Why are evolutionists such hypocrites?

If you recall, your "data" for demons was the Bible. Is this the "data" you think is going to impress scientists?When you return from your journey into fantasyland perhaps you'll remember that you're at a science site already inhabited by scientists and many science-oriented laypeople. You're doing just as good a job convincing people that the Bible is a scientific reference book as Alan Cresswell is in convincing people he's invented a perpetual motion machine. You're both doing an excellent job coming across as quacks.I'm not even going to address your vitamen C stuff because now you're just changing your story. Instead of defending your claim that "the Subcommittee on Laboratory Animal Nutrition of the National Research Council recommends that most primates be fed 1.75 to 3.5 grams of ascorbate per day", you just move on to new arguments. You seem to be making it up as you go along. I could address your new vitamen C claims, but what would be the point since you'll just make different unsubstantiated claims. Say what you mean the first time, stick with it, and when you make citations, cite something that other people can actually access. I notice you haven't replied to my post about the problems with your M. Levine citation. Sure, Stephen, sure. You won all the debates and you're a scientist. Right.Click on your name, Stephen. That will bring you to a webpage that tells you if you have replies waiting for you. Guess what? You have messages you haven't replied to yet in those other threads. Rather than winning, you appear to have cut and run. But you're not defending them. I called them indefensible and ridiculous because you appear to have cut and run in those threads. You advocated the existence of demons, and you claimed the Bible as a science reference source because The Bible Code proves it, and instead of sticking around to defend those positions you opened this new thread. If you sincerely believe these positions aren't indefensible and ridiculous then get in there and defend them and show they're not ridiculous. Abandoning the field is what the loser does when he's out of ammo.--Percy

Holmes,You ask, Please forgive me for leaving the idea open that you were as hypocritical as those I was chastising. I keep responding to you because I believe you are sincerely after the truth. And I like, have always liked, the methodological in MN. Especially the way you handle it. Actually, I wanted to give the evolutionists a great argument. A mean, we need lots of vitamin C to be healthy. If Jehovah created us, why has he left us bereft of this important gene, when He's going to feed us on bread and wine and milk and cooked meat, all pretty much devoid of it?There's a neat paper by a guy named Spitznagle, in 1971 Bioscience, where he lays out Pauling's theory, before Pauling had really published much about it. How we have been evolving some sort of vitamin C adjustment since agriculture. He then summarizes the various experiments that had been done to that date, showing that vitamin C requirements in humans were spread out the way phenotypic traits often are under severe selection pressure.Besides, vitamin C raises IQ. Maybe if more of these evolutionists would take some, they would be as bright as you seem to be. Yeah, I concede that point. My remark was facetious, actually. Like I say, I don't see us debating, just informing each other of data and arguments. If you want to debate, we need to line up a judge, and set out the rules. Great tip! I don't agree. And I still lack substantial data refuting the hypothesis that you really don't understand Bayes theorem and how it applies, nor are willing to be up front about that. What would MN say to this hypothesis? Because MN says simply, get to the top of the mountain? Actually, I don't really like my "H-D is a subset to MN" statement, since I don't think there are any points in MN that are not in H-D. I think the reverse is the case. I think that all H-D scientists are MN scientists, but that some MN scientists reject doing H-D science. Which makes MN a subset of H-D. Everything we do qualifies as MN research. But, we do things that meet MN's basic positive conditions and goals, that MN scientists reject doing anyhow. What do you think? The shotgun in H-D got put there by strong inference. You have to deal with any plausible hypothesis, and do your best to test predictions that contrast between the two. Does MN like to deal with implausible hypotheses? I thought you once said that the only hypotheses that could be dealt with had to have a clear mechanistic explanation in hand. Don't know what that does to gravity, but never mind. H-D says start with the best you have. You will get to the mechanistic explanation after you have tested many predictions.But I'm off to the Great Debate!Stephen

quote:

---

Actually, I wanted to give the evolutionists a great argument.

---

They already do. We don't process our own vitamin C as many other organisms do. It appears to be a genetic change which nixed that ability, and it happened while in an environment where that would not be detrimental. Not sure if there was a reason, and no need to posit one.

quote:

---

Besides, vitamin C raises IQ. Maybe if more of these evolutionists would take some, they would be as bright as you seem to be.

---

I am unsure what proof there is of this, but personally I find most of the evos here extremely bright... even smarter than me.

quote:

---

And I still lack substantial data refuting the hypothesis that you really don't understand Bayes theorem and how it applies, nor are willing to be up front about that. What would MN say to this hypothesis?

---

I am unsure if you are asking what MN would say about Bayes Theorem, or the hypothesis I don't understand Bayes and so unwilling to be up front about it?I do understand the basic concept of Bayes Theorem, though I think it is essentially useless when you are talking about claims of knowledge. It results in probability estimates, but the percentages hinge on some statistical knowledge of a subject in the first place. Thus it becomes circular when used to back the theoretical models themselves.

quote:

---

Does MN like to deal with implausible hypotheses? I thought you once said that the only hypotheses that could be dealt with had to have a clear mechanistic explanation in hand. Don't know what that does to gravity, but never mind.

