.

The irony here is that all systems are chaotic but our perspective is too narrow to see even this.

 

[ecco]

You can't program the future. You can't program what you can't understand. You can't program all the butterflies in China.

Isn't that exactly what your god does?

 

[ecco]

One can have an IQ of 160 and still be unqualified to discuss subjects outside their realm of knowledge.

Right, I was referring to areas where your IQ is that high.

Obviously, you do not understand what IQ stands for nor how it is determined.

 

[ecco]

that should have been BITTER almonds
alias
apricot seeds

and they are bitter

Thanks for the correction. It's been a while.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some "sciences" have added "peer review" to the scientific method. This is especially prevalent in "sciences" that never did much experimentation anyway.

What observable change in life is not sudden? What experiment has shown a gradual change?

That species change is beyond dispute. The causes and rapidity of the change is what is in dispute.

GIGO. You can't program the future. You can't program what you can't understand. You can't program all the butterflies in China.

Was there a point to this word salad?

We can see gradual changes in ring species, we can see gradual changes in certain sedimentary deposits.

 

[Thief]

With you science superiority and all, I am shocked that you do not seem to understand anything about 'B 17'...

It is......?

don't let me keep you from standing on your pedestal

by all means …….go for it

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Remember that time I posted a bunch of molecular phylogenetics studies, and when you tried to rebut them, you made a complete fool of yourself?

I do. You thought you had made some serious points, but I handily demolished them, then you scampered off and put me on ignore - such is the intellectual power of the self-righteous, yet fragile, creationist ranter.
The Miracle of Water.
The Miracle of Water.

I saw that episode. It is one of my favorites.

 

[cladking]

Yes, your posts indicate a lack of knowledge of the scientific method.

...And I consider myself a metaphysician!!

And there have been experiments that demonstrate that evolution is gradual.

Name one.

Lastly computer modeling is ideally designed to reflect reality.

How do you model the effects on the tides caused by a butterfly in a distant galaxy or the one that flaps its wings in China?

How do you model chaos?

Why would one do it if that were not the case.

Excellent question. It is caused by the fact that very few people and very few climatologists understand metaphysics or the meaning of what they know.

If you understood the scientific method and were honest you would have to accept the fact of evolution. Denying it is on the order of denying gravity.

I am aware of no facts that must be interpreted to mean that species change gradually. Or at the least that it is the accumulation of such minor changes that account for much of the observed change in species.

How can we deny something that isn't understood? Until there is understanding of gravity there is NOTHING to deny.