tas8831
Well-Known Member
So, which layman explained the benefits of doing so?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Argumentum ad populum
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Thief
Rogue Theologian
yes it is....
my wife had colon cancer
she now uses amygdalin
no reoccurrence
it's been decades
Thief
Rogue Theologian
In 1536, the French explorer
Jacques Cartier
, exploring the
St. Lawrence River
, used the local natives' knowledge to save his men who were dying of scurvy. He boiled the needles of the
arbor vitae
tree to make a tea that was later shown to contain 50 mg of vitamin C per 100 grams.
the above clip comes from Wiki
it demonstrates common remedy known by natives
such remedy rejected by the knowledgeable as witch doctor practice
vitamin C was not discovered by science for a ….long......long .....time
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Right. Ever heard that phrase - anecdotes are not data?
How do you know that this toxin is what solved the problem?
You won;t read or understand this, but give it a try:
No alternative medicine ever disappears when shown to be ineffective: The case of laetrile
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Thief
Rogue Theologian
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
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.
Argumentum ad populum
When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority
...you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?
The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual - and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation.
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change
“...I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton
Consensus Science and the Peer Review
It is our responsibility as scientists, physicians, reviewers, and/or editors to be alert and always remember that “[I would remind you to notice where the claim of] consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way” (M. Crichton).
http://www.aei.org/publication/for-...-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
...the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.
In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory.
Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra.
The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.
When the Earth Moved
When Continental Drift Was Considered Pseudoscience
One hundred years ago, a German scientist advanced the shocking idea that the continents were adrift, and the giants of geology ridiculed him. But nobody’s laughing now...
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.
Scientific consensus is not the same as popular opinion.
I'm sorry if you can't comprehend that.
My advice is to learn about the scientific process and what is actually meant by "scientific consensus".
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Have you ever heared the phrase that the evidence for evolution is "overwhelming"? That there are "mountains of evidence"?
This is why you encounter such diverse points in support of evolution.
Yes, all of these things support evolution by natural selection and common ancestry.
It's actually the strenght of the theory that there are SO MANY independent lines of evidence that ALL converge on the exact same answer.
ERV's, phylogenetics, comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, ring species, fused chromosomes, homologies, transitional fossils, the fossil record as a whole, artificial selection in breeding programs, geographic distribution of species........ ALL these things are consistent with evolution and falls in line with the testable predictions it makes.
So, yes, it certainly IS interesting that the evidence for this theory is so diverse and present everywhere we look. What is even more interesting, is how you apparantly see this as some kind counter argument for evolution?
You see, usually, when an idea has so many independent lines of evidence, it only strengthens the idea................................
There is need, because it illustrates just how well demonstrated / supported this theory is. Another way it is needed, is because sticking to just one thing will make people like pretend as if it is the "only" thing AND you'll handwave it away anyhow.
No scientific theory is.
However, evolution IS supported beyond any reasonable doubt.
By multiple independent lines of evidence, all converging on the same answer - as demonstrated by your own statements above.
Yea, "so many"..... Like, the full few dozen (creationists) out of thousands, if not millions, of active publishing scientists.
If your bible would say that the sun burns candle oil, fundamentalists such as yourself would question the sun burning oxygon.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It's about you showing your ignorance by implying that "popular opinion" is somehow the same as "scientific consensus".
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
They aren't. Just like the false equivalence in your OP isn't.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Hey, you got something right!
Indeed, creationism is not a valid hypothesis and it is unfalsifiable.
It plays in the same league as undetectable pink graviton fairies.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
No. Man is a specific species of primate. We do not in fact know that they descended from other ape species.
William Lane Craig (the guy who also proposed Mlodinow and Hawking inadvertently proved God) was once in a debate about evolution. He basically said that there are certain portions of evolution that the average theist can reasonably accept... and there are parts of it that Darwin specifically foists on people that are more in line with his secular theories. Lemme search for the video.
