Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Examples of Dishonesty
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 31 of 55 (104202)
04-30-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
04-30-2004 10:23 AM


Hello jar:
You start with:
jar writes:
NO!
You can not base it on degrees or level of education. That would be simply attributing it to Authority.
I agreeto a point. But I still think education does play a role. I’m saying that two people can make the same claim (decay rates have changed over time) and that one of them (let’s call them the layperson for lack of a better term right now) can simply be making a mistake while the other (a PhD scientist) is being dishonest.
Then you say:
jar writes:
It is necessary to decide the merits based on the evidence and facts available...
Which is kind of my point. Who knows better the available facts and evidence (and/or where to find them) than a scientist (which these guys all claim to be)? IMHO someone with an advanced degree in a scientific discipline KNOWS how science is defined and how to conduct scientific investigations. To simple dismiss radiometric dating because to accept it would falsify their underlying religious beliefs is, to me, dishonest. Ok, I’ll concede the notion that the average person would have no problem accepting that the decay rates for radioisotopes are not consistent. But there is absolutely no reason what-so-ever to make this claim, and while your average "joe on the street" may not know this, an honest scientist would. By the same token, there is evidence to support the claim that the decay rates have not changed.
Do you realize what it is they're trying to say? If radiometric dating aids us in our conclusion that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, but YECs claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old, then we have a bit of a discrepancy. We know the current half-life of these isotopes and I do not believe that this is what is being disputed. Instead, YECs claim that these rates have changedthat they were much faster in years past. That’s an understatement, to say the least. Think about it. For example, we have measured the half-life of 238U to be about 4.5 x 109 years. Let’s say that the true age of the Earth is 6000 years. That would mean that if the decay rate for this isotope has decreased from a level that would have given that value (6000 years) if it would have remained constant, then we’re looking at a 750,000 fold change! That is to say, the current decay rate is 0.000133% what it used to be. And this has all occurred over the past 6000 years. That’s a 125 fold decrease in the rate per year. Why are we not still seeing this decrease in decay rate? Wait, has this variance somehow suddenly stopped? For the past 6000 years the decay rate has slowed down 125X per year and now it has suddenly stabilized? How convenient for young earth creationists. Plus, that's just for one isotope. We have many others and ALL of them would have to have seen a decrease in decay rate that SHOULD (according to YECs) give a value of 6000 years but no longer does. And since these other isotopes all have differing half-lifes but still support a 4.5 billion year old Earth, these supposed changes in decay rates would have to be consistent in their inconsistency.
Keep in mind that I am by no means an expert in radiometric dating, and I’m not very good at math, so if I have screwed up these numbers (and I probably have) then please explain to me what is really going on. The point I’m trying to make is not the values I calculated, but rather the huge change in decays rates that would have had to have occurred in the last 6000 years in order to get the measured values we currently accept. My original premise was that a PhD organic chemist, a PhD biologist, and an MS biochemist have said that the decay rates of radioactive isotopes have changed over time, and that they HAD to know that there is absolutely no reason what-so-ever to speculate in any way that this is true, AND that all the scientific data suggests just the opposite thing...which is, of course, that decay rates are now, and always have been, constant. Therefore, they were (and are?) being dishonest.
Whew! Sorry for being so long winded (it's a bad habiut of mine), but I felt some level of explaining was necessary to clarify my position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 04-30-2004 10:23 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 04-30-2004 3:52 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 55 (104269)
04-30-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by FliesOnly
04-30-2004 1:34 PM


Who knows better the available facts and evidence (and/or where to find them) than a scientist (which these guys all claim to be)?
Obviously you do. And that is how it should be.
So there is no problem. Someone comes up with a statement that is obviously wrong then you challenge it and say, "Whoa Chrley, not so fast."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by FliesOnly, posted 04-30-2004 1:34 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 33 of 55 (104370)
04-30-2004 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
04-27-2004 8:31 PM


Dishonest behaviour?
We're discussing the use of information in a dishonest manner ie using incorrect information to support a position even though you know its false.
What I wondered about was dishonest behaviour. For example, a Creationist who deliberately sets out, not to debate or provide evidence for their assertions, but goes Hell for leather in breaking forum guidelines in order to get suspended. I suspect that somewhere out there ther are a bunch of these people using their suspensions as evidence of bias towards evolution on this forum and claiming that they were only suspended because they were "whupping" the evolutionists.
I realise that this is much more difficult to substantiate because you are having to guess what people's motivations are, but one example recently has been so blatant that I thought I'd just mention this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 04-27-2004 8:31 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 04-30-2004 7:03 PM Trixie has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 55 (104372)
04-30-2004 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Trixie
04-30-2004 6:54 PM


