The Mystery Thread

[sealchan]

I dont know why people stay stuck on consensus. Its beyond me.

Because it's usually correct. Until and unless someone does the work to overturn it. Talk is talk.

That is unless the methodology itself is inconsistent or unproven...then consensus is arbitrary.

Unless, I suppose, one thinks human beings are fundamentally inept...

 

[Jollybear]

Because it's usually correct. Until and unless someone does the work to overturn it. Talk is talk.

That is unless the methodology itself is inconsistent or unproven...then consensus is arbitrary.

Which i think it is.

Unless, I suppose, one thinks human beings are fundamentally inept...

Which sometimes THAT IS too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not saying anything about availability though, I'm talking about people who say they know it and most likely don't even begin to understand it. I certainly never felt the need to familiarize myself with it. It's a question of whether to believe in the creator of the universe or some imperfect people who have a long history of changing their minds about what is true.

Yet you refuse to even learn the basics of science so that you can evaluate it. As things stand now all that you can do is to make arguments from ignorance do to your refusal to take advantage of the offers made to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I dont know why people stay stuck on consensus. Its beyond me.

Consensus is, in a large part, a main selector in the formation of religion. A man thinks that a tree is god. He's a nut. A 1000 people think a tree is god. They're a cult. When the consensus reaches millions. It's a religion.

The above is an example of unverified consensus, based purely on word of mouth spread of belief. It is arbitrary. In science, consensus is based on evidence, existing work and the logic of the theoretical basis. The possibility of being wrong is known, but when there is no logical reason to consider otherwise based on the evidence, a consensus is reached. Even then, work continues in both the empirical and the philosophical to test what is agreed upon.

 

[Jollybear]

Consensus is, in a large part, a main selector in the formation of religion. A man thinks that a tree is god. He's a nut. A 1000 people think a tree is god. They're a cult. When the consensus reaches millions. It's a religion.

The above is an example of unverified consensus, based purely on word of mouth spread of belief. It is arbitrary. In science, consensus is based on evidence, existing work and the logic of the theoretical basis. The possibility of being wrong is known, but when there is no logical reason to consider otherwise based on the evidence, a consensus is reached. Even then, work continues in both the empirical and the philosophical to test what is agreed upon.

Theres evidence for God. Who cares about a tree being called a god.

Consensus is meaningless to me.

You cant really even discuss a subject having consensus thrown at you. Believe this because consensus says so.

You know too, i think some people bring up science consensus just to belittle the minority. It annoys me to say the least.

I dont believe things under pressure, i believe under an understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Theres evidence for God. Who cares about a tree being called a god.

Consensus is meaningless to me.

You cant really even discuss a subject having consensus thrown at you. Believe this because consensus says so.

You know too, i think some people bring up science consensus just to belittle the minority. It annoys me to say the least.

I dont believe things under pressure, i believe under an understanding.

I know what I believe, but I don't know of any evidence for God. Nothing that I can point to when talking with another and say, "There. See that. That is evidence God is real and here is why."

I would reference the scientific consensus in illustrating that the theory of evolution is the cutting edge opinion of science. To demonstrate that if scientists agree with it, how have others come to disagree with it when they are generally not that well knowledgeable of the theory or even of science. It isn't to demean or force someone, but to point out how scientists are in robust agreement with it as the chief explanation for the diversity and relationships of life on Earth.

 

[Jollybear]

I know what I believe, but I don't know of any evidence for God. Nothing that I can point to when talking with another and say, "There. See that. That is evidence God is real and here is why."

I think design in nature, NDEs, spiritual experiences, ESPs, all of that is evidence for God. But im sure you probably heard this ad infinutum.

I would reference the scientific consensus in illustrating that the theory of evolution is the cutting edge opinion of science. To demonstrate that if scientists agree with it, how have others come to disagree with it when they are generally not that well knowledgeable of the theory or even of science. It isn't to demean or force someone, but to point out how scientists are in robust agreement with it as the chief explanation for the diversity and relationships of life on Earth.

Heres the thing though, there ARE people, organizations that understand it and yet disagree with it. There are also some scientists who disagree with it too.

Consensus is not important. Not to me anyway. No one will ever convince me of a view based on consensus. Theres practically zero hope of them doing so.

And to make matters worse, when someone thinks im dishonest with no integrity because of disagreeing with consensus makes me laugh and write off such people in my mind.

Its alright to be aware of a consensus on a subject, but to go by it, no way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what I believe, but I don't know of any evidence for God. Nothing that I can point to when talking with another and say, "There. See that. That is evidence God is real and here is why."

I would reference the scientific consensus in illustrating that the theory of evolution is the cutting edge opinion of science. To demonstrate that if scientists agree with it, how have others come to disagree with it when they are generally not that well knowledgeable of the theory or even of science. It isn't to demean or force someone, but to point out how scientists are in robust agreement with it as the chief explanation for the diversity and relationships of life on Earth.

