I'm beside myself with anticipation.
Let us now hear from the Creationists
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
Take 10 people who are considered as experts in a field of study.
7 of the 10 hold one opinion on an issue, 3 hold a different opinion on the same issue.
The majority opinion dictates policy.
Doe the majority opinion determine the truth of a policy?
Your position in the argument over what is a contested issue seems to hinge upon definitions as given by some scientists of what a species is, what evolution is, etc. and a majority opinion of scientists.
The opinion of a majority of scientists has been show to be wrong time and time again, so argument from a basis of majority opinion doesn't in itself reveal the best conclusion.
This would be akin to saying that the Catholic Church was the opinion to hold regarding Jesus Christ, because the Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church.
I had an internet discussion with a fellow at one point, an atheist.
He claimed that his definition of what an atheist was was the right definition, as his definition was produced by an atheist organization, and my definition was based on my own reasoning.
By his definition, a turnip is an atheist.
What I see in this discussion, and in so many discussions of this type is a lack of agreement on terminology and what or who is the final authority to adjudicate.
I will put up reason and common sense against the opinions of any group of people who are trained to think the same way, and suffer a bias as a result.
While science has helped us live a better quality of material life, the designation of "scientists" holds much less weight to the common man than it used to.
I wager that the average jury doesn't care squat if someone is a scientist. What they would do is listen to the arguments and think what makes the most sense to them in their lives.
There is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt when it comes to both the theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of man, as well as reason to doubt the conclusions of any homogeneous group, especially if that group has an atheistic agenda.
7 of the 10 hold one opinion on an issue, 3 hold a different opinion on the same issue.
The majority opinion dictates policy.
Doe the majority opinion determine the truth of a policy?
Your position in the argument over what is a contested issue seems to hinge upon definitions as given by some scientists of what a species is, what evolution is, etc. and a majority opinion of scientists.
The opinion of a majority of scientists has been show to be wrong time and time again, so argument from a basis of majority opinion doesn't in itself reveal the best conclusion.
This would be akin to saying that the Catholic Church was the opinion to hold regarding Jesus Christ, because the Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church.
I had an internet discussion with a fellow at one point, an atheist.
He claimed that his definition of what an atheist was was the right definition, as his definition was produced by an atheist organization, and my definition was based on my own reasoning.
By his definition, a turnip is an atheist.
What I see in this discussion, and in so many discussions of this type is a lack of agreement on terminology and what or who is the final authority to adjudicate.
I will put up reason and common sense against the opinions of any group of people who are trained to think the same way, and suffer a bias as a result.
While science has helped us live a better quality of material life, the designation of "scientists" holds much less weight to the common man than it used to.
I wager that the average jury doesn't care squat if someone is a scientist. What they would do is listen to the arguments and think what makes the most sense to them in their lives.
There is sufficient cause for reasonable doubt when it comes to both the theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin of man, as well as reason to doubt the conclusions of any homogeneous group, especially if that group has an atheistic agenda.
Definitions are nothing more than words constructed by humans to communicate information. Your position in the argument hinges on what YOU believe the correct definition of what a species is, and what evolution is.
Yes, I am siding with the majority opinion, until such time as a minority opinion appears and catches fire. It would be no different if this were 1918, and Einstein was getting ready to challenge Newton. I'd be saying, "OK, AL baby -- prove it!"
For all of the multitude of "creationist" arguments that have thus far been made, none of them has caused any major university, corporation or government agency to modify its view on whether or not evolution is the best theory of the development of life on Earth. Is this just a giant conspiracy? If you believe so, then I suggest you are unreasonably paranoid.
No amount of logical arguments from creationists will change the existing evolutionary theory. The ONLY way that things will change is if creationists, perform real experiments and produce findings that falsify each and every major premise of evolutionary theory.
You can gain a majority opinion here in this thread, and pretend that you have the upper hand, but you don't. I do.
And, until your side starts producing real evidence supporting your position, instead of logical interpretations, you will never catch up. So, stop typing, get off your collective asses, and prove your theory.
Quote from G'N'R:
ahhhhhahaha ha! i smell another TWENTY PAGES of great oratory! let the great games begin! ha!
Well, it won't be coming from me. All good things must come to an end, and I need to go back to my day job real soon now, where I get to argue with people and get paid for it.
"You can gain a majority opinion here in this thread, and pretend that you have the upper hand, but you don't. I do."
Not interested in minority or majority opinion to make up my mind for me, I can do that for myself. Also not seeking upper or lower hand. Truth is not about upper or lower hand jives, or upper or lower hand jobs as the case may be for you.
I'll stick with what is obvious, combined with common sense reasoning over illogical dogmatism any day.
p.s. Einstein's theory has not been proved, that's why they still call it a theory of general relativity and not a proof of general relativity.
Not interested in minority or majority opinion to make up my mind for me, I can do that for myself. Also not seeking upper or lower hand. Truth is not about upper or lower hand jives, or upper or lower hand jobs as the case may be for you.
I'll stick with what is obvious, combined with common sense reasoning over illogical dogmatism any day.
p.s. Einstein's theory has not been proved, that's why they still call it a theory of general relativity and not a proof of general relativity.