---

MN doesn't "like" to deal with anything. It is simply a way to approach any hypothesis. You can make the most outlandish claims in the world. The problem will boil down to finding out how to design a research program according to MN protocols.If this is incapable of being done (let's say that part of the claim is that the effects will always be unseen, or untestable) then it must go unjudged. It cannot be claimed true or false, though scientists will often use occam's razor to ignore the claim when constructing models it might have affected. If you find this a problem with MN, then I would like to know how.Most scientists will stick to ongoing research programs, building knowledge from where a sufficient body of knowledge has been achieved, rather than starting with alternative models where there is no body of knowledge (beside assertion).In the former case there is absolutely NO reason for them to move beyond known mechanisms until they become unable to explain observed phenomena. In the latter case they may want to hypothesize new mechanisms but the onus is on the hypothesizer to explain why they must be used instead of known mechanisms, especially if they would contradict each other or the new one conflicts with other models.Again, this is the effect of using occam's razor.As far as gravity goes, the effect of two masses on each other can be seen and measured.

quote:

---

H-D says start with the best you have. You will get to the mechanistic explanation after you have tested many predictions.

---

People can be mistaken, inflate their degree of knowledge, and ascribe greater characteristics to natural phenomenon than actually exist. This is known to happen and so becomes the best theory we have for why religions exist in the form we see them.That is until things like results of prayer can be detected, and then isolated by MN protocols. So far they have not even been detected. I will point out that someone else has posted a rather convincing article that refutes your own claim on prayer study. One you appeared to cite was rerun with a larger group and tighter control and no evidence of effects were found.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Holmes,you note, I've got a request out checking up on this finding. Don't know why the website itself isn't validating the news report. Or other news reports.And a protocol of MN is what?Stephen

Duke's website does link to the BBC news story (the "Duke in the News" section. The BBC also devoted a program to the study (under the "Everyman" title), which included participation from the researchers.There is really no doubt about the result of MANTRA II.

quote:

---

And a protocol of MN is what?

---

Seriously, you either know how to create an experiment or research program according to modern/common methodology, or you are not a scientist.If you had not proclaimed what a wonderful scientist you are, I might have answered this question... though asked if you did not know, why you would criticize it and its results.In this case you not only should know, I have given examples in other posts which describe ways to detect data and isolate the phenomena to the hypothesized mechanism (in specific to prayer study).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Then I realized that, duh, all these people were behaving hypocritically, that the MN they claimed to follow actually did allow the study of spiritual truth, as long as that truth could be shown to influence electro-magnetic reality. Our measurables.

---

"electro-magnetic reality"...making up concepts...the last refuge of those with no evidence.

quote:

---

I admit, I should have gotten to this point quicker, when I saw how upset MN scientists got over prayer experiments. They knew, and know, that if these prayer experiments are validated, they have to either renounce MN, or face the truth about spiritual reality.

---

Yet again, you fail to grasp the very basics of science Stephan. If the prayer experiments worked, then there would be an identifiable and measurable phenomenon that could be addressed via MN. Get it? The fact that there is no reproducibly measureable effect and that the studies are badly flawed is why they are not accepted. The same way that cold fusion and other non-reproducible experiments are worthless (or in the case of Henrik Schon, fraudulent). If you want to "validate" the experiments then go for it. But then you will be dealing with a natural phenomenon that can be approached via MN.

quote:

---

It's like evolutionists, taking creationists' reports of what the Bible says, or what it means to follow Yeshua, when they, the creationists, are so patently hypocritical.

---

I am not sure what you are trying to get at here but I don't think any of the evolutionists on this board took anything that creationists say about the bible as valid. Some of the evolutionists here are far more familiar with the bible than you and the rest of the run of the mill creationists if I think of Brian or John for example. Evolutionists don't need creationists as suppliers of information for anything except perhaps as a measure of how badly religion can cause one to misunderstand science and willfully remain ignorant about subjects they claim to be opposed to.

quote:

---

I'm not a creationist, by the way. I am a truthist. I find the creation hypothesis much more scientifically plausible than the evolution hypothesis. But, to attach an -ist to a title, in my personal practise, means that I am practically dogmatic about it. I am, for all practical purposes, dogmatic about the existence or reality of truth. But, creation or evolution are just ideas, whose plausibility needs to be assessed. Well, not just ideas, since the implications of both influence how I am to decently try to respond to God, and my fellow man.

---

You Stephan, are a run of the mill creationist and as holmes pointed out, a simple Xian creationist. You can try to dress up your beliefs with pseudoscientific jargon, pretend that you are arguing as a scientific authority, pervert the scientific method in your own mind to try and support you obviously weak faith...but at the end of the day, you are a bible blinded creationist.

quote:

---

Because the creationist hypothesis is so well confirmed scientifically, and no strong inference test of evolution confirms it, that I know of, I consider it indecent to not honor the rights of the hypothetical creator. Of course, believing in evolution is a good rationalization for not stealing from Jehovah, and otherwise ignoring His rights to be respected.