Yep, the religious tend not to understand the nature of evidence. Anecdote is not evidence. Unexplained phenomena are not evidence. When comparing creationism to the theory of evolution both need to be based on scientific evidence. That means to have evidence one must first have a falsifiable hypothesis at the very least.

To the creationists, what reasonable test could show your idea to be wrong? And please note, no strawman arguments about evolution allowed.

 

[Earthling]

Yep, the religious tend not to understand the nature of evidence. Anecdote is not evidence. Unexplained phenomena are not evidence. When comparing creationism to the theory of evolution both need to be based on scientific evidence. That means to have evidence one must first have a falsifiable hypothesis at the very least.

To the creationists, what reasonable test could show your idea to be wrong? And please note, no strawman arguments about evolution allowed.

I think that for the Bible believer the ultimate question is, who cares? The only reason I ever got involved with the dispute is that those promoting evolution are so arrogant. There is only one possible truth here, they seem to say, and it trumps your belief.

Otherwise, why on earth would I care?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that for the Bible believer the ultimate question is, who cares? The only reason I ever got involved with the dispute is that those promoting evolution are so arrogant. There is only one possible truth here, they seem to say, and it trumps your belief.

Otherwise, why on earth would I care?

Sorry, but you cannot call others arrogant when you won't even take the time to learn the basics of science before you reject a concept that has been tested countless times. Those on the side of the sciences are not the arrogant ones here.

Yes, your beliefs are wrong. You really should take some time to learn why we know that they are wrong. The Ostrich defense, the one that you use, is a form of arrogance.

 

[Earthling]

Sorry, but you cannot call others arrogant when you won't even take the time to learn the basics of science before you reject a concept that has been tested countless times.

I just did.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Would you follow passive Christ if you knew hell burns itself to peace of mind without laying a finger on it?

Morality is the key, equanimity is the safe, emotion is the power gem.

 

[gnostic]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

It really depends on what means by “tenets of science”.

And it also depends on what you mean by “evolution”.

I find that creationists are biased and idiots, who often confused “evolution” with “abiogenesis”.

When they are talking about “evolution”, they are actually talking about is “abiogenesis”.

Abiogenesis is about how life first formed from inorganic matters into living organic matter, hence abiogenesis is a study about the origin of first life.

Abiogenesis is still a work-in-progress hypothesis, because they are not done with the testings, and there are several different versions of abiogenesis, and they have yet to conclusively determine which version is the correct one.

Evolution, on the other hand, is not focused on the origin of first life, but about how life can change over time (but not “time” as in days or years, but rather “time” as in generations), due to one of evolutionary mechanisms, eg natural selection, or genetic drift, or mutation, etc. Evolution can result in biodiversity through speciation.

For evolution to happen, life must already exist, because evolution can only occur through genetics, in which older generation will pass the necessary genes, allele and DNA/RNA, etc to the next generation, and through a number of generations.

Unlike abiogenesis, evolution is not a hypothesis, but a working “Scientific Theory”, and each of the evolutionary mechanisms have already be rigorously tested, and thereby following the strict requirements of Scientific Method.

The “idiot” part comes when no matter how many times to explain evolution isn’t abiogenesis, and evolution isn’t about the origin of first life, creationists will not learn these differences, and will continue to make the same mistakes, over, over and over again.

Stubborn ignorance and unwillingness to learn from one’s mistakes, are not attractive traits of creationists.

So what are you really talking about, Earthling?

Are you really talking about life evolving over time or are you really talking about the origin of first life? Evolution or Abiogenesis? Which is it?

 

[gnostic]

Would you follow passive Christ if you knew hell burns itself to peace of mind without laying a finger on it?

Morality is the key, equanimity is the safe, emotion is the power gem.

What are you talking about?

What does your reply have to do with the OP?

 

[gnostic]

I think that for the Bible believer the ultimate question is, who cares? The only reason I ever got involved with the dispute is that those promoting evolution are so arrogant. There is only one possible truth here, they seem to say, and it trumps your belief.

Otherwise, why on earth would I care?

But is that exactly what believers and creationists do?

If you look at the whole history of Christianity, that’s all they have been doing.

They tell others that Judaism is wrong, and persecuted Jews for not converting.

Do you think WW2 and Nazi Germany were the only time they singled out Jews for persecution and genocide? Since the High Middle Ages (c 1100 - c 1350 CE) of Europe, Jews were forced to dress a certain way so they could be identified as Jews, live in certain areas of their cities, and made to work in jobs that they didn’t want to, but if Jews got rich in such jobs, they would burn their businesses or even their home down, out of righteous jealousy and spite.

They tell others that Islam wrong, and persecuted Muslims for what? Superiority and consensus among the Christians that they are in the right.