Well it's harder to find than I'd hoped. But the basic reasoning is that the average Christian can probably agree that ppl in Norway are more suited to cold climates, and those in Africa/Middle East are more suited to warm climates. They can probably also see that many animals seem to change based on environment. What they would have a cow with is the assertion that this is somehow a replacement for creation (it's not, the lowest life forms may evolve but still have to have COME from somewhere), and the idea of survival of the fittest (which is responsible for unholy eugenics movements, including the Nazi murder of Jews).
Some of them (like me) are also skeptical about the existence of dinosaurs. Basically, before Darwin's theories nobody actually seemed to have much stock in the notion that there are dinosaurs. Now every school kid KNOWS there are dinosaurs. Once again, scientists have a consensus, and those who don't, tend to lose their jobs.
The Atlantean Conspiracy: Dinosaur Hoax - Dinosaurs Never Existed!
It's kinda like dragon bones through. You can put together a mix of whale bones and other creatures in creative ways to make suxh things look like wings. Or they'd carve bones into shapes. And that's what medieval people did. Why does the Bible speak repeatedly about dragons? Because you're basically setting up a false history by piecing together bones that you're altering somehow.
Last edited:
sooda
Veteran Member
Crichton ?
He wrote, among other works, The Andromeda Strain (1969), The Great Train Robbery (1975), Congo (1980), Sphere (1987), Jurassic Park (1990), Rising Sun (1992), Disclosure (1994), The Lost World (1995), Airframe (1996), Timeline (1999), Prey (2002), State of Fear (2004), and Next (2006). Films he wrote and directed included Westworld (1973), Coma (1978), The Great Train Robbery (1979), Looker (1981), and Runaway (1984).
sooda
Veteran Member
No. Man is a specific species of primate. We do not in fact know that they descended from other ape species.
William Lane Craig (the guy who also proposed Mlodinow and Hawking inadvertently proved God) was once in a debate about evolution. He basically said that there are certain portions of evolution that the average theist can reasonably accept... and there are parts of it that Darwin specifically foists on people that are more in line with his secular theories. Lemme search for the video.
Well it's harder to find than I'd hoped. But the basic reasoning is that the average Christian can probably agree that ppl in Norway are more suited to cold climates, and those in Africa/Middle East are more suited to warm climates. They can probably also see that many animals seem to change based on environment. What they would have a cow with is the assertion that this is somehow a replacement for creation (it's not, the lowest life forms may evolve but still have to have COME from somewhere), and the idea of survival of the fittest (which is responsible for unholy eugenics movements, including the Nazi murder of Jews).
Some of them (like me) are also skeptical about the existence of dinosaurs. Basically, before Darwin's theories nobody actually seemed to have much stock in the notion that there are dinosaurs. Now every school kid KNOWS there are dinosaurs. Once again, scientists have a consensus, and those who don't, tend to lose their jobs.
The Atlantean Conspiracy: Dinosaur Hoax - Dinosaurs Never Existed!
It's kinda like dragon bones through. You can put together a mix of whale bones and other creatures in creative ways to make suxh things look like wings. Or they'd carve bones into shapes. And that's what medieval people did. Why does the Bible speak repeatedly about dragons? Because you're basically setting up a false history by piecing together bones that you're altering somehow.
God created millions of dinosaur fossils just to trick you.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
We know that they are descendend from an ancestral primate species, which is also an ancestor of chimps. And further still we share a primate ancestor with gorilla's and oerangoetangs.
And further still we share a mammalian ancestor with cats and dogs.
And further still we share.....
It goes on for a while like that.
Yes, we know this.
William Lame Craig is "philosopher" who's only real claim to fame is being a "professional debater" in the "field" of theological apologetics.
The man's opinion on subjects of biology, is utterly irrelevant.
If by "creation" you mean some god molding "adam and eve" from scratch, then yes - it most definatly is a replacement from such "stork theory" equivalent views of human's history and origin.
Like from ancestral species?
"fit" in context of "best adapted to the evironment" - which is not the same as "stronger, faster, more intelligent".