Re: Dishonest behaviour?
I wonder if you might have an example in mind?
But there is no cure for such behavior. Trolls troll. And I have seen time after time in forums and long before in good old usenet, the person who goes out his or her way to get slapped down and then uses that as justification for their behavior.
I would not call the initial behavior dishonest, simply childish. The secondary use, claiming that they had been persecuted though is most definitely dishonest.
From one Atheist to another though, I don't think there is much that can be done about trolls except shine the light of day on them.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Trixie, posted 04-30-2004 6:54 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 35 of 55 (104476)
05-01-2004 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Sylas
04-29-2004 8:05 PM


Re: Ted Holden and Neander DNA
Sylas about Redwolf's neanderthal quote:
"deliberately misleading. Dishonest, in other words."
Sylas about Redwolf's quotation of Sir Keith:
"really revolting dishonesty"
I expect some sort of retraction, after I've shown you to be in error on both occasions.
On talk origins the influential posters blatantly deny any meaningful link between Darwinism and Nazism, counter to most standard historians on the matter. That is where this accusation of "revolting dishonesty" comes from, from the people of talk.origins unwillingness to seriously consider Sir Keith's position that the Nazi's sought to conform their policy to evolutionary theory. So then when Ted Holden posts about it on talk.origins, he's falsely accused of misrepresenting Sir Keith, and Sir Keith's opinion is quickly dispatched together with Ted Holden's opinion! Neat trick.
The depths of depravity of talk.origins... For some reason those groupdynamics don't work so well on evcforum as they do on talk.origins.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Sylas, posted 04-29-2004 8:05 PM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 6:15 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 36 of 55 (104501)
05-01-2004 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Syamsu
05-01-2004 1:33 AM


Re: Ted Holden and Neander DNA
Syamsu writes:
Sylas about Redwolf's neanderthal quote:
"deliberately misleading. Dishonest, in other words."
Sylas about Redwolf's quotation of Sir Keith:
"really revolting dishonesty"
I expect some sort of retraction, after I've shown you to be in error on both occasions.
Without intending any offence to you personally; but you have shown no such thing. I stand by both those statements exactly as given, and neither one has been refuted at all.
All you have done is made some rather strange speculations, which simply don't fit the case. Both are matters are, in my opinion, completely cut and dried, and unambiguously explained already.
The first issue is fairly minor.
The background is that a newspaper reporter made an error in reporting some research. Ted repeated the error as it appeared in the newspaper article. It was an understandable mistake for someone not familiar with the work; but pretty naive to go from the newspaper report rather than the actual research.
Your response is basically a speculation that the scientists involved might have said the same thing as the newspaper. That speculation is completely without foundation, and suggests you don't actually know anything about the research in question. Read the papers, for heavens sake. To say that Neanderthal is halfway between human and chimpanzee is like saying Seattle is halfway between Los Angeles and New York. It is flat out wrong; and the scientists involved said no such thing.
Ted was informed of this, some time ago, in a fairly detailed discussion. He basically appears to consider that the error is unimportant. In the grand scheme of things, perhaps it is; but to continue to repeat the error anyway when it would be easy to correct the matter is the kind of bloody-minded refusal to deal with simple facts that is part of Ted's quirky charm.
I will be starting a new thread shortly that tries to explain the data better. I won't make any reference to Ted; my focus will simply be to explain what was discovered in the research. I invite you to forget about accusations and retractions and whatnot with respect to Neanderthals, and simply join in with a view to learning what the research was about. This is a friendly invitation.
The second issue is the misrepresentation the links between evolution and ethics, and in particular the deliberately distorted representation of Keith's position. Your whitewash of this matter simply makes no sense in the context of the thread. I believe my previous posts are quite adequate on this matter.
On talk origins the influential posters blatantly deny any meaningful link between Darwinism and Nazism, counter to most standard historians on the matter. That is where this accusation of "revolting dishonesty" comes from, from the people of talk.origins unwillingness to seriously consider Sir Keith's position that the Nazi's sought to conform their policy to evolutionary theory. So then when Ted Holden posts about it on talk.origins, he's falsely accused of misrepresenting Sir Keith, and Sir Keith's opinion is quickly dispatched together with Ted Holden's opinion! Neat trick.
You're being ridiculous again, Syamsu. The Nazi's invocation of evolution and science, and their invocation of religion, is not a basis for criticism of either. Evolution is a scientific model; not a system of ethics. Hitler tried to suggest that preservation of the purity of the Aryan race was some kind of moral imperative; but that moral position has no scientific basis. There is nothing in evolution that justifies such an imperative. Morals and science are different things entirely. Hitler's insane rhetoric sometimes used the terminology of science -- and more often used the terminology of religion. But in neither case can honourable critics reasonably blame Christians or science for Hitler's insane and depraved parody of ethics.
It is not just talkorigins that recognizes the vacuity of this idiotic attack The invocation of Hitler as an attempt to smear others by association has been so egregiously self-serving and misplaced that it is widely recognized all over the net as an indication that the attacker has run out of real arguments. That is certainly the case here. One of the major findings of evolutionary biology is the exceptionally close relationship of all humanity; and that ranking human races along a ladder of development has no biological basis. Even a plain definition of race is problematic.
There is plenty of scope for ethical criticism of individuals in the past, who (for example) sought to override the rights of others in eugenics programs. The point is that evolution does not give any ethical justification for such things. It is just a model for how living creatures diversify over time.
The only aspects of evolution used by Hitler are "micro-evolutionary". This is small scale evolution well below the level of species that is not in any dispute. The use of the Hitler bogey-man in this way is cynically hypocritical, and a grossly irresponsible and dishonourable treatment of one of the great evils of the modern era.
Best wishes -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Syamsu, posted 05-01-2004 1:33 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Syamsu, posted 05-01-2004 9:13 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 38 by nator, posted 05-01-2004 11:47 AM Sylas has not replied
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 05-01-2004 11:54 AM Sylas has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 37 of 55 (104509)
05-01-2004 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Sylas
05-01-2004 6:15 AM


Re: Ted Holden and Neander DNA
Well... I feel that your blatantly false accusations of dishonesty to Redwolf will not stand on evcforum, where they might do on talk.origins. Anyway, we shall see.
As before the quote about chimps is not wrong, you said yourself that it was about half the diffence. And understanding it as half the difference is the only way it can reasonably be understood, as I explained.
Notice that you have not actually addressed at all, that the only way it can reasonably be undestood is my interpretation of half the difference which before you said was basicly correct. You have avoided this argument of mine.
As before, you are wrong about Red Wolf quoting Sir Keith, because Redwolf said in the beginning that Keith was an anti-nazi. This makes it unreasonable that the quotes would be interpreted in the way you say they are, that Keith supports Nazism. You have also not addresed that.
Besides redwolf need not have said that Sir Keith was an anti-nazi, because that was not subject at issue. It would be perfectly valid to quote Sir Keith to the point that the Nazi's sought to conform their policy to evolutionist theory, without mentioning that Sir Keith was against such application. Actually if Sir Keith were in support of this application, his book might more easily be dismissed as that of a Nazi fanatic. So again the wrong interpretation which you allude to, would go to undermine redwolf's argumenation, just like with your accusation to redwolf about "half in between". You are completely in error for saying redwolf is dishonest about it, because his argument has nothing to gain from the false interpretation, in stead Keith would lose some credibililty of impartiality if he were thought to be a nazi-supporter.
You have absolutely no case whatsover, your avoidance of arguments presented shows that this is not just a mistake but dishonesty.
You are also wrong about Darwinism and Nazism, go read Fischers: Nazi Germany: a new history, or Burleigh's essay "The racial state revisited", or Gasman on Haeckel's influence in Germany, standard historians on the matter.
Your mistake is that you blandly assert science as neutral on valuejudgements, in stead of striving for this neutrality as an ideal in science. Basicly you are just proposing that we blindly take, Darwin, Galton, Haeckel, Dawkins writings as neutral in respect to valuejudgements, which they clearly aren't.
Besides the straightforward mixing of valuejudgements in the most influential Darwinist works, I also think that there is a more subtle fundamental error in Natural Selection that is mainly ideologically derived, and sustained. It doesn't really matter here what error I think is there, what matters is that you just assume that Natural Selection is without valuejudgement and therefore won't even investigate it. That shows your appeal to the naturalistic fallacy is faulty or meaningless.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 6:15 AM Sylas has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 38 of 55 (104531)
05-01-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Sylas
05-01-2004 6:15 AM


Re: Ted Holden and Neander DNA
Sylas, you know you cannot possibly win with Syamsu, don't you?
You may think you are getting somewhere in the discussion, because he will eventually agree with you about some point, but then a couple of posts later he is back to making exactly the same erroneous claims he made 50 or 100 posts and 4 weeks ago.
He has been beating the same drum that Darwinism is racist for YEARS AND YEARS.
Personally, I think he should be again restricted to the FFA. In fact, I don't remember seeing any announcement from Admin regarding why he is being allowed to post all over the board again.
There is absolutely no progress to be made in any discussion with Syamsu, whatsoever.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 6:15 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Syamsu, posted 05-01-2004 1:40 PM nator has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 39 of 55 (104533)
05-01-2004 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Sylas
05-01-2004 6:15 AM