And when they are not persecuting or fighting outsiders, they fight among themselves for superiority. Catholics against Protestants, Protestants against other Protestants. And they all hate heresy, so they branded them as heretics and witches, torturing them and executing them.

Some Christians today, still think this way, but others have left such violence behind. But does that still do, now focus their attention on not just the heretics, Muslims and Jews, but on atheists and agnostics. They have also focused on science, but particularly evolution has been singled out.

You want to talk about arrogance, then you shouldn’t point finger at others, just look at the reflection of yourself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think design in nature, NDEs, spiritual experiences, ESPs, all of that is evidence for God. But im sure you probably heard this ad infinutum.

Heres the thing though, there ARE people, organizations that understand it and yet disagree with it.

I agree. But on what basis do these organizations disagree. Is it on the evidence, the logic of the theoretical structure or quality of the work conducted in testing the theory or is it on some religious or philosophical grounds?

There are also some scientists who disagree with it too.

Not that many and even several that propose design and a designer, accept the evidence for evolution. How many are opposed on scientific grounds?

Consensus is not important.

I disagree. If one guy says I am a jerk, that may just be sour grapes. If everyone says I am a jerk, then I probably should re-evaluate my position or communication.

Not to me anyway.

Clearly.

No one will ever convince me of a view based on consensus. Theres practically zero hope of them doing so.

Well, I can only provide you with what I know and conclude. Consensus is referenced in regard to evolution as a piece of evidence and not the whole of it. Accepting something based solely on consensus isn't useful, but that isn't how I see the recognition of scientific consensus on evolution is being used here or elsewhere.

And to make matters worse, when someone thinks im dishonest with no integrity because of disagreeing with consensus makes me laugh and write off such people in my mind.

I don't think you are being dishonest, but it shouldn't be dismissed as worthless just because you don't like a particular consensus. I don't know what your religious views are. I am part of a consensus of the belief in God. Would you dismiss that consensus? Perhaps. Maybe you follow a different consensus in that regard.

Its alright to be aware of a consensus on a subject, but to go by it, no way.

That's a different story. Now I wish I had read your statement here first. That is something you and I both agree on and I more or less said in the above. Being aware of the consensus and finding the reasons for it should, at the very least, make one wonder why it exists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think design in nature, NDEs, spiritual experiences, ESPs, all of that is evidence for God. But im sure you probably heard this ad infinutum.

I missed responding to this.

I don't know of anyone that can prove that there is design in nature, so I couldn't point to that as evidence for the existence of God. I might think it and I might believe it, but that isn't evidence that I can point to and share as definitive.

I don't know if other peoples spiritual experiences happened. How could I demonstrate them or my own?

NDE's and ESP may not exist. These supposed phenomena could have alternate explanations and in some cases they do. How can you tell if they are real or the result of something else?

None of this is something I can use as evidence to explain or support my personal beliefs. In my view, that leaves me with faith alone, which is all I have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep, the religious tend not to understand the nature of evidence. Anecdote is not evidence. Unexplained phenomena are not evidence. When comparing creationism to the theory of evolution both need to be based on scientific evidence. That means to have evidence one must first have a falsifiable hypothesis at the very least.

To the creationists, what reasonable test could show your idea to be wrong? And please note, no strawman arguments about evolution allowed.

I do find that many people think their assumptions are the evidence that supports their conclusions.

As far as unexplained phenomena like ESP and near death experiences are concerned, how do I know that they are what they appear and not the function of something that isn't even a part of the conversation.

I find that if a person likes an explanation, no matter how likely or unlikely, that becomes the explanation for them. It seems a very human thing to do, but it is difficult to communicate to others that this many not be the actual explanation. The actual explanation may not even be among the list of explanations that have been provided.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep, the religious tend not to understand the nature of evidence. Anecdote is not evidence. Unexplained phenomena are not evidence. When comparing creationism to the theory of evolution both need to be based on scientific evidence. That means to have evidence one must first have a falsifiable hypothesis at the very least.

To the creationists, what reasonable test could show your idea to be wrong? And please note, no strawman arguments about evolution allowed.

I think I told you this story once before, so I'll just give the highlights. My father, brother and I once saw a UFO. To this day, I don't have any idea what it was. Some people go right to aliens and alien spacecraft, but all I can say is that I saw something, it was flying and behaving unusually and I don't know what it was. There may be a good explanation for it, but with only the information of my observation, it wasn't enough to provide that explanation. Just because it was a UFO, jumping to alien civilizations as the explanation leaves out many other, and often much more valid explanations, without benefit of even checking into them.

I think a lot of that happens. I've done it myself. I know, because I've had to eat my own words.

 

[MonkeyFire]

What are you talking about?

What does your reply have to do with the OP?

Oops