And again, how facists etc (who, btw, put Origins of Species on the ban list!) abuse or misrepresent science, is of no relevance to the accuracy of the science.
Ya, okay, you're credible....
And before we understood what lightning was, the ancient romans didn't seem to have much stock in the notion that it's anything but Jupiter throwing lightning bolts. Or Thor smashing his hammer, in case of vikings. Now every school kid KNOWS that thunder and lightning are natural phenomena in the atmosphere.
Take a hint.
That's demonstrably false. Just about every big breakthrough in science, was done by someone going against the consensus. If what you said is true, then there'ld be no big picture progress at all.
Those who actually lose their jobs are those who don't play by the rules, who cheat or try to cricumvent the scientific process or who are just so ignorant that it's emberassing.
For example... a stork theorist, wouldn't last very long in a gynaecologist department.... For obvious reasons. And it's not because of some "grand conspiracy" among embryologists........
The Atlantean Conspiracy: Dinosaur Hoax - Dinosaurs Never Existed!
It's kinda like dragon bones through. You can put together a mix of whale bones and other creatures in creative ways to make suxh things look like wings. Or they'd carve bones into shapes. And that's what medieval people did. Why does the Bible speak repeatedly about dragons? Because you're basically setting up a false history by piecing together bones that you're altering somehow.
Yeah, yea, all paleontologists around the world spend their lives playing dishonest lego with bones they find in the ground, just to fool good christians like yourself.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Sure, you can write code that governs systems that are as predictable as clockwork. And then watching them is like watching paint dry or the hands of a clock. But things do happen, do change; a part breaks leading to a breakdown, catastrophic failure, or even a cascade failure. The program can continue to run during such failures.
cladking
Well-Known Member
It's far more "anti-science" to be so certain you know everything and that the opinions of experts are necessarily correct.
You can't see anomalies and know everything at the same time. It is impossible, hence human progress is impossible so long as reality is up to a vote.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Of course you're right. Reality doesn't care one whit what popular opinion is and is just sitting around patiently for the Peers to decide its fate.
Oh, why don't you pick one experiment that necessarily shows evolution actually exists as They say it does instead of burying us in things that don't support Darwin's contention?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Once again - please look into the discoveries of ERV commonality between human and other ape species. The only natural way that this happens is through inheritance in future generations from the prior. Based on the evidence, you are stuck with the conclusion that man is related to apes in his ancestry. Stuck.
Basically, a rational mind has no choice but to accept them. Just look at the plethora of canine species we have now. Through breeding selection we were able to "hand-craft" hundreds of canine varieties from just a handful of naturally occurring specimens (wolves, coyotes, hyenas, dingoes, etc.) Based on this first-hand evidence, to assume that this kind of change can't occur in the wild based on natural selection criteria is irrational.
Yeah... seems like a really legitimate source of information you've found yourself there. And when I say "legitimate" I am using my own definition that I just made up on the spot, which is: abjectly sad joke.
You've got this backward - purposefully so that it fits your chosen narrative, of course. People didn't dream up "dragons" and then retro-fit various bones to meet the criteria. They found huge bones for which they had no explanation, and came up with stories to explain them. Besides this, you're not thinking of hugely obvious details that remove the plausibility of this claim of yours. Such as the fact that people have found femur bones that are in one piece that are larger than any living creature walking around today has. This blows your "carve bones into shapes" out of the water, and whales don't have legs, and so don't have femurs (at least, none but some vestigial parts that we have come to know were femurs in their long distant ancestors - which look nothing like more "normal" femurs) - and so there goes that idea too. Point being - you simply have to willfully ignore or explain away all sorts of details of these artifacts that regular, everyday people have been known to have found. When the first dinosaur bones were found, it wasn't by some conclave of "evil" paleontologists/scientists hell-bent on tricking the world into believing there were giant dinosaurs walking around everywhere. And can you honestly believe that all of the nations of the world within which dinosaur bones have been found are "in cahoots" on such a grand conspiracy? What evidence might you have for a claim like that?
Last edited: