If “scientific consensus” can be measured (by, say, a head count or poll) then why can’t an ideological or political “consensus” be measured similarly? And why couldn’t it be replicated with the same disinformation anywhere?
“Consensus” is, by definition, the opinion of a group. That opinion can be formed by any political salesmanship or convenience… not necessarily connected with any objective assessments of reality.
That’s why we need a scientific method to assess the validity of observations and their projections.
There is no disinformation about evolution. If evidence that it is wrong exists and is credible, bring it forth for analysis by experts. It only takes one serious refutation for a theory to be blown out of the water. Science is a method, scientific knowledge is the best guess based on available evidence. If there is evidence that evolution is wrong, then it would change the entire scientific paradigm.
I don’t understand. Why do you want to debate evolution? Who are you trying to engage with? The community here is not American or confused about what science is, and probably the majority are atheists. Are you trying to save some souls?
The arguments for / against evolution have been heard since Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species, and under the most intense scientific scrutiny, it still stands.Maybe you are more brilliant than all those minds of the last 2 centuries. Who knows. That’s whats so fantastic about science. But alas so far you have not raised a singular rational argument and are relying on playing with definitions of words. I expect soon you will throw in a god of the gaps argument as your final definitive proof. yawn
What I’m saying is there is nothing new or interesting in anything you are saying. Maybe at least be funny or have a sense of humour.
The evidence that “Evolution” is entirely an impossible ideological daydream has been “brought fourth” by all kinds of scholars only to be dismissed and “buried” in political/ideological prejudice.
Sure, [quote=“Frew, post:43, topic:1148”]
It only takes one serious refutation for a theory to be blown out of the water.
[/quote] but even hundreds of thousands of refutations will not disturb the fanatically ideologically committed.
“Evolution” doesn’t even come close to a theory in the scientific sense. Let me describe scientific method very basically and crudely:
1; Observation: something is seen to happen or to be
2; Question; how or why is that
3; Hypothesis; maybe it’s because… (a proposed idea to be tested with experiment and logic)
4; Theory. if an hypothesis passes all the tests of experiment and logic it can be called a theory and it might be used as a measure to test other hypotheses by
5; Law; if it can be proved that there are no, and can be no, exceptions to the theory then it’s a law.
According to this simple scientific method “Evolution” is nothing but a completely failed hypothesis. It is never validated or reproduced by any kind of experiment nor is it logically possible according to all known Laws of Nature.
Additionally, if you have found a flaw in Evolution I strongly recommend you write a paper on it.
You can submit it to scientific journals and see if your arguments can survive scrutiny of other scientists.
The link for Scientific American is:
This website is not a science journal, so is probably not the best place for you to seek critique on your new scientific discovery. But good luck. We need all the smart minds we can get to contribute to science.
Have you noticed which side of your little argument lies and which does not. This is why I became an atheist btw. I noticed the only people that really lied a lot were religious.
Now why would I do that? There are many hundreds, if not thousands, of well credentialed good scientists who have already done that. Politically correct ideological prejudice trumps scholarship every time in your version of “free speech”.
Uh huh! As yet, none of you have provided any indication that you are any more enlightened or erudite than any other gang of hecklers wanting to shut down any discussion that might be inconvenient to your irrational ideology.
Of course, no one but a conspiracy theorist would ever predict that ordinary people could be so predictably detached from reality.