---

Considering your reliance on farts as evidence of demons, it is not surprising that you would think that science somehow confirms creationism and rejects evolution. However, I think it is indecent to proclaim oneself a scientist when one rejects the scientific method. If you are a "truthist" you should merely admit that you are creationist who believes what he believes regardless of the evidence rather than trying to prop your faith with science which will never support your cause. Is your faith really so weak?

quote:

---

As I noted in my reply to Holmes, that evolutionists attack people, instead of ideas, confirms my major point.

---

You made judgmental statements about a large group of people on this board regarding their morality and ethics. That is a typical creationist tactic which you employed presumably because you are so unfamiliar with evolutionary theory that you are unable to debate it..in fact I have yet to see you actually address where evolution fails or discuss evolution in general. In any case, many of responded to your fallacious description of evolutionists..if it makes you feel good about yourself, take it as a personal attack..in fact, I will fart now and send some demons your way if it makes your day.

quote:

---

I do think that, if you start changeing the way you think, and get more serious about loving the truth, you'll get a clearer conscience, more peace of mind, and greater joy.

---

I could say exactly the same thing to you. However, I would add that you should tone down your self importance, it is blinding you to the truth. You should also be more honest i.e. that you wish desparately for science to prop up your faith and so have developed this ad hoc bastardization of science to square away the complete incompatibility of your beliefs and the real world.

Isn't that, by definition, what they've done first? [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-26-2004]

Stephan states

quote:

---

As I noted in my reply to Holmes, that evolutionists attack people, instead of ideas, confirms my major point.

---

And then he also states

quote:

---

Besides, vitamin C raises IQ. Maybe if more of these evolutionists would take some, they would be as bright as you seem to be.

---

and this to

quote:

---

Ok, mis- or dis- information corrected, we can get to my point, which is that evolutionists are ugly people. But, Darwinsderrier, no terrier, sorry, at least you aren't that hypocritical, since you call yourself a dog, saving me the trouble. To call someone like Pauling "mad as a hatter." is, however, a good example of contemptible scientific debate. (It's called an ad hominem. Not that you'll have any idea of what that means.)

---

Stephan = hypocrite

Mammuthus,Those are awesome experimental results! Did you use MN or something? I prayed on the same hypothesis but I ended up falling asleep.Esteban "Angel Farts" Hambre

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Well you know Mr. H, I am a scientist so that means anything I say is correct (it also makes me good looking, with clear skin, and able to beat up ten drunks in a subway all at the same time). I also employed the H-D method (Huge-Donut) whereby I prayed for a donut to appear in front of me...when it did not, I farted which provided me with the evidence that demons eat donuts. With this powerful method of gathering empirical evidence for things that are not there, revealing Stephan's hypocricy was mere childs play. It also made me a truthist whereby I claim anything I say is the truth even when I am lying and that anyone who disagrees with me cannot be a scientists..and is stupid. The joy and open mindedness this has provided me is wonderful...give it a try.Mammuthus ben PinkUnicornis

Now guys,Just because you are ugly people doesn't make you wrong. You are wrong because your ideas don't work, don't predict the outcomes of surprising experiments.But my query at the beginning was, why are you guys such hypocrites? Mostly, your posts demonstrate my point that you are hypocrites, claiming to be scientific, but demonstrating little or no understanding of science. Attempting to debate, but introducing ugly ad hominems. When the subject of the debate is "Why are you evolutionists such badly behaved people," of course, it is not hypocritical to bring to the light the bad behavior. By provoking it, in this case.My goal, of course, is to make sure you have a choice, to understand and know about a better way. Or, stay the way you are. It's your life. You are responsible for what you are. Your attacks on me, of course, are an honor to me. But, you are such biblical experts, you knew that already.Cheers!!StephenConfucious say, "Ostrich with head in sand soon become pile of lion shit."

Holmes,I did a fairly lengthy google search on H-D science, and on MN. Now I see why you never have any protocols on MN handy.Cheers,Stephen

quote:

---

I did a fairly lengthy google search on H-D science, and on MN. Now I see why you never have any protocols on MN handy.

---

Nice ad hominem. Are you seriously expecting me to believe that you could not find any discussion of research methods for any of the physical sciences online?I am unsure if the term Methodological Naturalism is going to bring up such pages, but obviously those pages contain MN protocols. If not, then what the F are you complaining about, or comparing/contrasting with H-D?This has got to be your lamest post yet. What are you going to imply next, that there is no such thing as chemistry, physics, and biology and I am making to whole thing up, just to avoid converting to Xianity?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

In Message 168 of The best scientific method thread, Stephen and I had this exchange. Stephen never replied, but I'd be interested to know if other people think I got it right: --Percy