Re: Ted Holden and Neander DNA
Sylas,
I am confused (however) as to why the author of the video series "A GLORIOUS ACCIDENT" both thought that Rupert Sheldrake was wrong to consider Gould as nilihist materialist AND ask Gould seeminly necessarily about eugenics? Sheldrake was at leat correct about how "dull" Gould's conclusions become while reading them. Gould of course made no 'bones' about not writing a 'grand philosophical treatise. Eugenics howeve as practiced at least here was some kind of grand philosophy obfuscated in utilitarian or practical terms. I think the economic analogies to be off (though). Obvuiously I would be in disagreement with this link
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 05-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 6:15 AM Sylas has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 12:15 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 40 of 55 (104543)
05-01-2004 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Brad McFall
05-01-2004 11:54 AM


Over and out
Sorry Brad, I can't help, as I have not seen the video. Gould was strongly opposed to eugenics. Schraf; I had come to the same conclusion, and had already decided to simply let my existing posts stand as an adequate statement of my position, which is neither comprehended nor refuted in the odd attempts to engage. Over and out. Sylas.
(Fixed title in edit)
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 05-01-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 05-01-2004 11:54 AM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Syamsu, posted 05-01-2004 1:47 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 41 of 55 (104555)
05-01-2004 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by nator
05-01-2004 11:47 AM


Re: Ted Holden and Neander DNA
I was never told I was restricted to FFA, I was only told my ideas about the error in natural selection were restricted to FFA, because the discussions were repetitve. After that some people said I was restricted to FFA and some administrator then wrongly said I was, but originally it was just the topic.
Anyway the admins have been working for me last time, to keep useless comments such as yours out of threads I engage in.
Of course it's your conception of the relationship of Darwinism to Nazism that is completely stuck in an analogous theory about baseballbats, and you deny any meaningful discussion outside of your theory. Obviously this is not what standard historians say on the relationship, you have no credibility.
Anyway it takes more then just the one poster to throw the topic of course, which is about dishonesty, and specifically Sylas blatantly false accusations of dishonesty. On talk.origins the thread would be absolutely filled already with goofballs comments like you make, and lurkers coming up to profess their total ignorance on the matter. Let's see what happens here.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by nator, posted 05-01-2004 11:47 AM nator has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 42 of 55 (104557)
05-01-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Sylas
05-01-2004 12:15 PM


out you are
Well Sylas what you let stand is that calling someone an anti-nazi, still makes it credible that he is implying that the person supports nazism. It's absurd.
Note once more that you have failed to addres my arguments, you are not just mistaken but dishonest. All I can say to your merit is that you give an excellent example of dishonesty in a thread about dishonesty.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Sylas, posted 05-01-2004 12:15 PM Sylas has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 55 (104586)
05-01-2004 4:15 PM


I think that there is yet another form of dishonesty, one that is certainly evident here, and that is the poster that simply keeps repeating things even after they have been shown, time after time, to be incorrect.
I am not talking about issues of believe, there people can honestly disagree. Those that believe in GOD, those that do not, those that believe in many GODs or even those that simply question can certainly honestly hold and defend their positions and in the issue of GOD, each is certainly right.
What I'm talking about are those that pick some platform, and make some statement that CAN be either proven or disproven. But when faced with clear evidence that they statement is false, usually politely (although not always) say "Thank you, and as I was saying...", and just repeat the same rubbish all over again.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2004 5:09 PM jar has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 44 of 55 (104593)
05-01-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
05-01-2004 4:15 PM


Topic
We are starting into a slow drift off the originally intended topic.
How about we leave those who post here out of this and refer to web published information that we can show are examples of dishonesty?
I think it was Zac, who wanted to "play" and I made this topic for that. Unfortunately, it seems to be taking him a rather long time to find examples of what he claimed existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 05-01-2004 4:15 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Trixie, posted 05-01-2004 6:13 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 45 of 55 (104602)
05-01-2004 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by NosyNed
05-01-2004 5:09 PM


Re: Topic
Sorry Ned. I'd forgotten the original reason for this thread being started and got myself wound up to a frenzy last night. Back to dishonest facts! PS you're still my Knight in Shining Armour

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2004 5:09 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024